Biblical matters

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

Lurgan Lad
Steward
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Lurgan Lad » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:58 pm

Thanks Shan, Cap'n and UAB, as Shan said everyday is a school day and always great to broaden your knowledge.

User avatar
Shan
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11329
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Limerick

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Shan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:14 pm

I see that Bundee Aki has apologised for liking Falou's ramblings by accident. Says he didn't realise the full content of what he was liking. A bit strange as the ramblings themselves were clear as day. Maybe the IRFU had a word, or even BOI may have. If he was an Ulster player he'd almost certainly have been sacked for such a careless error. :D
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 6481
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Biblical matters

Post by rumncoke » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:41 pm

I didn’t answer the question because marriage is a relationship between two people of different sexes .

Thus a man cannot marry a man - simple answer for a simple moron.

A man can have a relationship with another man and men do but because they are the same sex it cannot be called a marriage .

And why anyone wants the legal status of marriage defeats me to some extent because when it comes to trying to disentangle the many strands within that legal relationship it a bar steward of a mess .

It defines a woman’s status in society and is meant for her protection and the protection of her children .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:55 pm

Shan wrote:To me the explanation from both Grumps and UAB around the tattoos is acceptable and I appreciate the answers. Every day is a good day to learn something.

I note that the more important issue of lying was not tackled. However I don't really expect anybody to be able to explain away the hypocrisy of somebody else.
The bible is a slippery old thing. It seems God isn't very good at explaining himself. There are different explanations for many things that people do not wish to accept. There are alternative explanations for gayness not being a sin but sadly none of our resident believers seem interested.

Some, like our friend Izzy, go out of their way to find a version of the 'word of God', that fits their agenda. His preferred version of God's word has always been the new king james. I checked to see if the word 'homosexuality' was even in there. It wasn't.

He is more than just stupid. He seems to be a vindictive bigotted individual. Image
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 6481
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Biblical matters

Post by rumncoke » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Dave

There are those who read the story of the garden of Eden at face value .

But the story was never meant to be taken at face value but as an explanation of man’s discomfort with his own human nature and desire and need for spiritual happiness which is denied to us because we ( most anyway ) can identify good from evil- right from wrong .

The thing is despite what most would suppose regarding sexual relationships we individually define the difference of right and wrong for ourselves — feelings of shame are not imposed by others .






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist

UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:43 pm

Dave wrote:
Shan wrote:To me the explanation from both Grumps and UAB around the tattoos is acceptable and I appreciate the answers. Every day is a good day to learn something.

I note that the more important issue of lying was not tackled. However I don't really expect anybody to be able to explain away the hypocrisy of somebody else.
The bible is a slippery old thing. It seems God isn't very good at explaining himself. There are different explanations for many things that people do not wish to accept. There are alternative explanations for gayness not being a sin but sadly none of our resident believers seem interested.

Some, like our friend Izzy, go out of their way to find a version of the 'word of God', that fits their agenda. His preferred version of God's word has always been the new king james. I checked to see if the word 'homosexuality' was even in there. It wasn't.

He is more than just stupid. He seems to be a vindictive bigotted individual. Image
The NKJV does mention homosexuality. That image is from the KJV

However, i'm not entirely sure of your point. Just because a word isn't explicitly used doesnt mean the interpretation isnt there. At the end of the day, every word has an origin, which theoretically is detached from the concept the word may describe

There are alternative explanations for gayness not being a sin but sadly none of our resident believers seem interested.

What do you mean by this? If you are saying, it is the practice of homosexuality (as the ESV puts it) that is the sin then yes I agree, and not merely the "being gay". However if you are saying people can do as they please outside of the bounds of God's laws for sexuality, then no, disagree

In terms of the bible translations, if we wanted the most accurate we would all go back and find the original greek/hebrew/aramaic manuscripts, learn those languages and apply that version. However, regardless of what translation you use, it is going to be flawed. There is, technically, room for human error and "interpretation", without compromising the original manuscripts. However, the central teaching across all translations are mostly the same, how they are recorded is the main difference
Last edited by UlsterAreBrill on Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
big mervyn
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Overlooking the pitch (til they built the old new stand)

Re: Biblical matters

Post by big mervyn » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:44 pm

rumncoke wrote:Dave

There are those who read the story of the garden of Eden at face value .

But the story was never meant to be taken at face value but as an explanation of man’s discomfort with his own human nature and desire and need for spiritual happiness which is denied to us because we ( most anyway ) can identify good from evil- right from wrong .

The thing is despite what most would suppose regarding sexual relationships we individually define the difference of right and wrong for ourselves — feelings of shame are not imposed by others .






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
… and you know this, how?
Volunteer at an animal sanctuary; it will fill you with joy , despair, but most of all love, unconditional love of the animals.
Big Neville Southall

UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:49 pm

rumncoke wrote:Dave

There are those who read the story of the garden of Eden at face value .

But the story was never meant to be taken at face value but as an explanation of man’s discomfort with his own human nature and desire and need for spiritual happiness which is denied to us because we ( most anyway ) can identify good from evil- right from wrong .

The thing is despite what most would suppose regarding sexual relationships we individually define the difference of right and wrong for ourselves — feelings of shame are not imposed by others .






