Furthermore, you've actually convinced me to take down that stupid photo and put something more current in it's place!JeffBergGold said:
Lemme just find a good photo.
(This'll take a while.)
Contrary to Popular Belief
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lemme just find a good photo.
(This'll take a while.)
Don't do that dude! You don't have to put up appearances for anyone. I'd feel bad if you did.lacktheknack said:
I am not unattractive and I don't consider my GF to be pretty. She has a wonderful personality and I love her to bits for it. Of course I'd never say this to her face, but it's true nonetheless. I know many people (on both sides of the gender fence) who are in similar situations. For the record, the less attractive men I know who are with pretty girls do not all have big dicks. The girls seem to attribute their attraction to confidence and personality. I don't think physical attractiveness is naturally as important as the media makes it out to be. Of course, people's perceptions are undoubtedly shaped, at least in part, by the media's influence.JeffBergGold said:
You know, you do a great job of both reinforcing your statement AND lacktheknack's. Assuming that you aren't trying to be a massive troll (obviously I'm not taking the last statement at face value) you're being a shining example in favor of your argument. Although that's not really contrary the impression I've gotten from your previous posts.JeffBergGold said:It's a good thing ugly people can't hurt my ego!lacktheknack said:All I know is that I said your views are pathetic, and you called me ugly.JeffBergGold said:Whatever you say boss. I guess we all have our ego defense mechanisms.
Something about ego defense mechanisms, right?
OT: Contrary to popular belief the Big Bang was actually a name given to the theory by someone trying to highlight how absurd it sounded. It just happened to stick
This one is out of date and looks bad. We've already gotten one hilarious argument out of it, it's served its time.JeffBergGold said:
I should also probably get a new avatar while I'm at it...
I gotta admit, if that is true, you're a better man than I am. Although, some will argue that is not very hard. I believe it's commendable. I can't date an ugly chick, even though I've met some who are really good people. Far better people than I could ever be. I'd never date em though. They probably wouldn't like me either so in the end it all works out.axlryder said:
If you really want a picture of me you can just ask! 8DTopazFusion said:> Has no photo of himself on his profile.JeffBergGold said:It's a good thing ugly people can't hurt my ego!
> Accuses everyone else of being ugly.
Seems legit.
tbh, I initially didn't even consider her to be a prospective partner. I had to get to know her quite a bit before I started to see her that way. I think it's the same reason that some couples manage to grow more in love with one another as their looks fall to the wayside with age. The brain may prioritize core traits over superficial appearance. I'll end it here, in light of the suspension.JeffBergGold said:
Those are excellent points, and it's good that you brought them up, because those lines in Scripture have actually been the primary sources of confusion. What most scholars have come to the conclusion of however, is that "the Law" Jesus is referring to is actually representing the WHOLE of the Old Testament. And it IS true that Jesus did not come to void all of the Old Testament, because it is still important. He wanted the history, wisdom, and morals to be available to everyone, even if much of the Mosaic law was replaced by the new Law Jesus taught (some call it "the Word"). The reason he stated that anyone who doesn't take the commandments seriously or teaches others that the Old Testament is pointless, lest they be "the least in his kingdom", was to clarify that he did NOT desire the dereliction of the Old Testament; he was specifying that he was NOT there to replace the Old Testament with what would eventually be known as the New Testament. Both Testaments are important for Christian knowledge, even if the laws and ideals of the ancient Israeli no longer apply to our own society.undeadexistentialist said:
http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html
http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament
Romans 6:14 - 6:21, Galatians 3:10 - 3:14, and many more also provide adequate proof.
Sorry, I hope I'm not sounding too preachy. lol
If this becomes uninteresting to you, please inform me, and I will terminate this dialogue.
You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.Mr.Philip said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider
Oh not at all, in fact I'm at university studying philosophy, one of my main areas being religion, so as long as we can keep it friendly and intellectual I'm fineSpanishax said:
I didn't really have time to go over your links (I'm actually supposed to be working on an essay due tomorrow) one point from your post that did strike me is that you said he didn't come to void ALL the Old Testament, and mentioning that some of the Old doesn't apply to modern society. I take from that that he's, if you'll forgive the use of a potentially emotive phrase, cherry-picking in that he's taking the bits that are more geared towards his own message and using that message to overwrite the bits that go against that.
The issue I have there is that in the quotes that I mentioned, he seemed pretty dead-set on keeping it as-is; "not an iota, not a dot", "not the smallest letter will change", "not to abolish, but to fulfill", "not the smallest part, or the smallest of a letter will pass" all seem to be saying not that we should keep the general principle but some of it needs to change because it doesn't apply or conform with the message of love, but that every single part of the Old Testament and everything contained therein was to stay exactly as strong as it had been, exactly as relevant, and that "not to abolish, but to fulfill" quote seems to say that, if anything, he wanted to strengthen the law that came before.
