94 replies to this topic

[arunma]

Well if it's any consolation I'm agnostic, not athiest. I believe there is a god. But I'm not so sure he's as kind and benolovent as people say he is.

Well, we do think that God is benevolent, but we don't think he's a pansy.

[Dai Grepher]

Great disussions......just IMHO,...the Bible has been written by the inspirations they felt.....plus.... even in today's society...we have had people that have 'read' the Bible...and twisted it for their own ends. (examples: Waco, the factions of LDS,....that eneded up killing folks,...just examples!)/////......

Dai Grepher: The men that wrote the Bible were inspired by God to write what they did. It is the true word of God, which is why God has allowed it to endure the ages.

Moreover,.....when the Bible has been 'revisioned"....King James,..etc...etc.,.....these were readings and writings of people that decided to include different books and passages into those revisions, editions!

Dai Grepher: Like I said before, the King James Version was an exact copy from Hebrew and Greek to English. The message and context were not changed. The NIV is a distorted version however, and some Catholics have excluded parts of the Bible that do not suit them. Such as parts that condemn drinking strong drink.

[img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of those books not included were against the teachings or beliefs that the 'church, or the church's leadership'......so the saying that the winners write the history....that is true,...even in the writings of the Bible

Dai Grepher: Not with God’s word. God didn’t allow that to happen.

Four words: Thou shalt not kill. I don't see "Thu shalt not kill, unless they did something reall bad, in which case you can, or if they broke a law, unless they're insance, oh and also if they make Me angry- unless that means YOU break a law, in which case you shouldn't do it, unless it prevents more killing, unless that's also in My name..." Nuh-uh. "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Dai Grepher: You are using the commandment out of context. The commandment means to not kill another human being in cold blood. If that commandment was as general as you suggest that it is, then God would not have told His people to kill others, nor would He have commanded them to offer sacrifices unto Him.

That law's just a few pages away from the gay sex laws. They both fall under that catagory.

Dai Grepher: Jesus made it ok to eat those things. He did not make it ok to engage in homosexual acts.
I think that God only first commanded that those foods should not be eaten because He wanted the Jews to be a nation that is distinct among others, and also, those kinds of foods, if not prepared or stored properly, can poison the body. They had no way to do that back then. This is why Jesus said that eating those foods does not effect the soul.

They didn't rape them because God adjusted the situation, though. And he didn't sacrifice himself, just his daughters. They were also innocent, and, not being god, unable to as effectively defend themselves. He sounds like a real jackass to me.

Dai Grepher: You first said that they raped the daughters, and I said that they did not because they did not want the women, they wanted the men. That was before God intervened.

Like Alak said: "Thou Shall Not Kill." Not "Thou shall not murder" or "Thou shall not kill unless to cleanse your people of impuritities or in the honor of my holy name."

Dai Grepher: Did God strike anyone down for reaping the fields yielded? He did not, though the people would have to kill plants in order to gather the harvest. Was God angered when His people offered the best of their flock to Him as a sacrifice? No, in fact he commanded it. Was God angry when Moses and the sons of Levi killed all those that stood against God? No, he let it happen.
”Thou shall not kill” means to not murder another human in cold blood.

I'd like to see some quotes because the only thing I've read in chapter one seems to describe lustful gay sex.

Romans 1:31
26 For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Dai Grepher: The group of people that these verse talk about are people that took what God had made, understanding what creation was, and twisted it into their own vile imaginings. They worshiped beasts over God, and so these people corrupted the image of God. God left these people to their own vile affections, and this is where Romans one begins to address affections for things that people should not have affections for. Also, notice verse 26 when it talks about the women changing the natural use into that which is against nature. Their turn toward homosexual tendencies is described to be against nature. The next verse also illustrates this in the men leaving the natural use of the woman to do unseemly acts. This is talking about homosexual acts. Verse 31 again mentions natural affection, which is love for another human. These people were without it, as they gave affection to others of their own gender, not the opposite.
So the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality, from the simplest of bodily contact all the way to intercourse. So lastly, please look at the last verse. It says that those that do such things are worthy of death. As are those that take pleasure in people that do them. Which also means watching other people do that, as in pornography.

Uh yeah, he basically gave up his virgin duaghters to a bunch of angry, horny men. Yeah, he's father-of-year alright. Whether they wanted to rape the girls is irrelivant. He was willing to give up his own children to a bunch of people fuck anything withing with a hole in it. No one in that city was good. Not even Lot.

Dai Grepher: He gave them up so that the strangers would not have to suffer that fate. He put their well being above his own and his family’s because he had compassion for those he thought to be ignorant of the town’s vile corruptness. Lot could have just let the strangers sleep in the street, but he chose to beg them to come into his house so that they would be safe. Lot put their safety above his own, and that showed that he was a good man. However you read into the story does not change that fact.

Actually, Jesus said no such thing. It was only Paul who said that was okay and he claimed to have more authority than the Disciples, because he saw Jesus appear to him on the Road to Damascus. (He claimed to have fallen off his donkey or horse after he saw Jesus, but I doubt it and think he actually fell off before seeing Jesus).

Dai Grepher: You are mistaken.

Actually, some researcher whose book I read suggested the earlier versions didn't really mention sexual sins much when it came to the account of Sodom and Gomorra, rather that God destroyed those cities because they didn't welcome people properly or something like that.

Dai Grepher: I choose to listen to the teachings of a book that God wrote, rather than man.

I think ignoring parts of the Bible is just as bad as taking it too literally. But then again I'm gay and I'm also guilty of doing both extremes so that means crap coming from me.

Dai Grepher: Then what, may I ask, do you believe in?

No offense to anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, I'll take a gay Christian over a straight nonbeliever any day.

Dai Grepher: That very well may be an oxymoron.

Oh I'm flattered but seeing as I'm both gay and a nonbeliever that probably leaves me in the hot water as far as you're concerned.

Dai Grepher: Actually it leaves you in hot fire, unless you accept Jesus Christ and ask him to forgive you of your sins. Jesus can bare the burdens of your sins for you, if you will just let him. I know that God can give you the will and the ability to turn from that sinful lifestyle. He has helped many others do the same.

Well if it's any consolation I'm agnostic, not athiest. I believe there is a god. But I'm not so sure he's as kind and benolovent as people say he is.

Dai Grepher: That is because you do not have a personal relationship with him through the Holy Spirit.

[arunma]

Dai Grepher: Like I said before, the King James Version was an exact copy from Hebrew and Greek to English. The message and context were not changed. The NIV is a distorted version however, and some Catholics have excluded parts of the Bible that do not suit them. Such as parts that condemn drinking strong drink.

Actually, you're putting way too much faith into the KJV. The KJV was translated from about four sets of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, which were all smashed together into a document called the Textus Receptus. Modern versions (including the NIV) are translated from literally thousands of manuscripts. The KJV includes many translational errors. In fact, 1 John 5:7 is a margin note from one of the original manuscripts of the Textus Receptus. That verse happens to be direct Scriptural confirmation of Trinitarian doctrine, which is why the Catholic Church insisted that Erastmus (the redactor of the Textus Receptus) put it in. Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly believe in the Trinity. But I also think it's wrong to add to Scripture. And that's what the KJV does.

If you think the KJV is a "perfect" translation, just read what hte translators themselves said. Go here to read the preface to the original KJV:
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/...y/1611pref.html

They said some surprising things! In regards to making a new translation, they said, "It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned." Read that document, and you'll see that the KJV translators didn't believe their Bible translation was perfect. You shouldn't either.

The KJV Bible is not God's perfect word to man. Jesus is God's perfect word.

Oh by the way, the KJV Bible advocates the existence of unicorns: Numbers 23:22, for example. Do you believe that!?

Dai Grepher: You are mistaken.

Though I wish you'd written more, you are correct. As I said when I wrote my post about Paul: you can't be a Christian if you reject the apostleship of Paul. "Anti-Paul" beliefs are a rather new fad, and they are a new means to attack Christianity. Historically, Paul's apostleship was not doubted. The really dumb thing about this is that people don't like Paul because his Scriptures are written in the forms of letters, while the Gospels are written as stories. As I said before, that is a most idiotic standard by which to judge Scripture.

In addition, the same person who wrote Luke wrote Acts (in which Jesus confirms Paul's apostleship). So for those of you who like reading stories instead of letters: why do you believe the author when he's writing Luke, but not when he's writing Acts?

Dai Grepher: I choose to listen to the teachings of a book that God wrote, rather than man.

Woah now, God didn't write the book, men did. The Bible was inspired by God, and I believe it is inerrent (though you don't have to believe the second part). But the Bible isn't God. That would be idolatry.

Dai Grepher: That very well may be an oxymoron.

No, I absolutely meant what I said. A gay Christian is a child of God who is sinning against him. A straight atheist is a son of hell (no offense to the atheists, but that is what the Bible says), and a child of wrath. The gay Christian will be forgiven, and perhaps even sanctified in this life. But there is no salvation in the heavens or on the earth for the straight atheist. I'll justify that with Scripture, if you want.

[Alakhriveion]

Jesus made it ok to eat those things. He did not make it ok to engage in homosexual acts.
I think that God only first commanded that those foods should not be eaten because He wanted the Jews to be a nation that is distinct among others, and also, those kinds of foods, if not prepared or stored properly, can poison the body. They had no way to do that back then. This is why Jesus said that eating those foods does not effect the soul.

Then what about mixed garments? Clothes don't go in the mouth, generally.

He gave them up so that the strangers would not have to suffer that fate. He put their well being above his own and his family’s because he had compassion for those he thought to be ignorant of the town’s vile corruptness. Lot could have just let the strangers sleep in the street, but he chose to beg them to come into his house so that they would be safe. Lot put their safety above his own, and that showed that he was a good man. However you read into the story does not change that fact.

Dude, his daughters aren't property to be left for the mob. That's not cool.

You first said that they raped the daughters, and I said that they did not because they did not want the women, they wanted the men. That was before God intervened.

No, it wasn't. Read Genesis. God prevented them from getting to the girls.

You are using the commandment out of context. The commandment means to not kill another human being in cold blood. If that commandment was as general as you suggest that it is, then God would not have told His people to kill others, nor would He have commanded them to offer sacrifices unto Him.

Actually, it's fully in context. There are no modifiers to it in that passage.

[SOAP]

Dai Grepher: Actually it leaves you in hot fire, unless you accept Jesus Christ and ask him to forgive you of your sins. Jesus can bare the burdens of your sins for you, if you will just let him. I know that God can give you the will and the ability to turn from that sinful lifestyle. He has helped many others do the same.

Been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt. I'm closer to God now than I ever was when I was Christian because my relationship is with him not a bunch of rules.