While the crucifiction of Jesus Christ is very much related to Passover, Easter is not a celebration of Passover or Christ's death, and the crucifix should absolutely not be the symbol of Easter. Easter, or whatever you want to call it, is a celebration of Jesus' resurrection, hence the symbols of new life. In fact, many Bible-believing Christians refer to it as "resurrection day", for the sake of clarity.
I don't believe any translation that includes the word "Easter" is really referring to this celebration, but rather, as you've pointed out, the correct translation is "Passover", and the context supports that.
Just remember that Jesus also didn't hold back, but told people the truth, in love. Jesus was the first one to point out the sins of those around him. The difference between him and the religious leaders of the time was that he offered them the way of forgiveness rather than just condemnation.
So, while I agree that Christians ought to live among non-Christians in response to the great commission, the truth is that morality is often reduced to the lowest common denominator. Not being divine as Jesus is, Christians often have to choose not to associate with some other people so they won't compromise. There must be a balance.
You might want to do more research before making such claims. The selfless service of Christians to the Afghani people is impacting them spiritually. There are a lot more Muslim-to-Christian converts than you believe.
First, the Bible and Quran cannot simultaneously be God's law because they are contradictory. You have to choose one. I have chosen the Bible.
As I said in a previous post on this thread, you have to decide for yourself which you will believe, but you can't believe them all; You have to choose ONE. I also stated on this thread that I am a Christian, so I can't declare valid anything that contradicts the Bible because I don't believe that is true. You are free to believe otherwise.
Actually, I understood that the Old Testament of the Bible includes the Torah. In other words, the Torah (at least the written Torah, or Tanakh) is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which are all included in the Bible. But, I may be mistaken.
Did you mean Talmud? In any case, I assume that you are referring to the levitical law. As a Christian, I believe that the levitical laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; Hence, we no longer practice things like animal scarifice for the atonement of sin.
And, if you believe that Allah is the same as Jehovah, then you don't believe you really understand the God described in the Torah.
I don't think those bits are incoherent. The Bible presents the truth, the good with the bad. Some readers assume that every act recorded in the Bible is condoned by God. This is not the case. That issue aside, you are correct that there are many people who will try to convince you that other gods are the true God, and that their books contain the truth. In some cases, increasingly so, people will try to tell you that whatever you believe is truth for you; In other words, there is no absolute truth. Personally, I think that is nonsense, and a means to avoid actually figuring out what one believes.
You are the only one who can decide what you believe to be the Truth, but you can't make it up. For me, after a period of investigation and introspection, I've concluded that I believe Jesus Christ is who he said he was, and that the Bible is the Truth.
Everyone is free to believe what he/she wants, but everything cannot be true. 2 + 2 = 4. If I decide that I believe 2 + 2 = 7, I can believe that, but my belief doesn't make it true. Similarly, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but you ought to do your best to discover what is in fact true.
I can't convince you what you should believe. Rather, I encourage you to seek out the Truth for yourself.
I am going to assume that this is a sincere question, and not some bit of sarcasm.
First, which books have you read that claim to be "that book"?
Assumption: The Bible is the inspired word of God. Though there have been differences among manuscripts over time, the essence of the portions containing those differences has remained in tact; In other words, the lexical content may be slightly different, but the meaning is not. We can debate this, but there is sufficient archaelogical evidence to support it.
God's laws are written down in The Holy Bible. I don't know where you live, but it is hard to imagine a place where someone has an internet connection but has not heard God's laws; In the United States, our law is very heavily rooted in God's law, even if people don't want to admit it.
In case you really have not ever heard God's law, the following is a summary from the book of Luke, chapter 10:
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
---------
You know more about God's laws than you might realize. All those things that people inherently know are wrong: murder, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, etc... are summed up by the easier of the two, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.
How is that beside the point? The point is that the sun has not yet reached its state of equilibrium. It will not burn for eternity. Its state of equilibrium will be achieved when it is extinguished. The point is that the sun will ultimately comply withthe Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Personally, I believe that YOU are the idiot. The theory of evolution comprises more than natural selection. I don't believe that there exists any empirical evidence for the origin of everything. It's great that we can see some propogation of beneficial traits, but where did it all begin? With a "big bang"? Really?!
