quote:
Originally posted by AlanC83:
Okay, I'll try to break down my problem with what you're saying into small enough chunks for you to see:
You are saying that the sins of Sodom weren't absolutely, definitely homosexuality as the 17th century church labelled them. You are saying that they probably were economic and issues of hospitality. I am saying that neither of those is true - the 17th century church idea is too specific, and your conjecture is just plain wrong.
Yes that is what I was saying but I do not see how you can categorically say it was definitely sexual.
quote:
Maybe it's not so catagorically homosexuality. But you cannot possibly draw the conclusion that it was an economic thing from that!
Not from the bible alone, but when you look at extra biblical references you do see the cause may be different. Your problem stems from only seeing what the bible claims and asserting it is always correct. It has been established it most likely isn't always true. (Unless you've solved the problem of his birth year.)
quote:
You are saying that because point 1 isn't true, point 2 is, when the two are in no way connected!!!
Now, now, you were doing so well up to this point. Where did I say my point must be correct? I said probably that isn't a definite.
quote:
So you can't miss the point, some quotes from the actual story itself!! I didn't think you'd need them!!
Genesis 18:20 - Their sin is exceedingly grave.
Genesis 19:5 - "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them."
Nope, these don't work for your case. The bible tells us that the worst sin is that of mocking the holy ghost. That would be exceedingly grave as would many other transgressions of OT law. 18:20 is so ambiguous a statement that it can have anything applied to it to make it work.
19:5 is also ambiguous. You and I are having intercourse here (though thankfully it is of the verbal kind) so again ambiguous. Furthermore, even if this definitely was sexual in meaning it still wouldn't work for you since it would be condemning an entire city including women and children for the crimes of some men. You really will have to work it some to claim that it was the majority of the male population who wanted a shot at the visitors. Anyway this abuse even if sexual would still lie within my assertion of being inhospitable to visitors.
quote:
Ta da!
Homosexuality in the actual account of Sodom!
So that'll be 2+2 = 5 - And you so good at counting too.
quote:
The suggestion that it was not, against the plainly clear Bible text is what I reacted to.
You did only say it was "probably" economic and such maybe...
...but you said in a definite fashion that it was "not homosexuality."
WTF are you on about now. I stated a probability, so what. That statement was definite in being made - All statements are so, whether factual or conjectural.
quote:
So there you go - that was your crazy claim and lie. Do you see it now?
You said something that isn't true....
Stating a probability isn't stating an untruth. Even if you are correct then my conjecture won't be a lie just a bad conjecture. FFS you really are grasping at straws in your attempt to tar me with the same lying brush which you have painted yourself.
quote:
Genesis 19:5, predates the 17th century by a fair way.
DUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
How does that prove that people before the 17 CE read it as such. Your interpretive skills really are poor.
quote:
You're a dispensationalist? I see where your problems come from!
It was not me who brought the New covenant into it - Doing that is asking for dispensation. My argument was solely based on two OT verses which show a disparity in your gods actions.
quote:
What you're doing is pointing out flaws in the dispensational view of the Bible - which is one I think is wrong too!!
Don't bother trying to tell me what I'm doing and especially don't bother using words you obviously don't understand the meaning of. The original point I made was of your god being unfair in his meting out of judgement. It was not about the actual sin - that was a side issue which you chose to make your cause.
quote:
If you want to embarrass me and truly refute what I'm saying do some research on the old and new covenants, the way they fit together and the constancy of God.
Yes, he is constantly shown to be a two-faced, murderous and vindictive ego-maniac. As for embarrasing you, no need your own argument do that by themself. I merely give you the rope - you hang yourself.
quote:
Then maybe you'll realise what you said there doesn't actually have any bearing on my "p1ss poor apologetic."
Glad you admit the standard of your excuses. Do you want me to list the many sins your god commits in the OT or commands his chosen people to do. They certainly include some of the most henious acts ever - Yep your god is such a shining example. Heck, he even tells them to eat excrement and drink urine.
quote:
You have refuted someone else's argument, not mine
So why did you bother to jump in then - as I say the actual sin was a side issue and not really the main point. Hoping to deflect the problem were we. So you concede you god is not a fair or even-handed judge.
quote:
On the Isaiah verses:
No places are mentioned in Isaiah 13:6-13, I don't know what you mean by what you said.