I apologise if this is covered in your links (I'll look at them once this essay is handed in and give a more informed reply then) and also it occurred to me that I ought at least say something about the websites I linked; specifically the "evilbible" one, sorry about that I just googled "jesus on the Old Testament" and took the first few links that came up with. Not exactly what I would've called it, in the interests of keeping an open dialogue
Indeed that is where many scholars seem to be circling. Many would say that he just means that nothing should be changed in the Bible just because he said that the law has been rewritten, whereas others would say that the laws are still technically in effect, but we have been "delivered" from them (so, in essence, they still don't apply to US directly). Some are saying the translation may also be a little misleading (by which I mean in other translations he's saying that the entire Bible itself will not be removed from this world until the end (which has still held up, because every person that's tried to get rid of the Bible has met an unfortunate end)).undeadexistentialist said:Oh not at all, in fact I'm at university studying philosophy, one of my main areas being religion, so as long as we can keep it friendly and intellectual I'm fineSpanishax said:
I didn't really have time to go over your links (I'm actually supposed to be working on an essay due tomorrow) one point from your post that did strike me is that you said he didn't come to void ALL the Old Testament, and mentioning that some of the Old doesn't apply to modern society. I take from that that he's, if you'll forgive the use of a potentially emotive phrase, cherry-picking in that he's taking the bits that are more geared towards his own message and using that message to overwrite the bits that go against that.
The issue I have there is that in the quotes that I mentioned, he seemed pretty dead-set on keeping it as-is; "not an iota, not a dot", "not the smallest letter will change", "not to abolish, but to fulfill", "not the smallest part, or the smallest of a letter will pass" all seem to be saying not that we should keep the general principle but some of it needs to change because it doesn't apply or conform with the message of love, but that every single part of the Old Testament and everything contained therein was to stay exactly as strong as it had been, exactly as relevant, and that "not to abolish, but to fulfill" quote seems to say that, if anything, he wanted to strengthen the law that came before.
I apologise if this is covered in your links (I'll look at them once this essay is handed in and give a more informed reply then) and also it occurred to me that I ought at least say something about the websites I linked; specifically the "evilbible" one, sorry about that I just googled "jesus on the Old Testament" and took the first few links that came up with. Not exactly what I would've called it, in the interests of keeping an open dialogue
Me, I prefer to go by all the OTHER passages that state that our sins are in fact forgiven and thus we have been "removed" from under Mosaic law. The reality remains that even IF we were still supposed to uphold Mosaic law, we couldn't punish anyone for their wrongs anyway ("do not judge, lest ye be judged"); we would be expected to forgive and turn the other cheek. Basically Jesus rendered the law void because HE wanted to deal with the sins of man, and to point out that man was NOT God. He is sinless, and therefore that situation would be much less of a pot-calling-a-kettle-black scenario - everyone has their own transgressions.
If God still considers homosexuality to be a sin, then that is HIS domain, and he will deal with it on his own accord. I myself am asexual, and have been called an "abomination" by other Christians, simply because I wish to die alone; that I'm not following God's path. To them I say, "Foul scallywag, what wouldst thou know of righteousness?" ... Or, you know, something less dramatic and Elizabethan.
I fully embrace people of ALL sexualities, creeds, religions, races, traits, and etcetera, as that's EXACTLY the message Jesus taught. Love and tolerate!
The eye for an eye thing annoys me as well. The idea is it's an eye for an eye AND NO MORE. It's to limit things.TAGM said:
Actually the New Testament does speak of homosexuality fairly clearly, in Paul's epistles. Moreover the law which Jesus said was done with is largely considered to be the Jewish -purity- laws; laws made specifically to designate the Jews as God's chosen people, like standards of eating and dress. Jesus' message was for everyone, therefore these laws aren't relevant any more. The morality law still applies, as far as I can see, but it's a subtle distinction.Spanishax said:
Also, the "Do not judge lest ye be judged" is a similar statement to the "You tell your neighbour he has a speck of dust in his eye, but neglect the log in your own" thing. It's not stating that you can't disagree morally with a person's behaviour, it's stating that you are in no position to stand and judge them for it, as you're just as bad if not worse than they are (But often in a different way).
I do agree though, that Christians ARE meant to love and tolerate the shit out of everyone. One of the most core tenets of Christianity is that anyone can be saved if they accept Jesus as saviour, and it pisses me off how people make that into "Anyone apart from X group which I don't like". You don't have to agree with people over their morality, but you damn well have to give them a chance.
So yes, another common misconception - you can hold more conservative views of morality without being a hateful, spiteful little homophobe/redneck/Westboro/whatever.
Myself and undeadexistentialist just had a fairly lengthy conversation about this exact topic throughout this thread. It is actually stated several times in the Bible that we have been "delivered" from Mosaic law, and that it no longer applies (Jesus brought new laws). But we are not to forsake the Old Testament, as it is still very important for Christians to be familiar with. I'm curious as to where you found the bits on homosexuality in the New Testament, however. As far as I am aware, save for a few loose Greek translations that require more study, the New Testament does not say anything about homosexuality.Nokshor said:
Yeah, I didn't see that there were any other responses to your post until I'd replied. Woopsie!Spanishax said:
As for my source:
Romans 1:26?27, 1 Corinthians 6:9?10, and 1 Timothy 1:9?10 are the passages which speak about homosexuality, putting it alongside other mentions acts such as adultery and the generic 'sexual immorality'. These passages are not in the gospels, but the Pauline Epistles are still firmly part of the New Testament canon.