Predestination and Free Will

[Mr. Tweedy]

Two answers for slic:

What (I think) eytanz and I have is not a common belief but a common understanding what belief itself is.  Because we understand what belief is, we have a platform to discuss which beliefs are right or wrong.  And yes, I surely believe things that contradict with things he believes, but that doesn't mean the goal of discussion would be nothing other than to make the other guy say "uncle."  If we are mature and honest, each of us should try to understand what the other believes.  This understanding will allow us not only to criticize the beliefs of the other person, but to reflect upon and question our own.  Even if we don't walk away having come to the same conclusions, we will have grown and learned from the experience, and have gained reason to respect each other.  I can respect any honest person.  Dishonesty I do not respect.

I would hope that he would come to my point of view and become a Christian: I want everyone to become a Christian.  But I would still enjoy and learn from discussion and friendship, even if he never came around, and I would surely find that I had been mistaken about some things on my end.  If nothing else, we would both understand our own beliefs better, and that is something of worth.

As to your specific question about homosexuality, one of the core tennants of my religion is that I, personally, am a sinner.  If I decided to go evicting all the sinners on my block, I'd have to move out myself.  I am no better than any sinner.  I am saved by grace.  For me to call for the eviction of the local gay couple would require that my religion be turned on its head, because I am instructed by Christ to love sinners, with the understanding that I am one myself.

I don't think anyone here gets what I mean by that: My religion is based around the idea that I am fallible.  I am wrong.  I am bad.  I am a sinner.  I, Josh Hugo, am personally prone to grevious error.  That's why I need Jesus.  Anyone who gets some sort of superiority complex out of Christianity has totally missed the point.

And that's why it shouldn't scare you, slic, that I appeal to an external source of Truth.  By doing so, I am necessarily admitting that I don't know everything.  If I did not appeal to something external, if I felt free to make up what whatever "truth" I saw fit, then that would be scary, because I'm not a good person, and I could make up some awful things.

[Rachel Swirsky]

I find it frustrating that you're telling Slic what should scare him.

[Bdoomed]

For the people who are not members of organized religions but still believe in God, why do you believe in God?

Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.  There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that.  When the evidence comes to not believe in God, we'll see then.  Until then tho, I believe in God.  I belive that God exists, I believe that God set the laws of physics and let nature run its course afterwards.
eytanz puts my other reasons quite perfectly!

I do not belong to any organized religion because I am unwilling to take the next step and ascribe motives and actions or values to God. Religions are a way to reduce God into everyday terms we can handle. I have no need to handle God, I just know It is there.

-----------------------

Once again I find myself seemingly alone in disagreement with everyone, which is cool: I'm used to that

haha awww its okay Mr. Tweedy
-----------------------

Pardon if this seems flippant, but I mean it sincerely: I don't see much difference between unquestioningly swallowing something someone else made up and swallowing something you yourself made up.  Where is the logic of opting out of a religious system because it is baseless only to fabricate your own equally baseless system?  Whether a dead guy made it up 2000 years ago or you made it up last week, it's still made up, so what's the difference?  (Not that I think my religion is made up: I believe it's really true.)

well opting out of a religious system because its baseless just to make your own baseless system is simply done because it will make that person more content with his/her beliefs.  I could opt out of Judaism to believe that God is a rabid moose with bigfoot riding on its back if it helps me sleep better at night.  The logic is simply to make you feel better about life.  Tweedy, you belive in your religion in part because, im sure, it gives a sense of knowledge and security.  Im not sayin thats the ONLY reason but im sure its part of it.  It gives people something to latch on to, something to be backed up by.  If someone like me disagrees with the religion, and feels better believing what they want to believe, then thats what they'll do.  And whether I'm right, your right, or the guy who believes in the moose is right, doesnt really matter, because we dont know anything yet. (makes me think of the South Park episode where there are a bunch of people in heaven and the angels say "Im sorry people it turns out the Mormons were right this year, sorry" --not an exact quote-- and the Mormons go to heaven and everyone else is sent to hell... oh well...)

[slic]

So, Mr. Tweedy (Josh), you are just reinforcing my belief that you are a good person, certainly the "let ye without sin cast the first stone" idea is part of your core belief - if only all "true believers" had your humility - I recall the "Life of Brian" bit where the same command was given only to have the poor fellow stoned before he could get out of the way.

