Common sense/logic vs. the bible

[connermt]

Some people think you can't argue against christianity without referncing the bible. This is a flaw in logic as the bible won't try to prove itself false.
That said, of course the bible is basically "all" christians have to work off of. The facts that the stories were written by men, edited by other men and some works weren't even included in the "finished product", all while claiming to be the 'word of god' is disheartening. Add to the mix that fact that the bible - which is the way to heaven for the whole of the human race - has very little to say about other people in the planet at the time.
Putting all that huba-baloo aside, let's look at it from a strictly common sense/logical POV.

A being that is perfect (in no particular order):
- creates everything, but seems to only be concerned about a very small amount of matter (humans). When compared to the solar systems it should have created, caring about such a small % seems odd.
- creates people to worship it (or, depending on where you got your christian teachign from, wants to share its love). Teachings indicate they angels "good enough" to share its love/worship freely. Then it's illogical to create them in the first place.
- creates people knowing what the outcome would be (sinning) but created them anyway.
- allows a temptation to come into the garden and tempt them, knowing what would happen
- seemingly gets "upset" when it "finds out" what happens and curses them (as if it didn't know what happened)
- destroys a city, save for one family, because it's "unpure". Surely that wasn't the only city that was unpure at the time, no? Then when lot's wife lokos back, she turns into a pillar of salt. That seems rather...unimpressive for sucha being. Surely something more akin to a phaser blast would have been more impressive....?
- destroys the world (with water) save for one family. Again, water seem very unimpressive for such a 'everything' creator. Obviously, since the human race was so 'bad', this supreme (and loving) deity caused almost all of humanity and almost all of the animal species to drown. Ok so he's ticked off at people, but why not spare the animals? What did they do to him? Makes no sense
- comes to earth as a man. It makes no sense why a supreme being that knows everything needs to come down as 'a man' while, at the same time, being different than the man/son.
- employees several different people to write his story of his life (while he's a man) years (in some cases decades) after the fact. One would think, common sense would have god write it himself, or at least have someone else write it while it was happening. It's illogical to wait so long.
- employees terrible writers as their accounts of the same story differ slightly to enormously - some containing parts of the story that others don't. Surely, a logical all knowing god would know that, if this book is to be the guide to mankind's future, it need to be more accurate and not confusing. Yet this isn't the case.

We'll end the examples there. If one wishes, they could go into much more detail with later books.

So where's the human logic in these examples? Surely such a supreme being would have been able to foresee these "issues" and address them in a way outside the biblical text (that not everyone has accessto, or even finds believable).

So where's the logic? Why does one seem to need the bible to prove what the bible says is correct? Surely god must have given us logic, yet when we use it in an unbiased way for such an important goal in mind, it doesn't come full circle.
Logical? Sensible? Where is it?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Force? Who said anything about force? Going straight to the negative is very telling.

Ok then, I ask only, would you want that God gives you understanding?

What I would love is tangible evidence for any God, and with the proper evidence, I can figure it out myself.

The lack of tangible evidence , and the conflicting stories in the bible make it very difficult to distinguish anything from 'I am just making it up'.

Yes, I taught that you would like to have tangible evidence. I only wonder, would it make any difference. I think if knowledge wouldn't make you righteous, it would be meaningless. And if you don't become righteous with information that is in Bible, then I think tangible evidence wouldn't really make any meaningful difference.

It is sad thing, if you have understood Bible so that you think there are conflict stories.

It is a sad thing, because if you understood the bible, you would realize there was contradictions in not only stories, but in values, depending on the writer.

For example, the values that it attempted to be taught in parable in Luke 19:1-27 vastly different than the values that was attempted to be taught in Matthew 25:19-43.. in fact, mutually exclusive.

I am a bit confused by your references. Luke 19:1-27 covers two unrelated things: Zacchaeus the Tax Collector and the Parable of the Ten Minas. Matthew 25:19-43 covers a portion of the Parable of the Ten Virgins and the Parable of the Bags of Gold and a portion of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.

I am guessing that you meant these:

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’�

Matthew 25:14-30

The Parable of the Bags of Gold

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Can you explain what differences you perceive in the values expressed in these two parables? They seem the same to me.

One. the values is 'DO good for giving money to God, and increase the churches holdings'.. the focus is on creating wealth for the church/god, and with the 'bring those who don't want to have me rule over them and slay them'.,, i.e. .. kill the unbelievers.


