Students Protest Rejection of Christian Books on Homosexuality

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I suspect this issue will be increasingly more difficult to handle properly considering we will see an ever-rising amount of this kind of garbage.

We are currently seing micro-targeting w/ ads and emails and such, but consider what things will look like in a few years.

I totally agree. The fact that these things are becoming more and more common, more public, and more accepted makes it much more difficult for society to ever rid itself of the stain of them. Once our society embraces something, whether it be right or wrong, it becomes almost impossible for us to root it back out of the society. That's a large part of why our society is quickly losing and semblence of decency or value.

[techboy]

So I guess the bibles he ordered for Constantinople never existed. :doh:

You know, it's funny. This is a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian regarding the Bible. One of the participants is citing the best scholarship of the day. The other is making bald, unsubstantiated assertions backed up by nothing but personal conviction, and assuming that should be enough to convince.

Which one of us is the Christian again?

Floods, two of every animal in a giant boat, baby being adopted by a king after being placed in the river and found by the queen. You can argue around that all you want. It just is what it is. You're not going to convince me or many other people that the Bible was manifested all on it's own by the hand of man through God(Yahweh the Desert God). It was penned by men, with the ideas and stories of men.

Yeah, I get it. You don't believe the Bible. Fine.

That's no excuse, however, for holding to your views in the face of scholarship that says you're dead wrong, especially when all you have to support your arguments is sarcasm and "because I say so".

You will note, by the way, that I am not attempting to establish the historicity of Noah's ark, or the inspiration of the Bible, or anything else for that matter. In these matters, I stick only to what I can establish using responsible scholarship.

I'm simply telling you that your positions don't hold water. That's not a Christian view. That's an academic view, held by scholars of all stripes, regardless of confessional stance (conservative Christian to atheist).

Now, unless you have something you can actually substantiate with responsible scholarship, I think we're done here.

[Zguy28]

So it's not being homosexual, it's having homosexual SEX.

Yes. Our actions condemn us and God's grace saves us.

More of that "love the sinner, hate the sin" :bsflag:

I admit, you definitely make it quite difficult. But yes, Jesus called his followers to love their enemies, despite their sin. It's why he forgave the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but also upon seeing her repent at his feet, instructed her to sin no more.

[codeorama]

Maybe the Christians should spend more time writing books on the evils of divorce... you know, divorce actually affects children in many cases...

[Zguy28]

Maybe the Christians should spend more time writing books on the evils of divorce... you know, divorce actually affects children in many cases...

Every morning at 7:30 on WAVA 105.1 in DC.

http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3843443//

Here is a great book too.

[Thiebear]

They should be teaching more economics and personal finance and less sex.

Once comes naturally, the other is impossible to figure out.

[Predicto]

They should be teaching more economics and personal finance and less sex.

Once comes naturally, the other is impossible to figure out.

Don't worry Thiebear, lots of men have trouble figuring out how to pleasure a woman, but most eventually learn...

OLS

[Vicious]

You know, it's funny. This is a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian regarding the Bible. One of the participants is citing the best scholarship of the day. The other is making bald, unsubstantiated assertions backed up by nothing but personal conviction, and assuming that should be enough to convince.

Which one of us is the Christian again?

Yeah, I get it. You don't believe the Bible. Fine.

That's no excuse, however, for holding to your views in the face of scholarship that says you're dead wrong, especially when all you have to support your arguments is sarcasm and "because I say so".

You will note, by the way, that I am not attempting to establish the historicity of Noah's ark, or the inspiration of the Bible, or anything else for that matter. In these matters, I stick only to what I can establish using responsible scholarship.

I'm simply telling you that your positions don't hold water. That's not a Christian view. That's an academic view, held by scholars of all stripes, regardless of confessional stance (conservative Christian to atheist).

Now, unless you have something you can actually substantiate with responsible scholarship, I think we're done here.

Just because work was done 30 years ago does not make it incorrect. If that was the case the Bible is how old?

You completly ignore Zoastrianism. The very basis of Heaven vs Hell, of a good god and an evil god.

My position as is many people that have read the legends of Sargon and the Epic of Gilgamesh is hey, that seems AWFULLY familiar.

Keep on ignoring it. Maybe eventually people will forget about it.

[techboy]

Just because work was done 30 years ago does not make it incorrect. If that was the case the Bible is how old?

You're right. The fact that a position is old does not make it incorrect. The theory of gravity is very old.

The fact that scholarship has moved on because of the data is what makes your position incorrect.

When you go to the doctor, do you want a guy with the latest training, or would you be content with his using 1950s era knowledge to treat you?

You completly ignore Zoastrianism. The very basis of Heaven vs Hell, of a good god and an evil god.

I didn't ignore Zoroastrianism. You never brought it up. Is your plan to continue tossing random names at me in the hopes that I will give up?

Besides, if you had actually read the post in which I took the time to share with you what the experts are saying (I know... it was long, and I probably wouldn't have read it either), you would have seen that I addressed Mithras, which came out of Zoroastrianism.