If you are a scientist, you must acknowledge the law of conservation of matter. From where did matter come? What is its origin?
Additionally, it's interesting that you mention other areas of science, which are soundly proven. The fact is that evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which makes it very much unlike any other accepted area of science.
I don't believe that some evidence for natural selection precludes the possibility of an uncaused first cause, or a creator. And, who is to say that an intelligent designer could not include a process like natural selection in the design?
Ok genius, show me how the fact that parts of the Bible are written in different languages represents a "translation of a translation of a....", and give just one example of how the King James translation differs from the orginal Aramaic or Greek (other than the obvious, "it's a different language") as a result of King James' influence. I'm waiting for it...
I hear this lame argument all the time, about there being different translations, and how they say different things. Obviously, it would be best if everyone could read and understand the original language to detect the subtle nuances of the language. But, to say that the translations change the meaning is not a valid argument. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you read a particular portion of the Bible in its context, the principles will transcend the language. Of course, if you like to pick bits out of context, then you can make the Bible say just about anything you want, including, "there is no God." That statment, taken out of context, contradicts the whole of the Bible, and is obviously not the intended meaning.
I'd love it if people actually read the Bible in context.
It must be convenient to avoid considering the contents in their context. If you consider at least the entire chapter 22 of Exodus, you will find that there are two general contexts therein: restitution for and protection of property, and social responsibilities. The verse to which you've referred falls under the social responsibility topic. In this portion of the Bible, the spiritual ramifications of pre-marital sex are not being dealt with. So, this verse really does not support your argument at all.
Lacking the chapter and verse(s) for your other reference, I cannot comment on it.
The Bible honestly presents the actions of even God-fearing people. Because of this, some today choose to use that honesty to purport that every action in the Bible is approved by God unless immediately followed by an explicit rebuke. And this, with complete disregard for context. The truth is that everything in this world is a tainted, less ideal version of what God originally intended, and the actions of individuals must be considered in the context of the whole Bible.
The Bible does not explicitly use the term "trinity" to describe the relationship among the members of the godhead. Does that mean that you deny the trinity? Based on your argument around "fornication", that would be a logical conclusion, but it flies in the face of even the most fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine. It is one of those things that defines Christianity, but the term is never once used in any transalation of the Bible(AFAIK). So, to say that the Bible does not prohibit pre-marital sex, based on the absence of particular words, is incorrect.
Why should they particularly choose to read "the bible"?
Everyone must decide themselves what is truth. You are free to choose whatever you like. Heck, in present society, you can even make up your own individual "truth". Eventually though, all of these moral relativists will have to face THE TRUTH.
Hell, i'd rather they put down "the bible" and pick up a fucking science or history book for once.
Feel free. As I've said, you can choose however you like, but your choice is not validated solely by you choosing it.
Well, its politer than saying "while taking a shit", which is where we all end up doing at least some of our important reading/research/whatever.
yep, many complicated issues have been worked out on the hopper. I'm not sure whether it's the isolation and lack of distractions, or if the human body just needs more "free space" to execute those thought processes...
"(I think you failed to understand why I brought up unborn Iraqi children, but it's a path rarely worth travelling with americans today. Sorry. Maybe in 10-20 years time.)"
Why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain your point more clearly?
"While great inspirational leaders, and people who's thoughts are well worth the time to understand, those agendas were specific to their respective times and peers."
If you knew anything of hermeneutics, then you would understand the timeless principals in the dated contexts. These principals are not themselves dated.
"Assuming you're Christian, the single most enlightening saying of Jesus' is this."
Beside the fact that Christians do not regard this "Gospel of Thomas" as part of the canon, this bit, like other parts of scripture, is meaningless when taken out of context.
I agree that our conversation has strayed, but I think it has been interesting.
"The current violent outlash towards everything "arab/muslim" in the US is a good example. (US military using depleted uranium ammuniation is killing newborn and unborn civilian Iraqi babies in the thousands - how can that be justified"
First, let me say that I am not in favor of the loss of innocent life. Based on your previous arguments, why is such killing not justified? We can find demonstration of senseless killing in nature among animals. At least in America, and I believe it is true abroad as well, we permit the killing of unborn babies by the millions. What's the difference from your perspective?
