Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

so where does Jesus say that being gay is bad?

*it may be in there, I just don't have a bible handy right now

Tell me what you think of this.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9504b.htm

About half way down deals with "What did Jesus say?"

Gotta go again. Be back later.

[yoshimi55 0]

Heterosexuals don't have to march to display their sexuality. It's everywhere you look. I'm pretty sure you would freak out if the same amount of money was invested into advertising based on homosexuality as it is with heterosexuality. Go ahead and open any magazine, or watch any television show and you'll see what I'm saying. Homosexuals should be allowed all the same basic human rights as Heterosexuals. Do you not believe in treating others as you would like to be treated? People like you worry way too much about belittling others, when you should be focusing on bettering yourselves.

[yoshimi55 0]

It's funny that you mentioned someone getting riled up. I don't know if I would call it being riled up on your part, maybe just pathetic, but did you or did you not go through a LOT of effort to put every bible gay bashing quote on your first post?

[billvon 2,998]

>I don’t deny that people pick and choose what best suits them from
> the Bible. That does not make it right. Your reference to old Jewish
> law, however, was cancelled out by the New Covenant that I just
> described as a means for salvation.

Well, but it seemed like you were claiming before that the ten commandments were still valid, despite being in the old testament. And if they are - do you skydive on the weekends?

Also, how do you square your belief with Matthew 5:17-20, which states that Jesus came to ensure that the Laws of the Prophets would be fulfilled?

>Righteousness now only comes by the grace of God through faith in
>his son, Jesus Christ. It is very clear.

I have no problem with such a belief; it cancels out a lot of contradictions inherent in trying to interpret the bible. It also, however, allows for a gay man to have as strong a faith (and as righteous a lifestyle) as yours.

>You’re trying to compare the two in an effort to strengthen the case
> of the homosexual movement, and therefore, achieve some of the
> same goals. '

I did not intend to equate the two; there is no data that suggests any links between homosexuality and race or ethnicity. The only common link is that they are all people and thus are all equal (or should be equal) in the eyes of the law.

I am heterosexual. I did not decide that; I came pre-wired that way. At no time in my (post-adolescent) life did I look at a man and a woman and think "hey, I could fantasize about having sex with either one of those, and I think I will choose to fantasize about women." I hit 13 years old and some deep structure in my brain responded to new hormones - and I became a typical horny teenager.

Some people are wired differently. It has nothing to do with race, or religion, or ethnicity, it just has to do with how they are wired. They do not choose to be attracted to the same sex any more than I choose to be attracted to a different sex. It's not a choice for me; it's not a choice for them.

So if your point was that being gay is unlike being black because black people can't change their skin color, I disagree. You can wear heavy makeup and make yourself look black if you are white, just as you could force yourself to have sex with a man if you wanted to. That does not make you black or gay in any way other than the most superficial.

>By definition, marriage currently consists of one man and one
> woman. It is what it is. If homosexuals want to make up their own, I
> guess they’re free to do so but it’s not the same thing.

OK, I misunderstood then. Sorry. I agree, I have no problem with people thinking that gay and hetero marriages are different, as long as they get the same rights and protections. Heck, you could even call it something different if you want - call it marriage/G or something.

[Nightingale 0]

the link you posted clearly states that Jesus didn't say a darn thing for OR against homosexuality.

[juanesky 0]

Nor he did about sodomy, rape, bestiality.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Nightingale 0]

but he did encourage people to "love their neighbor" which I think covers the rape or nonconsensual sodomy issues.

[juanesky 0]

I know, but Nambla is also about love the younger neighbors...IMO.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Well, but it seemed like you were claiming before that the ten commandments were still valid, despite being in the old testament. And if they are - do you skydive on the weekends?

Ok, I’ll be specific. Review my paragraph concerning old Jewish law. I was talking about some of the ceremonial and civil laws of the time that you mentioned and that do not apply today. The “moral law” (i.e. 10 Commandments), even though it was written in Old Testament times, is still as valid today as it was then. And yes, I do skydive on the weekend but not on Sunday (usually). I go to church. However, I don’t consider skydiving “work.”

Quote

Also, how do you square your belief with Matthew 5:17-20, which states that Jesus came to ensure that the Laws of the Prophets would be fulfilled?

Quoted from my NIV study bible: It is Christ’s intention that the spiritual requirement of God’s law be fulfilled in the lives of his followers (Romans 3:31; 8:4). The believer’s relation to the law of God involves the following:

1. The law that the believer is obliged to keep consists of the ethical and moral principles of the OT (7:12; 22:36 – 40; Romans 3:31; Galatians 5:14). These laws reveal the nature and will of God for all people and still apply today. OT laws that applied directly to the nation of Israel, such as the sacrificial, ceremonial, social or civil laws, are no longer binding (Hebrews 10:1-4; e.g., Leviticus 1:2-3; 24:10).

