davidf

Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others.

you write
'Evolution teaches no such thing.

Oh really. The theology of evolution is interpreted in different ways by its disciples. Look at this quote from Lego when referring to another poster on the multiculuralism article by Graeme Cooke.

'Now correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read your last post, it appeared you agree with me that genetic variations produced by evolutionary forces have given some ethnicities advantages within the local environments that they evolved in. If you believe that, then you are tacitly admitting that some ethnic groups have genetic characteristics that give them superior characteristics in order to survive in the environments in which they evolved. '

A lot of rotton fruit has come from the pseudo science belief of evolution. The disciples are not all in unity.

Dear runner,

I asked you to cite a scientist to substantiate what you call evolution - not another poster on OLO who may be as ignorant of evolution as you are.

Science is based on observation, experiment and reason. Science follows where the evidence leads. The Bible is not a scientific, historical or moral guide.

A God who would consign a human to an eternity of suffering because that human was ignorant of scripture is a nasty human creation. You are probably ignorant of much scripture - Muslim scripture, the Koran, Jewish scripture, the Bible without the New Testament, Buddhist scripture, the Tripitaka, Hindu scripture, the Upanishads and others. A Muslim told me I (presumably along with you) was going to hell. He regarded it as his duty to save me from hell. He was a believer giving me a warning just as you are a believer giving those who do not believe in your superstition a warning.

The God you apparently believe in is nasty and vindictive.

Dear Runner,
Thanks again for your thoughtful responses. Seems we have just one major difference in understanding. That is whether the passages you have referred to – also commented on in the original article – actually condemn all homosexual activity.
We agree abusive same sex relationships are as abhorrent as abusive straight relationships. But what about faithful, life-long, committed same-sex unions?
I’m now persuaded by both Biblical scholarship and the experience of gay men and women in effective Christian ministry that the Bible condemns abuse, but not all homosexual liaisons.
Would it be helpful to look at specific texts? Happy to do so, if you wish. For example, you quoted earlier 1 Corinthians 6:9. Your version: ‘No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom.’
Your version renders the key word arsenokoitai as ‘behaves like a homosexual’. Other translations differ significantly. Many just say ‘homosexuality’ or ‘sodomy’ for arsenokoitai which is clearly wrong. There are other common Greek words for homosexuality in general, such as paederastes, which Paul declines to use.
Other versions render arsenokoitai more accurately as ‘abusers of themselves with men (KJV, ASV, etc.) Weymouth goes further: ‘any who are guilty of unnatural crime’.
Probably most accurate is the UK New International Version: ‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.’
By using arsenokoitai instead of paederastes it seems Paul intended to differentiate between normal, consensual, marriage-like gay relationships and those that are abusive, perverted or criminal. Just as he does with straight sexual liaisons.
Happy to consider other passages more closely if you wish.
Finally, on the experience of gay people in ministry, this might be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPZ5eUrNF24

Dear Lexi,
Yes, agree atonement is problematic on various levels. Theologians and Christian leaders are still exploring this, and there is no real consensus among them any more – if ever there really was. Certainly there are divergent views these days on original sin. Will leave you to google the discussion, Lexi, if of interest.
Most Christian traditions tend not to dwell too much on the philosophical problem of a judgmental God who demands human sacrifice, but emphasise God’s love in sacrificing his son.
Agree absolutely on the misplaced emphasis on sin, especially sexual sin. There are far more passages in the Judeo-Christian texts condemning oppression, greed and economic injustice than dealing with sex.
W Somerset Maugham in ‘The Judgment Seat’ has God saying: ‘I have often wondered why men think that I attach so much importance to sexual irregularity. If they read my works more attentively they would see that I have always been sympathetic to that particular form of human frailty.’

David f

there are alot more scientist than you would like to admit that know the 'science' behind evolution is fraudulent, untrue and deceptive.

About a thousand of them here

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722

Dear Alan,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired. You do it so well. It's been a pleasure taking part in this discussion with you. Hopefully, there shall be more articles from you in the future - on this Forum.