The problem is that your thoughts are a product of relativistic teaching that permiates the global society. No absolute truth; "Whatever is 'true' for you is, well, true for you. You see a difference between mothers voluntarily terminating pregnancies and the US military unintentionally killing unborn Iraqi babies. And, for some reason, the former is justified while the latter is not. Why? Because that's what you believe? You determine the standard?
"Science is good at admitting we don't know everything, yet, and correcting itself when we've learnt more. That's not a property of faith, however."
Your use of "faith" is quite vague. What would you have corrected?
Wow! It really is no wonder why so many people today have so little respect for themselves or others, and why human life is so undervalued. When you start believing we're just freak accidents of nature that are no different than any other animal in this world, I guess anything goes and that's alright with some people.
Admittedly, I've only just read the blurb on Amazon for "The Lucifer Principle". But, based on that brief bit of information, I would agree that biologically speaking, we are bent toward a lot of behaviors that I would argue are not beneficial to society as a whole. And, if you limit people to pure biology, such that their behavior is outside of their control, then we're screwed! Many people prefer this, and that is why we live in a world where people decreasingly are required to take responsibility for their actions. Personally, I give people more credit than that. I believe that people have the ability to reason that some behaviors are beneficial while others are not. I'll even go so far as to say that people, while biologically bent toward "wrong", innately know what is "right". Driving that ability to reason is a conscience. Explain the conscience biologically, please.
Lay person or not, evolution is undeniably losing credibility among scientists. So, I would hardly agree that it is even close to a scientific law.
And again, if you are going to start declaring that any behavior observed among animals is valid for people, you are headed down a very slippery slope...
Some animals eat their own feces; Shall we start that practice as well? Lions sometimes kill their own young, should we...oh, wait, regrettably we already do allow that.
The fact that a theory allows for the occurance of something does not make that occurance valid. Please try to remember that evolution is a THEORY that is increasingly losing credibility in this age of scientific enlightnement.
And, if you would like to deny man's uniqueness among creatures, then you have other problems.
Let me start off by saying that you are most welcome to have your own beliefs and opinions. However, let me also point out some parts of your argument.
"the very roots of science which is a consistant method, the scientific method"
For the record, the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to prove the pure evolutionist view of creation. And if it's science you prefer, then please note that the theory of evolution flies in the face of one of the most fundamental of scientific laws, the second law of thermodynamics. Additionally, unless you discount archaeology as science, these scientists continue to find evidence of the Bible's validity, rather than evidence to the contrary. Honest, do some research for yourself.
"YOu have decided what you believe but I am agnostic, I think only a fool thinks he knows the truth."
So, agnosticism is the "truth"? Are you a fool?
"I think the only thing that makes a god false is when the people of its religion claim that there is only one path to gods temple when only the whit people live on that side of the temple and all the rest of the people live on other sides."
The God of the Bible does not consider gender or ethnicity when making available his infinite grace. Jesus dies that all might live. By the way, what makes a god true? Do you concede that there is such a thing as absolute truth?
"There may be many ways but there is only one temple. and that is everyones temple, not just the christain road or only the budha road or the agnostic pure scientist road. Those who proclaim that others should walk in their foot steps whould second guess the path they are walking."
So, somehow, you can reconcile all the irreconcilable differences among the religions of the world? I'm afraid that you can either accept Chirstianity "as is", or you must reject it. You cannot possibly lump it together with any other "religion" as it ademantly claims uniqueness and distinction. It declares that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY to eternity with God. You just can't reconcile that.
"You got asexial worms, you got female ducks that scientist have found moslty reach orgasms with other womyn."
So is orgasm the purpose of the ducks' sexual organs? I would argue that the purpose of those organs is propogation of the species. Whether the ducks choose to use them for that purpose, or purely for pleasure, their behavior does not change the purpose. Consider eating. Is eating pleasurable? I think it certainly can be. But is that the purpose of eating? No, the purpose of eating is nourishment of the body. If I were to eat and purge what I've just eaten so that I could enjoy some more eating, I would eventually die because pleasure is not the purpose of eating.