But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility.  Or rather that God didn't say that.

If I did not appeal to something external...

I commend you on your frankness, but I didn't argue that your belief system should be internal, just that it should be questioned.  What bothers me is not that you believe that homosexuality is immoral, per se, it's that you believe it unconditionally, with blind faith, "to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition".

[Bdoomed]

But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility.  Or rather that God didn't say that.

may i ask what you meen by this?  you seem to be makin me out to be some sort of blind faith radical...?

But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith?  Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part?  He could believe this based on the morals he was raised with.  there are millions of reasons why he could believe it, not JUST because God says so but also maybe because he truly believes it.  Sure i'm in disagreement with him on the subject, but i'm not about to accuse him of believing it with blind faith.  everyone has their reasons....

[slic]

But then Bdoomed, and forgive me for singling you out, goes and says the one thing that reinforces my fear - it a good thing for me that Bdoomed wasn't raised believing that Italians, or did I mean spics, are untrustworthy, lazy people who shouldn't be given any responsibility.  Or rather that God didn't say that.

may i ask what you meen by this?  you seem to be makin me out to be some sort of blind faith radical...?

In a recent post you wrote, "Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.
 There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that.  When the evidence comes to not believe in God, we'll see then.  Until then tho, I believe in God."

It is believing the default that frightens me.

Allow a minor substitution to make my point:
""Truthfully, I believe Green People are Inferior because I was raised believing Green People are Inferior , and I see no evidence that would make me not believe Green People are Inferior . There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that.  When the evidence comes to not believe Green People are Inferior , we'll see then.  Until then tho, I believe Green People are Inferior ."
Not too long ago many people around the world were raised believing Blacks were less than Whites, and they saw no evidence to disprove it.  Is that blind faith?  Well in this forum where semantics rule, and people have seemingly wildly different dictionaries, I can't say.  But it is accurate to call it an unquestioned common belief. 

Believing the default frightens me. 

And when it comes to God - that scares me the most because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide you with to counter your arguement.  Now, I don't mean to imply you are a Bible literalist or a "radical" of any sort.  I haven't heard exactly what your belief in God entails.  Or how what you family taught you, but I think it is a fair assumption that by calling Him God (and not Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or Odin) that you hold some belief in what the Bible says.  And there are many things written in the Bible some that you may agree with and some that you may not.

But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith?  Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part? 

I will try and track done the post on this forum and provide a link so you may draw your own conclusions, but as I recall, it was basically that homosexual acts are immoral because the Bible says so.

[Rachel Swirsky]

(In a part of Leviticus, which he's also said he doesn't follow.)

[slic]

Not clear on what specifically palimpsest is quoting, but looking back at the Tolerant / Intolerant I can't find an explict statement (but man that thread is loooong).  The closest is Mr. Tweedy's posting at http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=816.80

For the record, I'm not trying to slam anyone, just citing my source material.

[wakela]

I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.

Is this different from feeling awe?  If you took God out of the picture, would your feeling of awe be any different?  Does your God have a consciousness?

Tweedy, what happens to people who have not accepted Christ when they die?

Others, do you believe in an afterlife? 

Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.

It's commendable that you are this honest with yourself.  Respectfully, I think this is the wrong way to go about believing in something.   Would you believe that there are Pizza Huts on Pluto until you see evidence of the contrary, even if you were raised that way? 

[eytanz]

I believe in God because I feel It in the world around me. I don't know what it is I feel, but I do - always - have a sense of overall greatness that I can't quite grasp but that I can't ever get away from (not that I'd want to). The sense of scale that tells me, both how tiny I, and everything in my perception, is compared to the universe, and at time how significant every little thing is. Since there is so much and all of it is important, then for me the only way to conceptualize that is by naming it something, and God is as good a name as any.

Is this different from feeling awe?

It's different, because it is an ever-present feeling. Awe is a reaction to a particular stimulus, and it lasts a short amount of time. This doesn't - it's always there, for me to tap into, no matter where I am or what I'm doing.

If you took God out of the picture, would your feeling of awe be any different?