2. Believers must not view the law as a system of legal commandments by which to obtain merit for forgiveness and salvation (Galatians 2:16, 19). Rather, the law must be seen as a moral code for those who are already in a saved relationship with God and who, by obeying it, express the life of Christ within themselves (Romans 6:15-22).

3. Faith in Christ is the point of departure for the fulfilling of the law. Through faith in Christ, God becomes our Father (John 1:12). Therefore, our obedience as believers is done not only out of a relationship to God as sovereign Lawgiver, but also out of a relationship of children to their Father (Galatians 4:6).

4. Through faith in Christ, believers, by God’s grace (Romans 5:21) and the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:13; Galatians 3:5, 14), are given an inner compulsion and power to fulfill God’s law (Romans 16:25 – 26; Hebrews 10:16). We fulfill it by living according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4 – 14). The Spirit helps us put to death the misdeeds of the body and to fulfill God’s will (Romans 8:13). Thus, external conformity to God’s law must be accompanied by the inner transformation of our hearts and spirits.

5. Having been freed from sin’s power, and now being enslaved to God (Romans 6:18 – 22), believers follow the principle of “faith” by being “under Christ’s law” (1 Collosians 9:21). In so doing we fulfill “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) and are thus faithful to the requirement of the law (Romans 7:4; 8:4; Galatians 3:19).

6. Jesus emphatically taught that doing the will of his heavenly Father is an ongoing condition of entering the kingdom of heaven.

Quote

I have no problem with such a belief; it cancels out a lot of contradictions inherent in trying to interpret the bible. It also, however, allows for a gay man to have as strong a faith (and as righteous a lifestyle) as yours.

You are somewhat correct! It all depends on if they act on their homosexual tendencies or not. It does not, however, mean that what the practicing homosexual is doing is then justified. It is still a sin against God. If a person who claims to be “saved” is continuing to sin against God, whatever the sin and not just homosexuality (openly or privately), then he/she should really examine themselves to determine if their decision to follow Christ was genuine or not. Whether they are truly “saved” or not.

Quote

I did not intend to equate the two; there is no data that suggests any links between homosexuality and race or ethnicity. The only common link is that they are all people and thus are all equal (or should be equal) in the eyes of the law.

I did not say that you said that one was reliant on or that people of a certain race were more likely to be homosexual. That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that one of the tactics of the homosexual movement was to partner itself with the discrimination/equal rights struggle of women/race/ethnicity groups in order to more normalize their lifestyles. This is in an attempt to further their agenda. One of your previous quotes mentioned blacks and women in the same paragraph as homosexuals. Given your position on the subject, it sounds like you’ve bought into their strategy.

Quote

I am heterosexual. I did not decide that; I came pre-wired that way. At no time in my (post-adolescent) life did I look at a man and a woman and think "hey, I could fantasize about having sex with either one of those, and I think I will choose to fantasize about women." I hit 13 years old and some deep structure in my brain responded to new hormones - and I became a typical horny teenager.

Some people are wired differently. It has nothing to do with race, or religion, or ethnicity, it just has to do with how they are wired. They do not choose to be attracted to the same sex any more than I choose to be attracted to a different sex. It's not a choice for me; it's not a choice for them.

It may not, in fact, be a choice in the way you feel but there is a choice in the way you act or respond to those feelings.

Quote

So if your point was that being gay is unlike being black because black people can't change their skin color, I disagree. You can wear heavy makeup and make yourself look black if you are white, just as you could force yourself to have sex with a man if you wanted to. That does not make you black or gay in any way other than the most superficial.

Open this.

Quote

OK, I misunderstood then. Sorry. I agree, I have no problem with people thinking that gay and hetero marriages are different, as long as they get the same rights and protections. Heck, you could even call it something different if you want - call it marriage/G or something.

I not only think their different but I think they aren’t legitimate by definition. Therefore, I’m not for giving the right and privileges “associated with heterosexual marriage” to any other form of union.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

I don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.

Sure you do.
You think being heterosexual gives you privileges and protections not afforded to gays.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.

Sure you do.
You think being heterosexual gives you priveleges and protections not afforded to gays.
-Josh

Entering into marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is what gives me the associated rights and privilages. Marriage is the foundaton of family and our culture.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.

Sure you do.
You think being heterosexual gives you priveleges and protections not afforded to gays.
-Josh

Entering into marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is what gives me the associated rights and privilages. Marriage is the foundaton of family and our culture.

Can you explain how you are not contradicting yourself?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Can you explain how you are not contradicting yourself?