I sincerely hope that nothing I've said has been construed as persecution. That is certainly not my intent. But, someone is right. Something is true. Everything cannot be true all at the same time, especially when the fundamental tenets are so disjointed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, what you've described is known as "Shared Source". "Open Source" has much broader implications.
While the crucifiction of Jesus Christ is very much related to Passover, Easter is not a celebration of Passover or Christ's death, and the crucifix should absolutely not be the symbol of Easter. Easter, or whatever you want to call it, is a celebration of Jesus' resurrection, hence the symbols of new life. In fact, many Bible-believing Christians refer to it as "resurrection day", for the sake of clarity.
I don't believe any translation that includes the word "Easter" is really referring to this celebration, but rather, as you've pointed out, the correct translation is "Passover", and the context supports that.
Just remember that Jesus also didn't hold back, but told people the truth, in love. Jesus was the first one to point out the sins of those around him. The difference between him and the religious leaders of the time was that he offered them the way of forgiveness rather than just condemnation.
So, while I agree that Christians ought to live among non-Christians in response to the great commission, the truth is that morality is often reduced to the lowest common denominator. Not being divine as Jesus is, Christians often have to choose not to associate with some other people so they won't compromise. There must be a balance.
I think you meant 'inedible'.
First, the Bible and Quran cannot simultaneously be God's law because they are contradictory. You have to choose one. I have chosen the Bible.
As I said in a previous post on this thread, you have to decide for yourself which you will believe, but you can't believe them all; You have to choose ONE. I also stated on this thread that I am a Christian, so I can't declare valid anything that contradicts the Bible because I don't believe that is true. You are free to believe otherwise.
So, it's not a presumption, it's a choice.
Actually, I understood that the Old Testament of the Bible includes the Torah. In other words, the Torah (at least the written Torah, or Tanakh) is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which are all included in the Bible. But, I may be mistaken.
Did you mean Talmud? In any case, I assume that you are referring to the levitical law. As a Christian, I believe that the levitical laws were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; Hence, we no longer practice things like animal scarifice for the atonement of sin.
And, if you believe that Allah is the same as Jehovah, then you don't believe you really understand the God described in the Torah.
I don't think those bits are incoherent. The Bible presents the truth, the good with the bad. Some readers assume that every act recorded in the Bible is condoned by God. This is not the case. That issue aside, you are correct that there are many people who will try to convince you that other gods are the true God, and that their books contain the truth. In some cases, increasingly so, people will try to tell you that whatever you believe is truth for you; In other words, there is no absolute truth. Personally, I think that is nonsense, and a means to avoid actually figuring out what one believes.
You are the only one who can decide what you believe to be the Truth, but you can't make it up. For me, after a period of investigation and introspection, I've concluded that I believe Jesus Christ is who he said he was, and that the Bible is the Truth.
Everyone is free to believe what he/she wants, but everything cannot be true. 2 + 2 = 4. If I decide that I believe 2 + 2 = 7, I can believe that, but my belief doesn't make it true. Similarly, you can choose to believe whatever you want, but you ought to do your best to discover what is in fact true.
I can't convince you what you should believe. Rather, I encourage you to seek out the Truth for yourself.
Peace be with you as well.
I am going to assume that this is a sincere question, and not some bit of sarcasm.
First, which books have you read that claim to be "that book"?
Assumption: The Bible is the inspired word of God. Though there have been differences among manuscripts over time, the essence of the portions containing those differences has remained in tact; In other words, the lexical content may be slightly different, but the meaning is not. We can debate this, but there is sufficient archaelogical evidence to support it.
God's laws are written down in The Holy Bible. I don't know where you live, but it is hard to imagine a place where someone has an internet connection but has not heard God's laws; In the United States, our law is very heavily rooted in God's law, even if people don't want to admit it.
In case you really have not ever heard God's law, the following is a summary from the book of Luke, chapter 10:
25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
---------
You know more about God's laws than you might realize. All those things that people inherently know are wrong: murder, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, etc... are summed up by the easier of the two, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.
I hope this helps to answer your question.
How is that beside the point? The point is that the sun has not yet reached its state of equilibrium. It will not burn for eternity. Its state of equilibrium will be achieved when it is extinguished. The point is that the sun will ultimately comply withthe Second Law of Thermodynamics.