I don't understand this question. How can I take God out of the picture? Go to your kitchen and pour a glass of water, and drink it. I can ask you what drinking the water is like, and you can answer me. But if I ask you "think back to when you were drinking the water, and take the hydrogen atoms out of the picture. What was your reaction to drinking the oxygen atoms that were in the glass?" I doubt you'll be able to come up with an answer.

Does your God have a consciousness?

I doubt it. Certainly not anything that resembles human consciousness. I cannot answer the question of what It *does* have, because I am human and have finite capacity to perceive and understand, and It is infinite.

Others, do you believe in an afterlife?

I don't. I find it a silly notion on the philosophical level, and a hugely disturbing on the sociological level.

[Bdoomed]

It is believing the default that frightens me.

Allow a minor substitution to make my point:
""Truthfully, I believe Green People are Inferior because I was raised believing Green People are Inferior , and I see no evidence that would make me not believe Green People are Inferior . There is no evidence to prove it either, but I dont need that.  When the evidence comes to not believe Green People are Inferior , we'll see then.  Until then tho, I believe Green People are Inferior ."

i see what you mean, but NEVER FEAR, my parents raised me well.  But really I only apply the "see no reason to not believe" to God, nothing else.  Im sure anyone can find PLEANTY of evidence showing that Italians aren't lazy good for nothings.  Im talking about the completely intangible.
God is not a part of my daily life by ANY stretch of the imagination, but when someone asks me if i believe in God i say yes.  (its also easier than saying no and having that person ask me what the hell is wrong with me)
Lately i've been debating the existence of god, just to myself.  Not often of course because god is, again, not part of my daily life by ANY stretch of the imagination. ive been seeing less and less reason to believe in him/her/it.  I mean, if god isnt an intricate part of my life, what is holding me back from not believing in him/her/it?  It wont change anything about me whether or not i believe or not, and i guess i MOSTLY say i believe because i just dont know and dont care enough to find out, so why not take the easy way out of the convorsation and say yes.  For those of you who DO feel god's presence, all the more power to you, but i dont see much reason in MY believing in god lately.  its not really doing me a service or disservice.  I could go on exactly the same without believing in God, but, at least to me, to think that life and everything happened purely by chance, and physics are physics because they are is kind of a stretch.  I believe God set physics and let the rest happen.

And when it comes to God - that scares me the most because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide you with to counter your arguement.  Now, I don't mean to imply you are a Bible literalist or a "radical" of any sort.  I haven't heard exactly what your belief in God entails.  Or how what you family taught you, but I think it is a fair assumption that by calling Him God (and not Jehovah, Allah, Zeus or Odin) that you hold some belief in what the Bible says.  And there are many things written in the Bible some that you may agree with and some that you may not.

raised Jewish, so i guess youd say Torah rather than Bible, but i use "God" because its a conveniant term to get my point across.  Yahweh, Adonai, Lord, etc... i dont care.  For all i know his name is Jim.
never read the Bible, maybe i should just too see what everyone else is thinking...  but i'd probably get incredibly bored with it FAR too quickly.  Its probably also very similar to the torah... but i dont know.
I also dont believe most things said in the Torah.  I can wrap my head around the Jews fleeing Egypt, but i'm assuming it was coincidence that brought the plagues.  i dont believe anyone ever talked to a burning bush.  Unless they were on some kind of hallucinogen.  I also bet im pissing a LOT of people off by saying this stuff, i dont know, its just my beliefs (or lack thereof)
I'm more of a scientific explanation guy.  I enjoyed the History Channel's explanation for the parting of the Sea of Reeds.

But also, how do you know that Tweedy believes homosexuality is immoral with blind faith?  Has he explicitly stated such or is it more of a supposition on your part? 

I will try and track done the post on this forum and provide a link so you may draw your own conclusions, but as I recall, it was basically that homosexual acts are immoral because the Bible says so.

alright, as long as you are basing your statement on something *semi* concrete

Tweedy, what happens to people who have not accepted Christ when they die?

Dont start this.  Just dont.

Truthfully, I believe in God because I was raised believing in God, and I see no evidence that would make me not believe in God.

