The Greenhouse

The Nickman wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 12:32 pm Timothy 2:11 reads:
"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Keen to know your thoughts on this one, dubs. Seeing as you believe people who engage in homosexual sex are going to hell, what are your thoughts on women teachers, police officers or politicians? I reckon you'd be dead against them!

*raiderskater responds to this Timothy jerkass by shouting profanities at him*

Frankly, I think the world would be a better place without all organised religion.

BTW $243 Million for chaplains in public schools is a disgrace.

Hopefully ACT continues their previous policy of not accepting the cash so the program doesn't get funded.

There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

The Nickman wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 12:34 pm Mark 12:19 reads:
"Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."

So what do you say, dubs? If you pass away, you're more than fine with your brother "taking" your wife? It's God's word after all!

Here.

You grab a scripture where I think it was a bunch of Sadduccees try and trick Jesus by grabbing a teaching Moses handed down.

The Law concerning the Levirate marriage is found in Deuteronomy 25:5. It was ordained for the preservation of families, that if a man died without male issue, his brother should marry his widow, and that the firstborn son should be held in the registers to be the son of the dead brother.

But, you don't include the whole story!
Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. 22 So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. 23 Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.”

24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Dude. ... This random thing you quoted is just....random.

Some old Levite teaching to preserve a families genealogy and future. Weird!!

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

So who decides which parts you can take literally which parts you can’t? YOU, based on your own disgusting discriminatory beliefs??

I dunno man, that sounds like a massive cop out to me.

If god is all-loving, I’m pretty sure the part where he sends people who HE MADE GAY to hell are the parts which you don’t need to be taken literally

Or are you going to try and tell us that being gay is a choice, dubby?

Schifty wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 7:20 pm BTW $243 Million for chaplains in public schools is a disgrace.

Hopefully ACT continues their previous policy of not accepting the cash so the program doesn't get funded.

Agreed. Religion has no place whatsoever being anywhere near a school. Of any kind.

Schifty wrote:Clearly TR is the destroyer of forums.

You should see me coach halfbacks

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

T_R wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 8:47 pm

Schifty wrote:Clearly TR is the destroyer of forums.

You should see me coach halfbacks

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Please tell me you have nothing to do with coaching junior rugby sides..

They deserve hope.

The Nickman wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 8:27 pm

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

So who decides which parts you can take literally which parts you can’t? YOU, based on your own disgusting discriminatory beliefs??

I dunno man, that sounds like a massive cop out to me.

If god is all-loving, I’m pretty sure the part where he sends people who HE MADE GAY to hell are the parts which you don’t need to be taken literally

When Jesus said that you should cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if they cause you to sin, I'm sure that's an exaggeration.

And Nick? I'm getting very sick of you saying my beliefs are disgusting.
If you want to continue trying to have a adult conversation, fine. If you want to insert insults into it, I'm not partaking any further.

raiderskater wrote:

Schifty wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 7:20 pm BTW $243 Million for chaplains in public schools is a disgrace.

Hopefully ACT continues their previous policy of not accepting the cash so the program doesn't get funded.

Agreed. Religion has no place whatsoever being anywhere near a school. Of any kind.

It also has no place whatsoever being anywhere near the 21st Century, as evidenced by dubby and his views

I'm getting Jack of that Nick. Very bloody sick of it

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Schifty wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 7:20 pm BTW $243 Million for chaplains in public schools is a disgrace.

Hopefully ACT continues their previous policy of not accepting the cash so the program doesn't get funded.

Yep I saw the teachers union is fighting it at least.

Being a secular country how about we drop chaplains and have actual counselors doing the job, or at the very least give the schools the option rather than being forced to fill up the religious pockets even more.

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Can't argue with Super Nintendo Chalmers

dubby wrote:I'm getting Jack of that Nick. Very bloody sick of it

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Well I’m getting genuinely sick of you sitting on your high horse telling us all that friends of mine are going to hell simply because of the way they were born, and something they have no control over, because you’ve cherry picked a few passages from a book while ignoring the countless bat **** crazy Bull that litters the pages

It strikes me at a personal level and I’m not joking when I say I’m genuinely offended by you constantly sprouting hateful and insulting garbage about close friends of mine and hiding behind your **** outdated kiddy-fiddling religion while you do it

So don’t cry to me about being “jack of it”, pal. Pull your head in and move into the 21st century

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

It absolutely is. Dubby just picks and chooses the bits of the bible that support his deeply offensive views while saying “oh, don’t worry about that” to the rest of the horrible, crazy stuff

And he’s just failing to admit it, and it’s infuriating that he either can’t see this, or blatantly chooses to ignore it

You talk about your cognitive dissonance, I’ve never seen more evidence of it

Nickman, where did you learn big words like cognitive dissonance from?

dubby wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 7:44 pm There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

Dubs the more we learn the less of it Christians take literally, at what point do we simply say none of it should be taken literally?

Who decides what to take literally, is it only stuff we’ve proven is wrong, the stuff that doesn’t fit in with our morality, Christians will also disagree on what parts to take literally.

reptar wrote:Nickman, where did you learn big words like cognitive dissonance from?

Straight out of GE’s playbook, isn’t it?

greeneyed wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 9:04 pm Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

That’s what it comes down to for me, the Bible was written by men to fit the knowledge and morality of the time hence a lot of the abhorrent morality we know is no longer acceptable like killing certain people, the homophobia, misogyny and endorsing slavery.

Morality thankfully evolves with society and while religions are generally slow to catch up they do generally get there, it won’t be long till the homosexuality is another bit that will be ignored as it already is by a lot of Christians.

The Nickman wrote:

reptar wrote:Nickman, where did you learn big words like cognitive dissonance from?

Straight out of GE’s playbook, isn’t it?

Yes, it's the kind of stuff he'd whip out after a few red wines and a couple of cheese platters.

Manbush wrote:

greeneyed wrote: ↑May 9, 2018, 9:04 pm Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

That’s what it comes down to for me, the Bible was written by men to fit the knowledge and morality of the time hence a lot of the abhorrent morality we know is no longer acceptable like killing certain people, the homophobia, misogyny and endorsing slavery.

Morality thankfully evolves with society and while religions are generally slow to catch up they do generally get there, it won’t be long till the homosexuality is another bit that will be ignored as it already is by a lot of Christians.

And that’s just it, isn’t it? In twenty years time they’ll be saying “oh you don’t take the homosexuality stuff literally” like they do now about the deeply misogynistic stuff or about cutting off hands or stoning people to death, and the views of people like Israel Folau and dubby will be consigned to the dark ages of history where they belong

Poor Dubbs.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

What’s worse, having beliefs ridiculed or being punished for not sharing them? Essentially that is what Christians believe will happen, whether a literal hell, a separation from god or ceasing to exist, if you believe in god you’ll be rewarded no matter your actions and if you don’t too bad you’ll be punished. Being punished for a lack of belief is so much worse than mere words.

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?

I think this argument extends to rejecting religion altogether.

If the Bible is the word of God and it has blatantly horrible pieces of morality, then how can it be real? There’s no need for God to subscribe to the morality of the times in teaching us his ways.

You can’t just say it’s written by men and they make errors. If God has little power over his own advertising material he’s not a very powerful God.

That combined with no new releases in 2000 years.

Plus God having no better ways of revealing himself and having a true relationship with people than an old book?

That’s at the essence of why Christian religion is unfathomable to me.

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I answered that question.

You don't "pick" parts Steve. You simply learn, apply and understand.

The whole shellfish thing is about not having a diet solely on crustaceans. Why? As it turns out they're high in mercury and will kill you.

I provided a scripture before about people in danger of hell. It's not solely gays.

All of this is intended to prevent people from going to hell. If one chooses to be an adulterer etc why allow that person eternal paradise?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I answered that question.

You don't "pick" parts Steve. You simply learn, apply and understand.

The whole shellfish thing is about not having a diet solely on crustaceans. Why? As it turns out they're high in mercury and will kill you.

I provided a scripture before about people in danger of hell. It's not solely gays.

All of this is intended to prevent people from going to hell. If one chooses to be an adulterer etc why allow that person eternal paradise?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

dubby wrote: ↑May 10, 2018, 7:29 am

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I answered that question.

You don't "pick" parts Steve. You simply learn, apply and understand.

The whole shellfish thing is about not having a diet solely on crustaceans. Why? As it turns out they're high in mercury and will kill you.

I provided a scripture before about people in danger of hell. It's not solely gays.

All of this is intended to prevent people from going to hell. If one chooses to be an adulterer etc why allow that person eternal paradise?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

So hell is reserved for murderers, adulterers, rapists, and people who were born attracted to the same sex as them and choose to have intercourse with them??

Yeah righto, dubs. Wake up to yourself.

I genuinely find your statements like "it's not solely gays" to be deeply offensive.

gangrenous wrote: ↑May 10, 2018, 7:06 am

greeneyed wrote:

dubby wrote:There are parts of the bible you cannot take literally. Some parts are poetry, others hyperbole.

Look, let me give you an example of where you went wrong:

This is very honest question dubby... if you can ignore certain parts of the bible, because they are horrible and unacceptable in the 21st century... isn’t it the same in relation to gay people? You aren’t campaigning against adulterers or people who eat crayfish or whatever you’re not supposed to eat. Shouldn’t you also reject the horrible parts of the bible, the frankly silly parts of the bible, that relate to gay people? Simply because the bible was written during times of horrible prejudice, thousands of years ago?

I think this argument extends to rejecting religion altogether.

If the Bible is the word of God and it has blatantly horrible pieces of morality, then how can it be real? There’s no need for God to subscribe to the morality of the times in teaching us his ways.

You can’t just say it’s written by men and they make errors. If God has little power over his own advertising material he’s not a very powerful God.

That combined with no new releases in 2000 years.

Plus God having no better ways of revealing himself and having a true relationship with people than an old book?

That’s at the essence of why Christian religion is unfathomable to me.

This is what drew me so heavily towards Buddhism in the first place. Although it's probably more of a philosophy than a religion, Buddhism attempts to understand the universe and one of the important facets is to not believe anything unless you can prove it for yourself. And once something has been disproven by science, then stop believing in it.

The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, believe in a bunch of crazy **** in 2000 year old books which were relevent back when you could cut off people's hands, stone people to death, own slaves and rape women... yet still try to pick and choose the bits of said book that are still relevant today.

I say none of it's relevant. If you have a mate who never pays you back money, you stop lending it to him. If someone keeps telling you lies about everything you stop believing them. The same should apply to 2000 year old books that tell you women should be stoned to death if they have intercourse outside of marriage.

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

Nick, you've got no idea what you're talking about. Twice now I'm shown you how loose and poor your attempted use of scripture is. Just stop.

All that passage of scripture tells me is that you should being a judgmental **** towards others.

Jesus also said go and sin no more.

And sadly Nick, you don't believe the act of homosexuality is a sin. It is.

dubby wrote: ↑May 10, 2018, 11:19 am Jesus also said go and sin no more.

And sadly Nick, you don't believe the act of homosexuality is a sin. It is.

That is so deeply offensive on so many levels. You're genuinely EDIT.