But the sun, being a star, is itself degrading with time, no?
Personally, I believe that YOU are the idiot. The theory of evolution comprises more than natural selection. I don't believe that there exists any empirical evidence for the origin of everything. It's great that we can see some propogation of beneficial traits, but where did it all begin? With a "big bang"? Really?!
If you are a scientist, you must acknowledge the law of conservation of matter. From where did matter come? What is its origin?
Additionally, it's interesting that you mention other areas of science, which are soundly proven. The fact is that evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which makes it very much unlike any other accepted area of science.
I don't believe that some evidence for natural selection precludes the possibility of an uncaused first cause, or a creator. And, who is to say that an intelligent designer could not include a process like natural selection in the design?
Ok genius, show me how the fact that parts of the Bible are written in different languages represents a "translation of a translation of a....", and give just one example of how the King James translation differs from the orginal Aramaic or Greek (other than the obvious, "it's a different language") as a result of King James' influence. I'm waiting for it...
I hear this lame argument all the time, about there being different translations, and how they say different things. Obviously, it would be best if everyone could read and understand the original language to detect the subtle nuances of the language. But, to say that the translations change the meaning is not a valid argument. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you read a particular portion of the Bible in its context, the principles will transcend the language. Of course, if you like to pick bits out of context, then you can make the Bible say just about anything you want, including, "there is no God." That statment, taken out of context, contradicts the whole of the Bible, and is obviously not the intended meaning.
I'd love it if people actually read the Bible in context.
It must be convenient to avoid considering the contents in their context. If you consider at least the entire chapter 22 of Exodus, you will find that there are two general contexts therein: restitution for and protection of property, and social responsibilities. The verse to which you've referred falls under the social responsibility topic. In this portion of the Bible, the spiritual ramifications of pre-marital sex are not being dealt with. So, this verse really does not support your argument at all.
Lacking the chapter and verse(s) for your other reference, I cannot comment on it.
The Bible honestly presents the actions of even God-fearing people. Because of this, some today choose to use that honesty to purport that every action in the Bible is approved by God unless immediately followed by an explicit rebuke. And this, with complete disregard for context. The truth is that everything in this world is a tainted, less ideal version of what God originally intended, and the actions of individuals must be considered in the context of the whole Bible.
The Bible does not explicitly use the term "trinity" to describe the relationship among the members of the godhead. Does that mean that you deny the trinity? Based on your argument around "fornication", that would be a logical conclusion, but it flies in the face of even the most fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine. It is one of those things that defines Christianity, but the term is never once used in any transalation of the Bible(AFAIK). So, to say that the Bible does not prohibit pre-marital sex, based on the absence of particular words, is incorrect.
Why should they particularly choose to read "the bible"?
Everyone must decide themselves what is truth. You are free to choose whatever you like. Heck, in present society, you can even make up your own individual "truth". Eventually though, all of these moral relativists will have to face THE TRUTH.
Hell, i'd rather they put down "the bible" and pick up a fucking science or history book for once.
Feel free. As I've said, you can choose however you like, but your choice is not validated solely by you choosing it.
I would love for once to see some real evidence to support this vague claim.
The reference is to a previous post,2 770&cid=13602316,
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16
and was meant to point out the irrationality of the statement that says, "WebSphere is open source."
Another "purple monkey dishwasher" comment. And, innaccurate as usual.
Well, its politer than saying "while taking a shit", which is where we all end up doing at least some of our important reading/research/whatever.
yep, many complicated issues have been worked out on the hopper. I'm not sure whether it's the isolation and lack of distractions, or if the human body just needs more "free space" to execute those thought processes...
Why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain your point more clearly?
"While great inspirational leaders, and people who's thoughts are well worth the time to understand, those agendas were specific to their respective times and peers."
If you knew anything of hermeneutics, then you would understand the timeless principals in the dated contexts. These principals are not themselves dated.
"Assuming you're Christian, the single most enlightening saying of Jesus' is this."
Beside the fact that Christians do not regard this "Gospel of Thomas" as part of the canon, this bit, like other parts of scripture, is meaningless when taken out of context.
I agree that our conversation has strayed, but I think it has been interesting.
First, let me say that I am not in favor of the loss of innocent life. Based on your previous arguments, why is such killing not justified? We can find demonstration of senseless killing in nature among animals. At least in America, and I believe it is true abroad as well, we permit the killing of unborn babies by the millions. What's the difference from your perspective?
The problem is that your thoughts are a product of relativistic teaching that permiates the global society. No absolute truth; "Whatever is 'true' for you is, well, true for you. You see a difference between mothers voluntarily terminating pregnancies and the US military unintentionally killing unborn Iraqi babies. And, for some reason, the former is justified while the latter is not. Why? Because that's what you believe? You determine the standard?
"Science is good at admitting we don't know everything, yet, and correcting itself when we've learnt more. That's not a property of faith, however."
Your use of "faith" is quite vague. What would you have corrected?
Admittedly, I've only just read the blurb on Amazon for "The Lucifer Principle". But, based on that brief bit of information, I would agree that biologically speaking, we are bent toward a lot of behaviors that I would argue are not beneficial to society as a whole. And, if you limit people to pure biology, such that their behavior is outside of their control, then we're screwed! Many people prefer this, and that is why we live in a world where people decreasingly are required to take responsibility for their actions. Personally, I give people more credit than that. I believe that people have the ability to reason that some behaviors are beneficial while others are not. I'll even go so far as to say that people, while biologically bent toward "wrong", innately know what is "right". Driving that ability to reason is a conscience. Explain the conscience biologically, please.
And again, if you are going to start declaring that any behavior observed among animals is valid for people, you are headed down a very slippery slope...
Some animals eat their own feces; Shall we start that practice as well? Lions sometimes kill their own young, should we...oh, wait, regrettably we already do allow that.
"Homosexuality is both supported by evolution"
Please elaborate.
The fact that a theory allows for the occurance of something does not make that occurance valid. Please try to remember that evolution is a THEORY that is increasingly losing credibility in this age of scientific enlightnement.
And, if you would like to deny man's uniqueness among creatures, then you have other problems.
"the very roots of science which is a consistant method, the scientific method"
For the record, the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to prove the pure evolutionist view of creation. And if it's science you prefer, then please note that the theory of evolution flies in the face of one of the most fundamental of scientific laws, the second law of thermodynamics. Additionally, unless you discount archaeology as science, these scientists continue to find evidence of the Bible's validity, rather than evidence to the contrary. Honest, do some research for yourself.
"YOu have decided what you believe but I am agnostic, I think only a fool thinks he knows the truth."
So, agnosticism is the "truth"? Are you a fool?
"I think the only thing that makes a god false is when the people of its religion claim that there is only one path to gods temple when only the whit people live on that side of the temple and all the rest of the people live on other sides."
The God of the Bible does not consider gender or ethnicity when making available his infinite grace. Jesus dies that all might live. By the way, what makes a god true? Do you concede that there is such a thing as absolute truth?
"There may be many ways but there is only one temple. and that is everyones temple, not just the christain road or only the budha road or the agnostic pure scientist road. Those who proclaim that others should walk in their foot steps whould second guess the path they are walking."
So, somehow, you can reconcile all the irreconcilable differences among the religions of the world? I'm afraid that you can either accept Chirstianity "as is", or you must reject it. You cannot possibly lump it together with any other "religion" as it ademantly claims uniqueness and distinction. It declares that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY to eternity with God. You just can't reconcile that.
"You got asexial worms, you got female ducks that scientist have found moslty reach orgasms with other womyn."
So is orgasm the purpose of the ducks' sexual organs? I would argue that the purpose of those organs is propogation of the species. Whether the ducks choose to use them for that purpose, or purely for pleasure, their behavior does not change the purpose. Consider eating. Is eating pleasurable? I think it certainly can be. But is that the purpose of eating? No, the purpose of eating is nourishment of the body. If I were to eat and purge what I've just eaten so that I could enjoy some more eating, I would eventually die because pleasure is not the purpose of eating.
I sincerely hope that nothing I've said has been construed as persecution. That is certainly not my intent. But, someone is right. Something is true. Everything cannot be true all at the same time, especially when the fundamental tenets are so disjointed.