The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

A homosexual CofE Bishop!!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
I always suggest to any Creationist who denies evolution, pay a visit to Monkeyworld in Dorset. It's impossible to visit that place for any length of time and not notice how similar in characteristics and behaviour many primates are to us humans.
I had to do a double take to make sure that pic wasn't Hazel Blears
You may wish to read around this subject angryredhead. The word commonly used in these passages is Arsenikos. This is often interpreted by the translators of the Bible as 'gay men' but it really is not the case and in any case doesn't fit with the times. The early translators and the editors of the Authorised/King James version just assumed it meant the same thing as gay man. It doesn't. Interestingly, all the conservative commentators I have read on this end up saying 'That's clearly what they meant' (it isn't, there are other words which do mean gay man in the 1st Century - the bible doesn't use them) or 'This is the tradition of the church' which is true - but it's not a scripture-based argument.

But in any case - are you a Calvinist?*
Original post by StudyJosh
God could have simply made them similar.


Sounds like a religious way of saying we are all related.
Original post by viffer
I had to do a double take to make sure that pic wasn't Hazel Blears


Original post by StudyJosh
I meant in general


No I'm actually very well studied when it comes to Christianity.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Sounds like a religious way of saying we are all related.


all related in terms of all being created.

but humans are different as they are made in the image of God.
Original post by StudyJosh
God could have simply made them similar.


Yes because that the most likely, logical answer supported by an enormous stack of observation. Not.
Original post by leavingthecity
No I'm actually very well studied when it comes to Christianity.


I could see that from previous replies but you seem to have many misconceptions of the scriptures which isn't bad because they are easily interpreted in the sometimes almost blunt way they are put.

Women don't have to be silent?
Woman glory of man not god?
Woman have to wear veils?
They can't ask questions?
Original post by leavingthecity
Yes because that the most likely, logical answer supported by an enormous stack of observation. Not.


I believe in Creationism, so why is it a crime or a logical fallacy to say Creationism doesn't falter just because there are similarities between monkeys and humans.
Original post by StudyJosh
I could see that from previous replies but you seem to have many misconceptions of the scriptures which isn't bad because they are easily interpreted in the sometimes almost blunt way they are put.

Women don't have to be silent?
Woman glory of man not god?
Woman have to wear veils?
They can't ask questions?


They are not misconceptions, they are bible quotations that need to be discussed. Of all the bible study I've done as a Christian and as an atheists, it's very apparent that Christians use "interpretation" as a tool to gloss over many parts of texts that are just plain unpalatable.
Original post by leavingthecity
They are not misconceptions, they are bible quotations that need to be discussed. Of all the bible study I've done as a Christian and as an atheists, it's very apparent that Christians use "interpretation" as a tool to gloss over many parts of texts that are just plain unpalatable.


Let's discuss it then.
Original post by leavingthecity
They are not misconceptions, they are bible quotations that need to be discussed. Of all the bible study I've done as a Christian and as an atheists, it's very apparent that Christians use "interpretation" as a tool to gloss over many parts of texts that are just plain unpalatable.


Furthermore, i'm not using interpretation to gloss anything really. I'm just telling you you have what I believe to be an incorrect one.
Original post by StudyJosh
Let's discuss it then.


Ok you know my position. Go ahead.
Original post by leavingthecity
Ok you know my position. Go ahead.


The command on 1 Corinthians 14:34 doesn't actually mean that women have to be silent in church at all times. It just means they shouldn't participate in the giving of prophecy, the speaking of tongues or the interpretation of tongues.
Original post by StudyJosh
The command on 1 Corinthians 14:34 doesn't actually mean that women have to be silent in church at all times. It just means they shouldn't participate in the giving of prophecy, the speaking of tongues or the interpretation of tongues.


Fair enough if you can provide sources for this. I will try very hard to not tell you to shove said sources when you post them, promise.

So why is this then? Sounds rather unfair no?
Original post by leavingthecity
Fair enough if you can provide sources for this. I will try very hard to not tell you to shove said sources when you post them, promise.

So why is this then? Sounds rather unfair no?


Btw just in case you didn't get the prophecy part. Women can still prophesise but when someone else is prophesying they have to be silent. I think it's meant to be they can't do it in church in front of everyone.

In 1 Corinithians 11:5, it is shown that women prophesy and pray and it is allowable. It also shown in Titus 2:4 that older women are supposed to teach younger women.

The reason Paul wrote this was because of how chaotic the Corinithian church was - there was no pastors, only elders mentioned. And the services were just a combination of everyone prophesying at the same time or speaking tongues at the same time and there was so much confusion.

Part of the confusion was the fact that some women were disruptively asking questions while sermons were being preached so as to purposely interrupt it.

The main reason these are the rules are that women can not assume spiritual authority over men not because of some inferiority (there are probably many women that are spiritually stronger than me) but because of the roles God has set out.

If you look at Adam and Eve, the 'rib' Eve was made of could also be translated as side and could mean that Eve made out of half of Adam.

As Matthew Henry said:
“Eve was not taken out of Adam's head to top him, neither out of his feet to be trampled on by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected by him, and near his heart to be loved by him.”
Original post by leavingthecity
Um, what did my comment have to do with misconceptions about Christianity?


You belive the torture lie of "Hell". "Burning in Hell forever" is a pagan concept and isnt a prt of biblical christianity
Original post by Whopper88
You belive the torture lie of "Hell". "Burning in Hell forever" is a pagan concept and isnt a prt of biblical christianity


Not even when I was a Christian did I believe this, nice try, stop wasting my time.
Original post by StudyJosh
I believe in Creationism, so why is it a crime or a logical fallacy to say Creationism doesn't falter just because there are similarities between monkeys and humans.


Because evolution is a fact.The reason we are so similar is because we descend from a common anscestor.All living things are related and this is shown in many things such as our common dna and similar physical charachteristics.For example lots of animals have two eyes because we have a common anscestor.
Original post by Robby2312
Because evolution is a fact.The reason we are so similar is because we descend from a common anscestor.All living things are related and this is shown in many things such as our common dna and similar physical charachteristics.For example lots of animals have two eyes because we have a common anscestor.


Evolutions is not a fact, in fact it's been disproven all ready because it relies on spontaneous generation which was disproved a 100 years ago. The reason it is still held as scientific is because people don't want to believe in a God.

That similarities only show the hand of the same God at work and doesn't necessarily mean we descend from a common ancestor.

As a Young Earth Creationist, I accept microevolution, adaptation and the fact the Bible talks about monsters and references giant creatures/reptiles which I could count as dinosaurs.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you