I said when you read it in context (check back if you don't believe me), that means the surrounding verses. Come on who are you kidding in saying you don't understand what I meant. Is it perhaps that you don't wish to understand?
quote:
If you won't concede the clear eschatological overtones in Isaiah 13, as you wouldn't concede the clear supernatural overtones of the Temptation where Satan speaks face to face with Jesus, where can we go?
Now, now, that isn't true, don't try to change what was said. You invented that supernatural interpretation to make your apologetic - it was rubbish and I told you so and why.
quote:
Isaiah 65:17 for example - "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth."
So Isaiah 65:20 is about the end times and the new heaven and the new earth? Ooo! I see it!
As I said it doesn't fit with the rest of the bible about the final judgement. Anyway, so what, even if this one (and others) can be dismissed as such it makes no difference. Any false prophecy deems the person making it a false prophet - I only need show one such to win. So where is your answer to 34:8-10. How was that fulfilled?
quote:
Verses 1 and 2 are set as if to be a song that will be sung in those days, as many other prophecies are - it's a common literary device used throughout the Bible.
Verse 3 shows that the key to this is the new covenant (so you obviosly won't understand as you don't seem to even know what I believe about that) and thus, this one's also eschatological!
You can sing it if you wish but its words will still be the same. How does that change anything - What a pathetic argument. The New Covenant wasn't invented or mentioned at the time of Isaiah so it cannot be that. And Verse 3 isn't as you claim - it merely says:
"For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money."
So what, this proves nothing and it definitely does not imply some redemption to take place nearly 3000 years in the future. Verse 1 by using the word "henceforth" shows an imminence to be applied from then forward. You really are struggling in your conjectures now.
quote:
If you won't read passages about "the day of the Lord" where God says "I will punish the world for evil" and "I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place at the fury of the Lord of hosts in the day of His burning anger" as end times the problem is not in the Bible - it is in you and your faulty understanding.
The day of the Lord is meaningless as he exists always (doesn't he?) so all days are his. The "punish" and "will make" likewise mean naught in the OT since your god often gets in a frenzy and goes on the rampage. So these do not necessarily imply "end days" scenario.
quote:
You set up the wrong 17th century definition of sodomy as proof that the Bible is wrong when the Bible is quite plain within itself.
Yawn, the 17th CE interpretation has nothing to do with the accuracy of the bible all it says is about those who interpreted it so (and still do). It is you who wants to belabour and misrepresent this side issue.
quote:
You tell me that a dispensational view (I'm not sure you realised you did it though. OT God as opposed to NT God? Eh?)
Nope I was arguing about OT god vs OT god. Yawn.
quote:
On freewill, last I heard that discussion stopped because what I was saying was understood and accepted as possible given the criteria I set out, the stalling point was that there needed to be some evidence apart from the Bible to even consider the ideas I was putting forward. Or did you lose it before that and deem me to be wrong when really it was only your limited understanding of the subject that was wrong?
oh please, no-one agreed with your fuzzy and nonsensical argument. It wasn't just me. You couldn't explain it except by resorting to the old "goddidit". You are the one who lost it when asked to give your solution. Big claims but no substance to back it up.
quote:
On the trial of Jesus - when was it ever claimed that it was a normal trial that happened the way all other trials at the time happened?
Where is it stated that the trial was anything other than a normal one. That is your conjecture to excuse the obvious mistakes in procedure the gospel writers in their ignorance made.
quote:
You rule it out because that's not how trials happened in those days.
Which seems to be a fair criteria to apply - certainly better than conjecturing.
quote:
That just means it's unlikely! Yeah! I'd say so too!
No, it wasn't just unlikely but impossible. Some of the incorrect procedures mentioned mean such trials would and could never have occurred. If you don't want to face facts fine but please don't claim your disbelief is justified and truly worthy of consideration.