Matthew, on the other hand, says 'What ever you do to the least of my brothers, yo do to me'.. and pushes, instead of giving money to God, and the church, giving time and love to the less fortunate.

Obviously we are not talking about the same passages. The passages I quoted above, which are essentially identical in meaning, are about dealing with the delayed return of Jesus, now becoming a crucial matter over 40 years after his death, especially in light of the ‘not taste death’ promise.

We see this clearly in Matthew 25. The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins tells us that ‘the bridegroom is late’ but do not give up hope. Be prepared for a long wait. The Parable of the Bags of Gold tells us that when the master does return, we had better have done something with our time. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats tells us what to do: Be charitable, not in expectation of a reward that may be a long way off, but because it is the right thing to do. Fail to do that and you are in deep yogurt.

Luke 19 rolls up the ‘be prepared for a long wait’ and ‘do something good or else’ messages into the single Parable of the Ten Minas. He does not have a parallel to the Sheep and the Goats at this point, possibly because he has already dealt with the “love your neighbor’ issues in the Parable of the Good Samaritan’ back in Luke 10.

I am still unclear on what passages you wanted to compare. If it was Luke’s ‘Ten Minas’ and Matthew’s ‘Sheep and Goats’ as it seems to be, the comparison is not appropriate. Luke’s ‘Ten Minas’ is paralleled in Matthew’s ‘Bags of Gold’ and the two say the same thing. Neither one says a word about giving money to the church, which barely existed as a coherent entity at the time. They are talking about using what was given and improving on it. There is no giving to the church in either one, unless you are imagining the church giving money to people and waiting a long time for a return on its investment. And that image would require the church to have gone away for a long time. Does not seem to work at all.

[1213]

It works both ways.
I once watched a preacher - leader of his church - say that even if science proved 100% that being gay isn't a choice (and therefore not a sin), he would still consider it a sin.

Even if that is true, how �being gay isn't a choice� is comparable to “being gay is sin�?

Even if science could prove that being gay is not choice, it wouldn’t change that it is not good according to the Bible. Therefore that preacher is at least more logical than you.

But I think it is choice. All can choose that what they want. If person don’t want intercourse with same-sex he won’t do them. No one or nothing forces people to want to do so. Only reason why people are gay is that they for some reason want it. If they want, they can abandon it. But most of them think that in being gay there is something that they don’t want to give up and that’s why they continue being gay.

But I can understand them, it can be really hard to give up something that you like. But I am sure that anybody can abandon it if really want. And that can happen when person understands why it is not reasonable to be gay (= want intercourse with same-sex).

In regards to the stories conflicting, the four gospels directly show conflicts in some aspects of the same story.

It depends on how you interpret. I don’t see why interpretations that make Bible look conflict would be correct.

[1213]

It is a sad thing, because if you understood the bible, you would realize there was contradictions in not only stories, but in values, depending on the writer.

For example, the values that it attempted to be taught in parable in Luke 19:1-27 vastly different than the values that was attempted to be taught in Matthew 25:19-43.. in fact, mutually exclusive.

Could you explain more, how is they different?

Anyway, in my opinion Luke 19:1-27 tells about gifts that God has given, how they should be used, not about earthly property. The meaning is, if God has given me knowledge about him but I don’t care it and forget the information and let it disappear without giving it forward so that as many as possible could know it, I will eventually loose even that small amount of information. But if I let many people know it I can also get more information and I can make lot good “fruit�.

According to Bible, we “sow� word and it can produce “grain� that will be harvested some day. If I waste the “seed�, then it is not good think. But if I even spare it that’s ok, and if I make someone else produce “grain� with what I got, then it is better.

[kayky]

Even if that is true, how �being gay isn't a choice� is comparable to “being gay is sin�?

Even if science could prove that being gay is not choice, it wouldn’t change that it is not good according to the Bible. Therefore that preacher is at least more logical than you.

But I think it is choice. All can choose that what they want. If person don’t want intercourse with same-sex he won’t do them. No one or nothing forces people to want to do so. Only reason why people are gay is that they for some reason want it. If they want, they can abandon it. But most of them think that in being gay there is something that they don’t want to give up and that’s why they continue being gay.

You seem to have very little knowledge about homosexuality. Both the AMA and the APA agree that it is an inborn trait. These organizations are in a position to know much more about this than any preacher.

If God is against being gay, why then are gay children born? Most of them know of their orientation before they enter kindergarten.

This preacher is saying it is wrong to be born with a certain gene. Now if that gene makes one a sociopath, I could understand. But we're simply talking about who you will fall in love with and want to have sex with. To please God, these folks must deny their true nature and live without love or sexual satisfaction? Does that make sense to you?