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except the flawed logic in this is, do you then take the books from the same author at face value? Or even the different stories, if you want to call them that, from within the same book? I don't believe so whatsoever

User avatar
big mervyn
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Overlooking the pitch (til they built the old new stand)

Re: Biblical matters

Post by big mervyn » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:05 pm

Roughly, how old do you think the earth is Brillo?
Volunteer at an animal sanctuary; it will fill you with joy , despair, but most of all love, unconditional love of the animals.
Big Neville Southall

User avatar
Shan
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11329
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Limerick

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Shan » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:07 pm

rumncoke wrote:I didn’t answer the question because marriage is a relationship between two people of different sexes .

Thus a man cannot marry a man - simple answer for a simple moron.
Glad you said it but I agree you are a simple moron.
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:47 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:
Dave wrote:
Shan wrote:To me the explanation from both Grumps and UAB around the tattoos is acceptable and I appreciate the answers. Every day is a good day to learn something.

I note that the more important issue of lying was not tackled. However I don't really expect anybody to be able to explain away the hypocrisy of somebody else.
The bible is a slippery old thing. It seems God isn't very good at explaining himself. There are different explanations for many things that people do not wish to accept. There are alternative explanations for gayness not being a sin but sadly none of our resident believers seem interested.

Some, like our friend Izzy, go out of their way to find a version of the 'word of God', that fits their agenda. His preferred version of God's word has always been the new king james. I checked to see if the word 'homosexuality' was even in there. It wasn't.

He is more than just stupid. He seems to be a vindictive bigotted individual. Image
The NKJV does mention homosexuality. That image is from the KJV

However, i'm not entirely sure of your point. Just because a word isn't explicitly used doesnt mean the interpretation isnt there. At the end of the day, every word has an origin, which theoretically is detached from the concept the word may describe

There are alternative explanations for gayness not being a sin but sadly none of our resident believers seem interested.

What do you mean by this? If you are saying, it is the practice of homosexuality (as the ESV puts it) that is the sin then yes I agree, and not merely the "being gay". However if you are saying people can do as they please outside of the bounds of God's laws for sexuality, then no, disagree

In terms of the bible translations, if we wanted the most accurate we would all go back and find the original greek/hebrew/aramaic manuscripts, learn those languages and apply that version. However, regardless of what translation you use, it is going to be flawed. There is, technically, room for human error and "interpretation", without compromising the original manuscripts. However, the central teaching across all translations are mostly the same, how they are recorded is the main difference
Sorry I meant to say king kames version not new king james. The king james version is Folau's usual preference. The word homosexual is not contained within.

The word homosexual refers to an individual's sexual orientation and not to specific sexual acts. The orientation is the sex to which that person is inately attracted. So when this word was added to the differing versions of the bible in the last century, the message was that those who are same sex attracted are fundamentally sinful by their very being. If they are celibate, that is inconsequential, if they are attracted to the same sex which is hard wired, then I suppose the gates of hell await. According to the bible anyway. The sex or sexes that you are attracted to is not a choice. You cannot switch this off.

The concept of an individual being orientated towards same sex attraction is a relatively new phenomenon. Previously it was viewed erroneously as a 'perversion', as in the person was choosing to defy the natural attraction to the opposite sex in preference for something deemed 'unnatural'. There is no evidence that I have seen that would indicate a date anywhere remotely near biblical times, would have this concept of a sexual orientation. The concept of a sexual orientation is even hardly accepted in certain places now. The word homosexual has no place in the bible as far as I can see.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

User avatar
Jackie Brown
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11065
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Carrickfergus

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Jackie Brown » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:04 pm

I love how the bible can be all about picking a choosing, like a morality buffet. Some things are literal some need to be interpreted.

Pity the word of God didn't bother to include anything about the Small Pox Vaccine or Germ Theory. I do enjoy the angry bears though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Gonna Party Like It's 1999

UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:07 pm

I'm shattered today so i'm not entirely sure what your point is. I may be completely misreading or misinterpreting it, in which case i'll come back to it late. Are you saying there is no mention of sexual orientation, but accepting there is mention of sexual, specifically homosexual, acts?

If it is the former, I would need to think about that one however there are definitely references to homosexual acts. It is whether you associate orientation for practice
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”[f]

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
However, I may be completely reading this wrong as I said

UlsterAreBrill
Initiate
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by UlsterAreBrill » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:11 pm

Jackie Brown wrote:I love how the bible can be all about picking a choosing, like a morality buffet. Some things are literal some need to be interpreted.

Pity the word of God didn't bother to include anything about the Small Pox Vaccine or Germ Theory. I do enjoy the angry bears though.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Here comes the intellectual giant of the forum

It's quite simple really

The bible is a collection of books, spanning different genres. Would you expect to go in to a library and read every single book using the same parameters? Would you read science fiction books through the same lens as a biography on a musician? Interpret a poetry book through the same lens as a historical textbook?

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Biblical matters

Post by Dave » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:23 pm

UlsterAreBrill wrote:I'm shattered today so i'm not entirely sure what your point is. I may be completely misreading or misinterpreting it, in which case i'll come back to it late. Are you saying there is no mention of sexual orientation, but accepting there is mention of sexual, specifically homosexual, acts?

If it is the former, I would need to think about that one however there are definitely references to homosexual acts. It is whether you associate orientation for practice
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”[f]

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
However, I may be completely reading this wrong as I said
I can see that homosexuals acts are seen as sinful. Basically what I am saying is they would not have had a concept of a sexual orientation in this time period, from what I understand. You can see below the condemnation for someone who is a homosexual.
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


This is the same message that Folau communicated. Therefore it does not matter if someone is celibate. The same sex attraction they are born with will condemn them to hell.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

Post Reply