It's commendable that you are this honest with yourself.  Respectfully, I think this is the wrong way to go about believing in something.   Would you believe that there are Pizza Huts on Pluto until you see evidence of the contrary, even if you were raised that way? 

just makin sure ya know i addressed this, i said it earlier on.  I only apply this to god, i cant say i have the same ideas for anything else.'

and as to the afterlife part, i really dont know.  I think its a great way to get people to be nice and not simply go around filling their own selfish needs, but after that it just seems far fetched.  But contrastly, the idea of nothing is way too hard to grasp.  Try to imagine not feeling, thinking, ANYTHING... you cant.  Its completely impossible to imagine what death will be like, because you will never actually experiance being dead, that is unless there is an afterlife.  Id LOVE to believe that there is an afterlife, and that I will go to heaven or whatever youd want to call it, but i dont really think so.

[Mr. Tweedy]

(In a part of Leviticus, which he's also said he doesn't follow.)

Actually, it's in lots of places.  Romans 1 (toward the end) is another example.  As for "following" Leviticus, I believe that Leviticus is true, that is, it's statements are accurate; it is a valid source of information about God and about history.  But there is no mandate for Christians to obey the laws written there.  I don't go outside my camp and dig a hole to crap in, but I appreciate that God told the people then to do that, and appreciating that tells me something about God.

[Heradel]

So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?

[slic]

So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?

Hey now, that belongs on the Tolerance/Intolerance thread - this is Predestination thread man

[Mr. Tweedy]

So either God is not omniscient and has learned tolerance along with the rest of us, or you're fine with a
God that's homophobic?

Ha!  That's a strange way of putting it.  I'm fine with God being whatever God is.  It's not up to me tell God what things are sins and what aren't.  He wouldn't be God if I got to pick and choose his qualities.

God says that all sex that is not between husband and wife is immoral, and, yes, I'm perfectly fine with that.  But I don't want to talk about sex anymore.  It's a big digression from the main topic.

[Bdoomed]

Thank you Tweedy for not picking that up, lets not go into that topic.  Cant we just agree to disagree?

[Rachel Swirsky]

Look, the prohibition in Leviticus against gay sex is teh only place where such prohibition exists in the bible. It exists alongside the prohibition against wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.

In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.

[Rachel Swirsky]

And no, bdoomed, not really. Why would a conversation about the ... frighteningness of religious belief leave out two of the ways in which Christianity is most frightening: its theology of hellfire, and its repeated historicla willingness to endorse bigotry (though the current conversation focuses on homosexuality, let us not ignore the endorsement of slavery via Biblical text, the spanish inquisition, the witch hunts).

Its disingenuous to begin a conversation like this, asking someone to justify his religious beliefs, and then to bar some of those justifications from the conversation.

I think there are only two reasonable moderation options from here: 1) a conversation which doesn't cut off the streams of thought which are controversial (as a conversation that restricts any arguments about Christianity's historical faults will, perforce, make it less viable to justify a position opposiing organized religion -- basically, it biases the conversation in favor of one result), or 2) acknowledge that the conversation includes topics which the moderator does not want on the board, and close it down.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Palimpsest, I really don't want to go there.  I was enjoying the discussion about epistimology, and I don't want to get sucked into the fight that you're trying bait me into.  I'll respond to you here, briefly, and then I'm not going to mention homosexuality again: That's not what this thread is about.

Leviticus is most certainly not the only place in the Bible homosexuality is metioned as being bad: Sorry, you're wrong.  If you think it is, it can only be because you haven't read much of the Bible and don't know what you're talking about.  Read Romans 1.  Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  There are other explicit mentions too, and lots where the idea is implicit.

Your charge of hypocrisy again rises from ignorance: Christians are not bound by Old Testament law, whether that law concerns sex, slaves or shellfish.  The OT is history, as every Christian I have ever spoken with understands.

Finally: Yes people have done really, really evil things in the name of Christ.  I would make no effort to deny that the Bible has been maliciously misused in the past: I'm as appalled as you are.  As I've mentioned before, every belief system has been explioted for evil, atheism most deffinately included.  I'm not trying to defend every idiot who ever waved a cross over his head.  Jesus himself said that lots of phony, bad people would come along claiming to be Christians who weren't, and He was right.  Everyone thinks the Inquisition was bad, and your trying to associate it with my beliefs makes exactly as much sense as me associating you with Chairman Mao simply because he was an atheist.