Funny how Jesus never raised the issue at all.

But I can understand them, it can be really hard to give up something that you like. But I am sure that anybody can abandon it if really want. And that can happen when person understands why it is not reasonable to be gay (= want intercourse with same-sex).

I suppose one could give up chocolate too. But why? You do realize, I hope, that you can't change a homosexual into a heterosexual?

It depends on how you interpret. I don’t see why interpretations that make Bible look conflict would be correct.

The Bible is chuck full of contradictions.

[1213]

Obviously we are not talking about the same passages. The passages I quoted above, which are essentially identical in meaning, are about dealing with the delayed return of Jesus, now becoming a crucial matter over 40 years after his death, especially in light of the ‘not taste death’ promise.

It seems to me that you have also problems with ‘not taste death’ part. Therefore I want to bring this up also.

Most assuredly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Mat. 16:28

It took only six days and those words come true, when some of disciples saw this:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Mat. 17:1-3

[1213]

You seem to have very little knowledge about homosexuality. Both the AMA and the APA agree that it is an inborn trait. These organizations are in a position to know much more about this than any preacher.

I don't see any reason to believe that they know more.

If God is against being gay, why then are gay children born? Most of them know of their orientation before they enter kindergarten.

What makes person gay, in your approved opinion?

This preacher is saying it is wrong to be born with a certain gene. Now if that gene makes one a sociopath, I could understand. But we're simply talking about who you will fall in love with and want to have sex with. To please God, these folks must deny their true nature and live without love or sexual satisfaction? Does that make sense to you?

I think preacher is not saying that it is wrong to be born with certain gene.

"Fall in love" is in my opinion perverted way to use word love. I can love everybody and still I don't want sex with everybody.

I suppose one could give up chocolate too. But why? You do realize, I hope, that you can't change a homosexual into a heterosexual?

I think I can't make people want something that they don't want. And I can't make them not want something that they want.

But if person can give up chocolate, he can give up also gay things. One reason to give up being gay could be that it is not reasonable to have intercourse with same sex.

Do you think that it is also in genes that person wants chocolate? Do person eat it because he likes the taste or does he eat it because he is forced to do so by genes?

When gay understands why he wants intercourse with same sex, he can also give up it, if thinks that it is not reasonable.

[kayky]

I don't see any reason to believe that they know more.

Medical doctors and psychiatrists? I can assure you that what is taught in medical school is very different from what is taught in seminary. So, yes, of course they know more about human sexuality than preachers. To deny this is to deny reality.

What makes person gay, in your approved opinion?

When I was in high school, my best friend was a gay guy who was also a Christian. I watched him fight it, deny it, refuse it. He was relentlessly bullied and even contemplated suicide. He would have done anything to change into a heterosexual. In the end he had to accept himself for who and what he was in order to keep his sanity. He has been in a relationship with the same man for the past 21 years.

I have taught high school for the past 32 years. I have seen so many kids go through this same process. No one freely chooses this torment.

So my "approved" opinion, based both on science and personal experience, is that gay people are born that way.

I think preacher is not saying that it is wrong to be born with certain gene.

"Fall in love" is in my opinion perverted way to use word love. I can love everybody and still I don't want sex with everybody.

Falling in love is a perversion? I suppose you also think sex is dirty? There are different kinds of love, you know.

I think I can't make people want something that they don't want. And I can't make them not want something that they want.

You can't because it is impossible. Even the group Exodus, which claimed for decades to be able to "cure" homosexuality, has come out recently and admitted that it is impossible and even damaging to attempt. They will no longer offer this "service."

But if person can give up chocolate, he can give up also gay things. One reason to give up being gay could be that it is not reasonable to have intercourse with same sex.

Who says it is unreasonable? My friend and his partner don't find it unreasonable at all.

Do you think that it is also in genes that person wants chocolate? Do person eat it because he likes the taste or does he eat it because he is forced to do so by genes?

When gay understands why he wants intercourse with same sex, he can also give up it, if thinks that it is not reasonable.

So in order to please God, who made him that way, he must remain celibate? How is this reasonable?

[Tex]

I don't see any reason to believe that they know more.

Medical doctors and psychiatrists? I can assure you that what is taught in medical school is very different from what is taught in seminary. So, yes, of course they know more about human sexuality than preachers. To deny this is to deny reality.

What makes person gay, in your approved opinion?

When I was in high school, my best friend was a gay guy who was also a Christian. I watched him fight it, deny it, refuse it. He was relentlessly bullied and even contemplated suicide. He would have done anything to change into a heterosexual. In the end he had to accept himself for who and what he was in order to keep his sanity. He has been in a relationship with the same man for the past 21 years.

I have taught high school for the past 32 years. I have seen so many kids go through this same process. No one freely chooses this torment.

So my "approved" opinion, based both on science and personal experience, is that gay people are born that way.

I think preacher is not saying that it is wrong to be born with certain gene.

"Fall in love" is in my opinion perverted way to use word love. I can love everybody and still I don't want sex with everybody.

Falling in love is a perversion? I suppose you also think sex is dirty? There are different kinds of love, you know.

I think I can't make people want something that they don't want. And I can't make them not want something that they want.

You can't because it is impossible. Even the group Exodus, which claimed for decades to be able to "cure" homosexuality, has come out recently and admitted that it is impossible and even damaging to attempt. They will no longer offer this "service."

But if person can give up chocolate, he can give up also gay things. One reason to give up being gay could be that it is not reasonable to have intercourse with same sex.

Who says it is unreasonable? My friend and his partner don't find it unreasonable at all.

Do you think that it is also in genes that person wants chocolate? Do person eat it because he likes the taste or does he eat it because he is forced to do so by genes?

When gay understands why he wants intercourse with same sex, he can also give up it, if thinks that it is not reasonable.

So in order to please God, who made him that way, he must remain celibate? How is this reasonable?

So what you are saying is....That gay people stand out? What makes them stand out?

[kayky]

Tex, I do not understand your question.

[dusk]

I think I can't make people want something that they don't want. And I can't make them not want something that they want.

But if person can give up chocolate, he can give up also gay things. One reason to give up being gay could be that it is not reasonable to have intercourse with same sex.

Not reasonable? And why is that? Like masturbation isn't reasonable. I wonder how many people would give it up because some religious celibate thinks it is not reasonable.
Unless somebody wants to live a celibate life as a preist or monk, people usually seek a partner or multiple. Now imagine you are forced to live a celibate life. A celibate life should be a choice not forced on people.
It hurts absolutely nobody if two gay people love each other. It is unreasonable not to. Kind of like Romeo and Juliet staying apart because some 3rd parties don't agree.

Do you think that it is also in genes that person wants chocolate? Do person eat it because he likes the taste or does he eat it because he is forced to do so by genes?

When gay understands why he wants intercourse with same sex, he can also give it up, if he thinks that it is not reasonable.

I in theory can also give up women and become a celibate monk. I would still stay heterosexual the rest of my life probably masturbate 3 times a day imagining women or watching lesbian porn and look back at my life having completely failed in the department of love and wasted it for what exactly. Explain what is the harm when two people love each other. That they don't have children? Today they can actually and there is also adoption.
It also stands to reason how long we want to hold on to the antiquated idea that ever more people is really a good idea. Less people consume less ressources and can live in a more beautiful less destroyed environment. India cannot build power plants fast enough while they still have millions of people without any electricity at all.

It is genes that generate our appetite for sweet calorie bombs. Chocolate is fat+sugar+cocoa anybody who doesn't like it isn't human. He can go on a diet but he probably would want a good reason for it. Like I want to look better at the pool or watch my sugar ...
You don't do it for no reason whatsoever.

There is a scale that goes from completely gay to completely heterosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
If you really think being gay is a choice you are probably somewhere inbetween. I have no problem with penises or naked men in showers or anywhere. Just the thought of kissing a man though has about the sexual appeal to me as french kissing a dog after it just ate horse droppings. If somebody told be I'd have to marry only man and not women I would never marry.
It is my theory (and I know I am not alone) is that all man that really have a problem with gay people are bisexual and afraid they might "catch it".
Nobody knows how many are in the somewhat bisexual area. Studies are inconclusive and usually all over the map. I guess it is quite a few (one study said 25%). Those probably can choose but some are just gay, they are either celibate monks or well gay people with a life.

Being gay wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for many hostile people in the public. I know one gay guy who is a lot like me. I think we would get along great. Women are usually well "women". Being a gay men there is a bigger range of personalities to choose from. From womanly to dude like. I still take those "complicated" women over the dude any day. If I was stranded on an island I hope there are some women around.
With my parents and my friends coming out wouldn't have been a problem either, I think. Gay people are cool and they have their own clubs. If I was a woman I would definitely be lesbian.