My position as is many people that have read the legends of Sargon and the Epic of Gilgamesh is hey, that seems AWFULLY familiar.

And my point is that this is not proof of any sort. There are pyramids in South America and Egypt. Do I get to assume, without any other proof, that the same culture influenced both? Maybe aliens?

Or, just look at this AMAZING list of parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy.

Wow... Kennedy must be a myth based on earlier stories about Lincoln, huh?

You see, in academia, scholars have standards for what constitutes literary borrowing. As I have taken a lot of time to show you by citing those scholars, your position does not meet those standards. Your case is not proven.

Now, you are of course free to believe whatever you wish, but to present it as established fact as you have done is not appropriate. Just because it makes sense to you does not mean it's true, and it certainly doesn't prove anything.

Keep on ignoring it. Maybe eventually people will forget about it.

One of us is ignoring the evidence, anyway...

Look, it's pretty clear that you heard or read this stuff from someone you trust... maybe a friend or a professor in college. It made sense to you. And you know, Assyrian literature is an obscure field. Most people don't know who the scholars in that field are, let alone what they have to say, so it's not surprising you got bad information.

And now, here I am, telling you that you're wrong. Sure, I have citations from experts galore to support me, but you don't trust me because I'm a brainwashed idiot. One of "those people".

I understand. So, please just save us both a lot of time and tell me that you're not going to accept anything I write, no matter how well researched, because you don't trust me and my "those people" status.

[Vicious]

I certainly did bring it up. Unlike the Pyramids the Epic of Gilgamesh and Sargon are not structures, they are literature and they were created and distributed in the same areas that the Bible found itself being manifested. It wasn't until after the Babylonian captivity that the Jews found themselves seeing Yahweh as a god for all people. They borrowed the idea of one creator, a devil, demons, angels from the religion of those who freed them.

[techboy]

i hereby double dog dare vicious to go head up w/ techboy here. :munchout:

With pleasure.

With all due respect, when were you planning to start?

I have presented mounds of evidence. You have engaged with none of it, preferring instead to dance around the edges, tossing out new canards as the old ones are debunked.

Further, beyond failing to address any of the evidence I have carefully cited for you in an attempt to dialogue, you have presented precisely zero evidence for your own case. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm fairly knowedgable about these areas, half the time I wouldn't even know what your point is!

But, against my better judgement, I will chase after yet another of your throwaway comments... Zoroastrianism.

Along with all the other reasons, which you never responded to, why scholars have rejected parallelism, there's the minor problem in the case of Zoraoationism particularly that the dates are all wrong for the kind of borrowing you're talking about. If anything, the borrowing may have gone the other way.

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, the professor emiritius of Ancient History at the University of Miami, Ohio, whom I cited earlier, wrote Jesus, Zoraster, Buddha, Socrates & Muhammad: The Life, Death and Teaching of Jesus Compared with Other Great Religious Figures.

Relevant excerpts (emphases are mine):

From a historian's point of view there are serious disparities in the sources available for reconstructing the lives of Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammad and Jesus. We need to distinguish sharply between first-hand or nearly contemporary sources and later apocryphal and legendary materials.

Zoroaster (628-551 B.C.). We have what appear to be the genuine sayings of Zoroaster in the Gathas of the Avesta. The mass of Zoroastrian texts, however, are in late Pahlavi recensions (ninth century A.D.). Contemporary Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions betray at best only allusions to early Zoroastrianism. Some Greek and Arabic authors also allude to Zoroaster. The Persian national epic, the Shah Namah by Firdausi (c. A.D. 1000), includes traditions of the prophet.

It seems that Zoroaster preached the monotheistic worship of Ahura Mazda, who was the creator of two other spirits - one good, the other evil.18 Classical dualistic Zoroastrianism, which pitted Ahura Mazda against the evil Ahriman, developed in the Sassanian period (A.D. 226-652). Later Zoroastrianism also developed a doctrine of a Saoshyan (Savior) who would raise the dead.

Emphases mine. As you can see, the elements that Christianity supposedly "borrowed" are only noted, in fact, centuries after Christianity.

This is actually fairly common, and yet another reason parallelism is widely rejected.

[Seabee1973]

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/03/deerfield-high.html

this is about the porn book that was required at deerfield high but has since been put on an opt in list

[IHOPSkins]

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/03/deerfield-high.html

this is about the porn book that was required at deerfield high but has since been put on an opt in list

Solutions

Homeschool and Vouchers

Huh......Liberals hate both

[NavyDave]

I don't see how some would dismiss a book on the subject because of age since the deviant sexual behaviour was seen as perverted and or a sin back in the day as well as it is today.

Christians aren't the only people who don't see the activity as normal but of course liberals don't have the cajones to step to blacks, or asians and hispanics who embrace Catholicism as well as the Billions of muslims.

[Capt Rich Fla]

No, but having one that specifically targets homosexuals and calls it sin against God does bother me.

Why? Isn't that what King James said?