If we're going to have a reasonable discussion/debate, we can't slip to the low level of insult that you seem to be aiming at.  Please consider my ideas on their merits instead of trying to dismiss me as a witch-burner, and I'll consider yours on their merits without dismissing you as a Stalinist.

Please stop trying to pick fights with me now.  I'm not interested.

[Mr. Tweedy]

If I did not appeal to something external...

I commend you on your frankness, but I didn't argue that your belief system should be internal, just that it should be questioned.  What bothers me is not that you believe that homosexuality is immoral, per se, it's that you believe it unconditionally, with blind faith, "to be steadfast and continue to believe in what you are convinced is true in the face of opposition".

Okay, I think this is getting someplace, slic, and I totally see your point and agree with you.  One of my personal motos is "question everything," and I do, and I think everyone should.

What is scary to all of us is, I think, closed-mindedness.  I define that as the unwillingness to consider new evidence.  When someone's mind is closed, evidence bounces off their skull unheard and unconsidered.  Going back to Lewis's definition of faith, a closed-minded person is one who proactively labels any contrary opinion as non-cogent without bothering to consider it.  That's scary.  That's dangerous.  But it doesn't take being religious to be closed-minded.  People can be (and are) closed-minded on any number of issues.  You don't have to think you ideas are from God in order to hold to them unreasonably.

As an aside, I recommend everybody to read "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.  Although I don't agree with every last line in it, it's a great book about reasonable and unreasonable belief.  Very thought-provoking.

[slic]

In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.

In palimpsest's defence, it's also unclear to me (and most non-Christians, I believe) how it is that parts of the Bible have different merit. 
First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously?  Did I get that right?  And if I did, I can give some personal, fairly recent examples of the opposite of this.
And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books? 
And, as I understand it, beyond the different versions (King James', etc), Protestants and Catholics have some very different versions from each other.

The one trouble I have with Mr. Tweedy when he talks of Christians, is that the group is so very very large.

So I don't think it's entirely unfair to ask that you clarify what parts you hold close to your heart. From your confirmation of faith, I would have though it was all consider literal to you - I was surprised when you said the the OT is considered history.

And I didn't see that she was linking your personal belief to the Spanish Inquisition or the justification of Slavery - just that others had used passages of the Bible to justify their belief, and I extrapolate from that, the idea of knowing what passages you use.

I'm not arguing your belief, I'm just trying to understand how you manage what appear to me as contradictions of "do onto others" and "homos shouldn't marry because"
I'm just hoping for see how you came to your interpretations - "...and lots where the idea is implicit."  This is what I'm interested in, and I really hope to not offend.  I appreciate the candor and the openness.

Okay, I think this is getting someplace, slic, and I totally see your point and agree with you.  One of my personal motos is "question everything," and I do, and I think everyone should.

Now this is where you continue to prove to me that we could easily get along.  While I agree that many people are closed minded about many things, I will point out that I find that most people are the most closed-minded about their religion.  And that my understanding/def'n of Faith plays a large part in that.

[eytanz]

In valuing one and not the other, you are being hypocritical.

In palimpsest's defence, it's also unclear to me (and most non-Christians, I believe) how it is that parts of the Bible have different merit. 
First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously?  Did I get that right?  And if I did, I can give some personal, fairly recent examples of the opposite of this.
And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books? 

I'm not a Christian, but I have close friends who are and we've discussed this in the past, and I have also taken a course in Christian theology back in college (it was that or Jewish theology and, growing up in Israel, at least Christianity had the benefit of being exotic). So let me try answering this: Basically, take the names "the *new* testament" and "the *old* testament" seriously. The testaments were basically contracts between humanity and God. While it's not entirely clear to me what Christian think the first one was for, it is clear that it was annulled and replaced by the new one.

Of course, the books that contain the Old Testament also contain a lot more, such as historical descriptions from the creation of the world to the establishment and eventual destruction of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, hymns and poetry, and prophecy. These are still of value to Christians, even if the old contract is not. So, basically, for most Christians, everything in the so-called "Old Testament" is the word of God, but some of it is outdated by later words of God, while the rest isn't.

This gets more complicated since Christianity is very splintered and different Christian denominations draw the line differently between what parts were annulled and what is still valid. Not to mention that there are plenty of crazy Christian and semi-Christian groups that seem to basically ignore the distinction and just take whatever supports their view as Law and ignore the rest. But I think the basic notion behind the division of the bible in mainstream Christianity is both sane and sensible.

Not that I believe any of it, mind you. But it seems to me perfectly reasonable that some - indeed, many - people do.

[Mr. Tweedy]

You're right, it is very hard trying to talk about this stuff with so much water under the historical bridge.  Terms get very muddy, which is part of the reason why it's important to articulate and discuss beliefs, not just go by labels.

When I say "Christian" I mean "one who believes in Christ as He is described in the Bible."  I could care less if people call themselves Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or Church of Bob: "What do you believe?" is what I'm interested in, and one's beliefs are demonstrated far more saliently by one's actions than by what label is attached to oneself.  For my part, I attach no label to myself but "Christian," because I have faith in Christ, not in any particular preacher or historical tradition.

First there is the difference btwn Old and New Testament - and from what Mr. Tweedy says, it's all the word of God, but no one takes the Old Testament seriously?  Did I get that right?

Yes and no.  The Old Testament is taken very seriously: It is the word of God and it is true, but the commands it contains are not aimed at us.  The OT is a valid and vital source of information, and it tells us lots of important things about God, but it's specific rules were for the ancient Jews to follow, not for Christians, who follow the New Testament.  It's like if you're dad is giving instructions to your older sibling: The specific instructions are not for you to follow, but you can learn a lot about who your dad is, what he's like and what he values by listening.  Take it seriously, take it as fact, but understand that the "thou shalts" are not spoken to you.  You're overhearing someone else's conversation.

And then what about the "Deuterocanonical" Books? 
And, as I understand it, beyond the different versions (King James', etc), Protestants and Catholics have some very different versions from each other.

Not sure.  Never made much study of them, but I understand that their historical validity is far less certain than the cannonical books, and that they don't really say much anyway.  They're a very short segment of the Bible in any case, and the Catholic/Protestant versions are identical except for the ommission of those few short books.

From your confirmation of faith, I would have though it was all consider literal to you - I was surprised when you said the the OT is considered history.

I take it litterally and I take it as history.  I don't see how that's a contradiction.  It's a factual recounting of what happened back then, same as any accurate historical work.

I'm not arguing your belief, I'm just trying to understand how you manage what appear to me as contradictions of "do onto others" and "homos shouldn't marry because"

Take it this way: If I view a thing as a sin, then I am doing a diservice to others by sanctioning it.  If I believe that a person is making a dangerous mistake, then the loving thing to do it to inform them of their error and help them correct it.  To see someone in error and lie to them and tell them they were okay would be hateful, not loving.  If someone saw me making a mistake, I'd want them to tell me.  I am doing nothing good for a sinner by telling them that they aren't one.

Does that clarify my perspective?

...And eytanz seems to have decent idea of where I'm coming from also.

[Heradel]

You misread me, I'm not talking about homosexuality, only using it as an example of contradictions between both old/new Testament and Bible/modern day life. It's hard to accept that the new only supplants the old when it comes from God/his progeny.

 There are numerous arguments I need to respond to, I'll get them later tonight.

[slic]

Others, do you believe in an afterlife? 

This was a good question that I forgot to answer.  So, from my own self-important ego, I like to think there is a continuation of spirit.  What form that takes is pretty much dependant on my mood
I like to think that "heaven" has everyone I ever wanted to talk to, every book I'd ever want to read, and every opportunity I'd want to try, and stuff I didn't even know I'd want to know, along with all the time to enjoy them.
This makes me wonder though - in the traditional sense of the concept of heaven, essentially that all your heart's desires come true, how do people/souls get along?  Imagine someone from 1935 or Victorian England with very strict views of dress and deportment and someone from a Californian commune hanging out - wouldn't they drive each other to distraction?

Does that clarify my perspective?

For the most part it helps, but your lack of interest in the other Books seems backwards.  You want to learn about your God, and yet these accounts are somewhat ignored.  Who is it that decided their historical validity is far less certain?