It’s hard sometimes to convey the entire meaning of what you’re trying to say in these threads. A lot gets lost in context.

In reference to my comment, “I don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.”

This was in response to someone’s attempt at grouping the homosexual movement in with that of women/ethnic origin/race in an attempt to “normalize” homosexuality in our culture and, therefore, use that as a vehicle to further their cause. I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated against due to their sexual preference. Refusing to include them into the institution of traditional marriage, however, is not discrimination. They can establish and call their union something else. It is illegitimate, however, in the context of marriage.

In reference to my comment, “Entering into marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is what gives me the associated rights and privileges. Marriage is the foundation of family and our culture.”

Marriage is unique in that it is a fundamental and universal social institution. Its primary purpose is for procreation. It has been accepted in every successful and long-standing civilization for thousands of years as the union of one man and one woman. Heterosexual marriage is vital to family health, the passing along of values, and the foundation of social order. It is the basis for our culture. A normal (mother and father), stable, and healthy home has been proven statistically to be the best environment to raise a child. Raising a child in this kind of environment, in turn, affects all other aspects of our society. You might then say that, “wouldn’t it be better for a child with no parents to be raised by a homosexual couple instead of having to be a burden of the state.” Possibly… but I have religious reasons why I would disagree with that. I don’t expect you to follow those. However, in general and as a global policy, I would say that it is crucial that the ”standard” for marriage remain as between one man and one woman. In addition, whatever rights and privileges that our government has deemed should be for a married couple should remain for those unions fitting that definition.

[Nightingale 0]

so, how do you justify allowing infertile hetero couples to marry? or hetero couples who don't want children? since, as you said, marriage's purpose is for procreation.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

so, how do you justify allowing infertile hetero couples to marry? or hetero couples who don't want children? since, as you said, marriage's purpose is for procreation.

No, I said that the “primary” purpose was for procreation. Another is for spouses to mutually help each other.

[Nightingale 0]

and how can hetero spouses help each other more than gay spouses?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

and how can hetero spouses help each other more than gay spouses?

That may be so but, when children are involved, refer back to reason #1, do the math concerning the physics of it all (square peg not designed to go into a round hole) in reference to normality, and also review the studies done on what's the best/ideal environment for a child to grow up in. Assuming that we agree that marriage needs to be defined and not just be some loose and arbitrary partnership, wouldn't your standard need to be representative of the vast majority and not a relatively very small segment of the population? When defining a cultural institution with the importance of this one which also has the most implications across the board, wouldn't you want to establish the most normal, healthy, and productive model to follow?

[billvon 2,998]

>However, I don’t consider skydiving “work.”

That's fine; many other people would disagree that packing is not work. But I think your interpretation is as valid as theirs, and would not claim you were sinning.

>You are somewhat correct! It all depends on if they act on their
>homosexual tendencies or not.

I see no difference between a heterosexual man acting on his tendencies within a moral framework (i.e. having sex only with his wife) and a homosexual man acting on his tendencies within a moral framework (i.e. having sex only with his partner.) They are equivalent; they are both expressing the drives that God gave them within a moral framework they accept and live up to.

>It does not, however, mean that what the practicing homosexual is
> doing is then justified. It is still a sin against God.

No more so than a hetero man who has sex with his wife for purposes other than procreation.

>What I said was that one of the tactics of the homosexual
> movement was to partner itself with the discrimination/equal rights
> struggle of women/race/ethnicity groups in order to more normalize
> their lifestyles.

OK, I see your point. It's not so much I agree with their tactics as that we will eventually look back on same-sex marriage prohibitions the same way we look back on interracial-marriage prohibitions. There were once strong religious prohibitions against interracial marriage; they were later shown to be false. Back then, the bible was quoted extensively to 'prove' that God did not intend interracial couples to marry. There was even a proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage! (Is this starting to sound familiar?)

Nowadays, of course, the biblical references are explained by "well, those were ancient ceremonial and civil laws and don't apply to today's world."

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Virginia court decision, 1959

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - Final Supreme Court decision. Note absolutely no reference to sex.

>It may not, in fact, be a choice in the way you feel but there is a
>choice in the way you act or respond to those feelings.

I agree there. I simply do not believe that there is anything wrong with a monogamous relationship, whether the other person is the same or different race, or same or different sex.

>I not only think their different but I think they aren’t legitimate by
> definition. Therefore, I’m not for giving the right and >privileges “associated with heterosexual marriage” to any other form
> of union.

Then we will continue to disagree. I believe history will eventually relegate this debate to the same page as the debate over interracial marriages. I think future generations will look back on this issue and wonder what all the fuss was about; gays will be married/united or whatever, society will not have collapsed, and they will be as accepted as we accept interracial couples today. Time will tell.

[billvon 2,998]

>do the math concerning the physics of it all (square peg not
>designed to go into a round hole) in reference to normality . . .

Are you really going to bring up the idea that missionary-position sex is more 'normal' or natural than any other form of sex (which it isn't) as an argument that only people who can _perform_ missionary style sex should be married? Cause a lot of guys can't without artificial aids. (between 8 and 10% of US males have erectile dysfunction.)

>and also review the studies done on what's the best/ideal
> environment for a child to grow up in.

Every study that I've seen shows that two parents are far better than one.

>Assuming that we agree that marriage needs to be defined and not
> just be some loose and arbitrary partnership, wouldn't your standard
> need to be representative of the vast majority and not a relatively
> very small segment of the population?

No; then you would exclude certain minorities from marriage.

>When defining a cultural institution with the importance of this one
> which also has the most implications across the board, wouldn't you
> want to establish the most normal, healthy, and productive model to
> follow?

Social engineering is generally frowned upon. I can only imagine your reaction if a social engineer found a way to determine whether a 4 week old fetus would grow up with any defects so it could be aborted early! It would surely result in a better (i.e. more healthy) society overall, but I suspect you would think the costs would not be worth it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

That's fine; many other people would disagree that packing is not work. But I think your interpretation is as valid as theirs, and would not claim you were sinning.

I’m not claiming that I haven’t broken most of the 10 Commandments in my life. I’m not claiming that I haven’t broken the Sabbath. I have. I’m imperfect like everybody else. In reference to the validity of the 10 Commandments, however, my failure to follow them to the letter does not take away from their applicability in our culture today as they were thousands of years ago.

Quote

I see no difference between a heterosexual man acting on his tendencies within a moral framework (i.e. having sex only with his wife) and a homosexual man acting on his tendencies within a moral framework (i.e. having sex only with his partner.) They are equivalent; they are both expressing the drives that God gave them within a moral framework they accept and live up to.

Why stop there? Why then would you have a problem with them having multiple partners in some form of marriage? As long as the multiple partners all agree that it fits within the “moral framework” that they’ve each derived for themselves. Why not then set your standard for what marriage is loosely so that it will include a broader range of subsets? Everybody just do what makes them happy, follow your impulses with no thought of consequences, and not worry about anything. Be free....man. (Sarcasm)

Quote

No more so than a hetero man who has sex with his wife for purposes other than procreation.

Procreation isn’t the only allowable reason for sex. This is quoted from an article written by Larry Wilson. Sex was created for the following:

Procreation

For one thing, Genesis 1:28 tells us, God created sex and ordained marriage for procreation. Before the beginning, God determined to have a people for his own possession. He foreordained that his Son would have "many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). He predetermined to have communion with "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (Rev. 7:9). Toward that end, God is seeking "godly offspring" (Mal. 2:15). He keeps his covenant from generation to generation. A fundamental purpose of sex is to propagate the human race and to perpetuate God's covenant.

Partnership

But that's not its sole purpose. When he revealed his intention to create Eve, "the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him' " (Gen. 2:18). God saw man as incomplete, and so he created woman. God insists that "the wife of your youth ... is your companion and your wife by covenant" (Mal. 2:14). God didn't design men, women, and sex just for bearing children. More than that, he created sex and ordained marriage for companionship – for partnership. Sex, then, is more than four bare feet in one bed, and it is for more than producing babies. God gave it to seal and reseal the commitment between one man and one woman who have covenanted to be lifelong companions. "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).

Pleasure

Another godly purpose for sex in marriage is pleasure. This purpose is godly because it's God's design. He personally invented and installed all the wiring and plumbing that generates sexual pleasure. Moreover, he commands married people to enjoy this pleasure: "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love" (Prov. 5:18–19; see also the Song of Songs).

Quote

OK, I see your point. It's not so much I agree with their tactics as that we will eventually look back on same-sex marriage prohibitions the same way we look back on interracial-marriage prohibitions. There were once strong religious prohibitions against interracial marriage; they were later shown to be false. Back then, the bible was quoted extensively to 'prove' that God did not intend interracial couples to marry. There was even a proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage! (Is this starting to sound familiar?)

Banning interracial marriage is not biblical and any religious group backing such as stance based on Christianity is dead wrong. Homosexuality, however, is very specifically identified in the Bible as being wrong. There is not room for misinterpretation concerning that issue.

Quote

Nowadays, of course, the biblical references are explained by "well, those were ancient ceremonial and civil laws and don't apply to today's world."

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Virginia court decision, 1959

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - Final Supreme Court decision. