[QUOTE=xequar;322528]Safe, sane, and consentual BDSM, or the bad kind?  If it's safe, sane, and consentual, I'm totally cool with that and give those people some credit for thinking outside of the Xian box.[/QUOTE]

They emphasized consensual.  I just think it is stupid they feel they need the Bible to justify consensual fun.

TomAnderson wrote:

======================================
@ clyde5001:


I know the statement above isn't Hebrew.
But neither does it seem to be English.
Care to rephrase?....

You know what bud? When you have a piece of bone sticking into your spine and you're taking oxycontin just so you can kill the pain enough to take a breath, sometimes, at ten-to-midnight, you miss a word or two when you're typing. You knew exactly what I meant, but you're just looking to mock, 'cause that's the kind of person you are and the veneer of Xianity will never cover it.

and no, God didn't give it to "us people", because when it was given, there WAS no "us ppl", there was only your ancestors, the Israelis.
Of whom JC was the ultimate descendant, and the Jew par excellence.
And Whom ushered in said New Convenant

The devil more likely (except we don't believe in that). Whatever. As has been stated: if you believe G-D could change his mind about an eternal covenant, you have no real faith in him. You are less than an atheist. Atheists have morals.

H2319
cha?da?sh
khaw-dawsh'
From H2318; new: - fresh, new thing.

H2318
cha?dash
khaw-dash'
A primitive root; to be new; causatively to rebuild: - renew, repair.

D'oh!... Looks like clyde's explanation is not as cut & dried as he wishes it were.
Taken together with "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers", the context leans heavily in favor of the meaning clyde doesn't like. Bummer.

And what English concordance are you quoting from? I'm sitting here with the Tanakh open in front of me. There's no English. It's just Hebrew. I learned Hebrew at the same time I learned English. The words in context are renewed.

Even if Jeremiah were speaking of another covenant, it would be referencing worship of a dead man.

D'oh! indeed.

clyde5001 wrote:

the veneer of Xianity will never cover it.

Veneers

Paint with Numbers
Paint with squares
Paint with boxes
Paint with Chairs


The tainted Ones
The tainted lairs
The tainted rocks
The tainted wares


All have been painted
All have been squared
All have been inspected
All have been prepared


None of this busyness
None of this fair
None of this whirly-whirl
None of this split hair


Matters not to anything
Matters not to Us
Matters not to Those who See
Matter's not to be.


You'll See.

======================================
@    xequar:

[QUOTE]Once again, Tom, you've posted absolutely nothing of useful substance[/QUOTE]
Oh?
And just how "useful" do you feel "fucktards", "fucking bla" and the like to be?
I find it very useful for character definition. Yours.

[QUOTE] your biblical understanding is... less than complete[/QUOTE]
I never claimed it to be otherwise.
However, responsible exegesis shows it to be MORE than adequate for demolishing your insipid arguments.
Which is really all that's necessary here.

[QUOTE]Honestly, mostly I just ignore you, but every so often you spew so much drivel that you make my blood-pressure skyrocket. [/QUOTE]
Thus resulting in a torrent of incoherent, profanity laced dreck from you.
Which was (one of) our intent(s), of course.
Good job.

[QUOTE]Between that and the fact that I don't believe in the concept of profanity, [/QUOTE]
So you deny that profanity exists?
Not surprising for one who is drowning in his own denial, after all.

[QUOTE]I occasionally throw up[/QUOTE]
Yes, you certainly do.
Moist towellete?....

[QUOTE]So tell me, Tom, why have you ignored every offer to discuss this in real-life terms with me?[/QUOTE]
Because you have not defined what "this" you're referring to.
If I just start spouting off about what I "imagine" you mean, that would make me no better than you, and I ain't goin' there. So how's about you define your terms vis a vis "it"?...

Adam & Lillith?
Adam & Eve?
Adam & Steve?
What?...

[QUOTE] Why have you ignored repeated attempts to discuss this [/QUOTE]
See above

[QUOTE]attempts to discuss this without every argument on your part being based on that book of yours?[/QUOTE]
As regards topics which HAVE been defined, the reason is that my entire LIFE is based on "that book" of mine, so of course I will draw from it substantially.
Whereas your arguments seem to be based on nothing more substantial than your whim (or indigestion) of the moment.
That's the diff twixt you & I, x (or at least the major one):
I base my life and worldview on someone GREATER than myself, and you base yours on ONLY yourself.
Thus dooming you to your current track record of failure.

[QUOTE]It's not like I post anything that deep or complex, nor do I usually post anything that takes a great deal of research to discuss[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it shows.
In spades.

[QUOTE], so why do you refuse to engage in an actual dialogue with me? [/QUOTE]
I'm dialoging with you right now, yo.

[QUOTE]I don't believe in your book, and your book has no demonstrable basis in reality[/QUOTE]
To you, no.
But fortunately, reality is not beholden to YOUR view of it.

[QUOTE]so I instantly dismiss and ignore any arguments you base upon that book. [/QUOTE]
Your call, but then stop whining about the resulting "lack of dialog", eh?...

[QUOTE]And, because you refuse to step outside of the covers of your book and glimpse the real world where gays are actual people[/QUOTE]
I live in the real world. Where gays are real people.
And where every and any other kind of sinner is likewise "real people", including me, and even you.

[QUOTE]you dismiss everything I say. [/QUOTE]
Being that you just admitted that you do the same with me, why do you expect any better from others?
Esp when those others don't particularly care for the profanity (reality check: even if you don't "beleive in" profanity, your momma does, as do a great many other "real people") you spew, esp. when you fling it at ppl you don't even know

[QUOTE] just come out and call me a brainless twit, [/QUOTE]
Why should I, when you've already done the work FOR me?...

[QUOTE]and then make a concerted effort to show me my errors. [/QUOTE]
Been doing that.
But by your own admission, you've been "ignoring" me, so you have no grounds to whine about the consequences of your own ignorance.

======================================
@    dblad:

[QUOTE]Or maybe it means no one can be saved through his money, his skills, his talents, his intellect, or his good looks![/QUOTE]
That is inherent in the message as well.
After all, if one could be saved by one's own efforts and/or merits, there'd be no need for a Savior.

[QUOTE]"Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed[/QUOTE]
Physician, heal thyself.

======================================
@    clyde:

[QUOTE]When you have a piece of bone sticking into your spine and you're taking oxycontin just so you can[/QUOTE]
Oh geez, here we go again.

[QUOTE]You knew exactly what I meant, [/QUOTE]
No, I didn't clyde. Basically, the last half of your sentence there got munged by your piece o' bone-oxycontin syntax, so I really DON'T Know what you were trying to say.

[QUOTE]The devil more likely (except we don't believe in that). [/QUOTE]
Really?
Hmm, then how is it that you can evoke "hell" in your posts if there's no "devil"? Hmmm?.
Contradict much?
Or is it that there IS a hell, but it ain't run by the devil; merely outsourced to cut costs to some outfit in Bangladesh?...

[QUOTE]As has been stated: if you believe G-D could change his mind about an eternal covenant, you have no real faith in him. [/QUOTE]
As I have stated elsewhere, clyde, this is NOT what I beleive.
God didn't "change" his mind, the New Covenant was part of His plan all ALONG

[QUOTE]Atheists have morals.[/QUOTE]
No they don't.
"Morals" cannot be demonstrated to exist without there being some fixed, unchanging  standard by which to judge human behavior.
Atheists don't beleive in God, and so the only "standard" is the ever-changing standard of humanity's whim.
No fixed standard, no morals to speak of.
It's really quite simple.

[QUOTE]And what English concordance are you quoting from?[/QUOTE]
No concordance; Strong's Hebrew.

[QUOTE]The words in context are renewed.[/QUOTE]
Then you'll need to explain this:

"NOT like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they BROKE...But THIS is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel AFTER those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law withIN them, and I will write it ON THEIR HEARTS...And NO LONGER shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother...for they shall ALL know me...For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin NO MORE." (Jer 31)

RENEW means to make something "like new".
And here we have God giving various manner of ways in which this New Covenant will NOT be like the one that came before (even back when THAT one still had that dreamy "new covenant" smell...).

That is, in these ways it will be distinctly DIFFERENT than the older one.
Whatever similarities there may be, when 2 items can be demonstrated to be qualiitatively different from one another, then they are clearly two DIFFERENT items.

All that to say this:
New" means "New", not "REnewed", since renewal by definition cannot make a thing DIFFERENT, nor BETTER than it was before, merely AS it was before, and no mroe than that....

Simple logic, clyde - logic than cuts thru all the bone spurs and oxycontin one cares to throw at it without its edge becoming dulled.

[QUOTE]Even if Jeremiah were speaking of another covenant, it would be referencing worship of a dead man. [/QUOTE]
Not if said man was resurrected.
And He was.

D'oh! indeed.

One thing.  Re: atheists and morals.

TomAnderson wrote:

No they don't.
"Morals" cannot be demonstrated to exist without there being some fixed, unchanging  standard by which to judge human behavior.
Atheists don't beleive in God, and so the only "standard" is the ever-changing standard of humanity's whim.
No fixed standard, no morals to speak of.
It's really quite simple.

Are you defining 'morals' as distinct from 'ethics'.. if we use different definitions we will just talk in parallel and get nowhere.

There are people who sincerely uphold a set of standards and follow a set of rules which guide their behavior with other people so that they treat them fairly and justly.  They may call it 'morals' or 'ethics' or something else, and you may argue over which terms to use where, but the fact is, there are many atheists who are very firmly committed to civil and human rights, fairness and justice.

There are many atheists who are consistently against torture.  On the other hand there are Christians who are not so against torture, didn't see a reason to be bothered by the Bush Administration's tolerance of torture in the war effort.

The decision of a Christian to use the Bible as a guide for morality, is also a human whim.  A faulty human has a whim that they can trust the Bible and rely on it to answer all their questions.

I.e., your faulty human 'whim' to be a Christian and rely on the Bible is no more or less solid than an atheist like mine's whims to be consistently against torture.