283 réponses à ce sujet

[rapscallioness]

The Xand wrote...

Kind of hard to imagine Jesus as a homophobe. Certainly adds a bit of flavour to the phrase "turn the other cheek".

omg..lmao. Geez.

[rapscallioness]

Br3ad wrote...

Wut?

Wat?

[Vulpe]

The Xand wrote...

Kind of hard to imagine Jesus as a homophobe. Certainly adds a bit of flavour to the phrase "turn the other cheek".

This is all Jesus said regarding homosexuality as a sin an in general :           






Thorough, clear and in depth , I might say.

Now let's turn back on topic.

[Br3admax]

rapscallioness wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Wut?

Wat?

Not you, Xand. 

[Joshuajet]

eluvianix wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

On another note, God commands the death of Homosexuals while the Maker does not. There's also that instance where God made two she-bears kill forty-two children because they called a man baldhead.

I haven't read the entire Bible, myself, but as far as what's been relayed to me, from biased sources, obviously, the Biblical God never explicitly called for anything of the sort. Rather, he labeled them as "filthy," and in the same passage said the same of many kinds of foods, including swine and pretty much anything edible from the sea. It was a very long list.

 Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
It is definitely in there. However, he does not specifically call for there deaths.

In the New American Standard Bible at Leviticus 20:13 it says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
This was pasted from the New American Standard Bible on Bible Gateway.

Modifié par Joshuajet, 16 novembre 2013 - 10:14 .

[Silfren]

Joshuajet wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

On another note, God commands the death of Homosexuals while the Maker does not. There's also that instance where God made two she-bears kill forty-two children because they called a man baldhead.

I haven't read the entire Bible, myself, but as far as what's been relayed to me, from biased sources, obviously, the Biblical God never explicitly called for anything of the sort. Rather, he labeled them as "filthy," and in the same passage said the same of many kinds of foods, including swine and pretty much anything edible from the sea. It was a very long list.

 Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
It is definitely in there. However, he does not specifically call for there deaths.

In the New American Standard Bible at Leviticus 20:13 it says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
This was pasted from the New American Standard Bible on Bible Gateway.

It says the same for the NIV, King James, and other versions.  Where in the world are people getting the idea that execution was not explicitly called for?  That's a first.  It's usually the go-to verse by people for and against homoseuxality, specifically because it does call for the execution of homosexuals, in quite plain, uncontestable language.

[Hellion Rex]

Silfren wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

On another note, God commands the death of Homosexuals while the Maker does not. There's also that instance where God made two she-bears kill forty-two children because they called a man baldhead.

I haven't read the entire Bible, myself, but as far as what's been relayed to me, from biased sources, obviously, the Biblical God never explicitly called for anything of the sort. Rather, he labeled them as "filthy," and in the same passage said the same of many kinds of foods, including swine and pretty much anything edible from the sea. It was a very long list.

 Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
It is definitely in there. However, he does not specifically call for there deaths.

In the New American Standard Bible at Leviticus 20:13 it says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
This was pasted from the New American Standard Bible on Bible Gateway.

It says the same for the NIV, King James, and other versions.  Where in the world are people getting the idea that execution was not explicitly called for?  That's a first.  It's usually the go-to verse by people for and against homoseuxality, specifically because it does call for the execution of homosexuals, in quite plain, uncontestable language.

I usually skip Leviticus because I don't like people telling:lol: me I should be executed.

[NessCraig]

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

[Silfren]

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

Pointing out that the Bible does indeed call for the execution of gay men, despite people's claims it does no such thing =/= debating homosexuality, so no.

[Joshuajet]

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

[Silfren]

eluvianix wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

On another note, God commands the death of Homosexuals while the Maker does not. There's also that instance where God made two she-bears kill forty-two children because they called a man baldhead.

I haven't read the entire Bible, myself, but as far as what's been relayed to me, from biased sources, obviously, the Biblical God never explicitly called for anything of the sort. Rather, he labeled them as "filthy," and in the same passage said the same of many kinds of foods, including swine and pretty much anything edible from the sea. It was a very long list.

 Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
It is definitely in there. However, he does not specifically call for there deaths.

In the New American Standard Bible at Leviticus 20:13 it says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
This was pasted from the New American Standard Bible on Bible Gateway.

It says the same for the NIV, King James, and other versions.  Where in the world are people getting the idea that execution was not explicitly called for?  That's a first.  It's usually the go-to verse by people for and against homoseuxality, specifically because it does call for the execution of homosexuals, in quite plain, uncontestable language.

I usually skip Leviticus because I don't like people telling:lol: me I should be executed.

I usually skip the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, because I know too much about its history as a collection of unrelated, contradictory, no-longer-relevant scriptures, to be able to take it seriously. 

[Nerevar-as]

Joshuajet wrote...

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

An all-powerful being chose to make the world as it is (natural catastrophes, living beings eating others to live,...). I wouldn´t call it benevolent with such references.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 17 novembre 2013 - 01:29 .

[Joshuajet]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

An all-powerful being chose to make the world as it is (natural catastrophes, living beings eating others to live,...). I wouldn´t call it benevolent with such references.

I wasn't saying God is benevolent. What I meant was both God and the Maker are not  benevolent and that the Maker isn't any worse than God.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

This has got to qualify as a completely off the rails OT thread by now, hasn't it? People are now debating about God, real life relgions and the Bible, of all things. I would have expected it to be steered on topic or locked by now.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 17 novembre 2013 - 01:43 .

[Hellion Rex]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

This has got to qualify as a completely off the rails OT thread by now, hasn't it? People are now debating about God, real life relgions and the Bible, of all things. I would have expected to be steered on topic or locked by now.

Completely related to the OT though. "The Maker isn't God." Perfectly reasonable to bring those topics up in response.

[Inprea]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

An all-powerful being chose to make the world as it is (natural catastrophes, living beings eating others to live,...). I wouldn´t call it benevolent with such references.

If we're talking about the bible then the original world was a paradise. It was humans that brought such unpleasent things upon themselves. I see it as one of the dangers of free will. Even though I support free will. You can be given a paradise but you can choose to spoil it by doing what you shouldn't.

[Silfren]

Inprea wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

An all-powerful being chose to make the world as it is (natural catastrophes, living beings eating others to live,...). I wouldn´t call it benevolent with such references.

If we're talking about the bible then the original world was a paradise. It was humans that brought such unpleasent things upon themselves. I see it as one of the dangers of free will. Even though I support free will. You can be given a paradise but you can choose to spoil it by doing what you shouldn't.

This is why I pefer gnostic interpretations of the Eden story that portray God as a false-god trying to pass himself off as the real thing, and Satan as the hero who freed humanity from his would-be tyranny by convincing them to eat the fruit of knowledge, thereby GIVING them free will.  Or stories which acknowledge the inherent villainy of an omniscient god stacking the deck by setting humans up to fail and then punishing them for it.  But far and away the gnostic interpretations just make more sense.

Modifié par Silfren, 17 novembre 2013 - 02:38 .

[The Xand]

Br3ad wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Wut?

Wat?

Not you, Xand. 

That seems to be a common response to my ramblings.

[Joshuajet]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

This has got to qualify as a completely off the rails OT thread by now, hasn't it? People are now debating about God, real life relgions and the Bible, of all things. I would have expected it to be steered on topic or locked by now.

Its entirely on topic as the OP is comparing/contrasting the Maker and the Abrahamic God and we are expanding on that.

[The Xand]

Joshuajet wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

This has got to qualify as a completely off the rails OT thread by now, hasn't it? People are now debating about God, real life relgions and the Bible, of all things. I would have expected it to be steered on topic or locked by now.

Its entirely on topic as the OP is comparing/contrasting the Maker and the Abrahamic God and we are expanding on that.

I'm content to let thngs roll on as they are so long as they are so long as it involves direct comparisons between the two rather than degenerating into plain old Christian bashing.

[Vulpe]

As I said, The Old Testament is not taken to seriously by the church ( at least The Ortodox Church ). There are some aspects that are ignored because they contradict with the teachings from The New Testament. Even The 10 Commandments are seen more as a moral code that should be followed by any individual,but they are not enforced because it would contradict with the concept of free will. Things like the ones you mentioned and others ( for example, if a woman is not married and not a virgin she should pe lapidated ) are not thought and preached because The Old Testament is seen as a way of informing the reader of how things were before the coming of Christ and the events from The New Testament.

When it comes to comparing the two entities, The Maker seems to be more of an absent, desinteresed diety. He's inactive and uncaring, but he still wants to be loved and respected by all his creation and if not they must be punished - something like "The Preacher" did.

[Nerevar-as]

Inprea wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Joshuajet wrote...

NessCraig wrote...

Leviticus is a pretty difficult book to use as an example considering the rest of it Christians ignore.

That being said

WHAT THE??? We are debating homosexuality here? ...

No, its about whether or not the Abramic God is more benevolent than the Maker. God condemning homosexuality was being used as one of the examples for why God isn't really more benevolent. I don't think anyone here is actually against homosexuality.

An all-powerful being chose to make the world as it is (natural catastrophes, living beings eating others to live,...). I wouldn´t call it benevolent with such references.

If we're talking about the bible then the original world was a paradise. It was humans that brought such unpleasent things upon themselves. I see it as one of the dangers of free will. Even though I support free will. You can be given a paradise but you can choose to spoil it by doing what you shouldn't.

With good being also all-knowing, he had to have foreseen everything that would have happened, so it still doesn´t leave It in a good place. Anyway, if I believed what the Old Testament says I would be atheist out of ethics, which kind of applied to my Warden, main reason I did the DR was to give the middle finger to the mechanic of consuming someone´s soul to end the Blight.

[Siegdrifa]

Nerevar-as wrote...
*zip*
With good being also all-knowing, he had to have foreseen everything that would have happened, so it still doesn´t leave It in a good place. Anyway, if I believed what the Old Testament says I would be atheist out of ethics, which kind of applied to my Warden, main reason I did the DR was to give the middle finger to the mechanic of consuming someone´s soul to end the Blight.

Ah, this is a very intresting in game situation.
Until when the character with his free will and human compassion can go against a law / order of God / Maker.

" ... and the Maker said ' kill all the elfs ' "
*look at Merrill *
" Not a chance ! "
*look at Fenris*... *smile*
"Sorry Buddy" : ))

[Pyce]

The Maker in DA is disinterested in his creation and God in the Bible sends his only begotten Son to die for the world. Saying that the Maker in DA is more benevolent, seems outstandingly shortsighted to me.
Also the first number of the beast was 616, spelling Nero. It was changed to 666 which is Neron the Aramaic alphanumeric of his name.

[Siegdrifa]

Pyce wrote...

The Maker in DA is disinterested in his creation and God in the Bible sends his only begotten Son to die for the world. Saying that the Maker in DA is more benevolent, seems outstandingly shortsighted to me.

As i said before, the difference between a fictionnal religion and a real religion is that fictionnal religion can change / add direction more easly to serve the plot than Bible, Coran or Torah, unless someone find some older different version (like the Aramean genese version that would prove the biblic genese to be a copy)

Also the first number of the beast was 616, spelling Nero. It was changed to 666 which is Neron the Aramaic alphanumeric of his name.

As i said also before, The Apocalypse was written 30 years after the death of Néron, which means it is very doubtfull to write a text about the end of time in the future for a guy that died 30 or 35 year ago.
Also, the 616 is certainely a copy mistake (as there is here and there with old hand written books) as you also find versions with 665.
Also, some people judge it to fit really well with the 777 and 111 (111 is the number of popes from Malachie prophecy), and 777 - 111 = 666  making 616 and 665 to look totaly out of place.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 18 novembre 2013 - 01:17 .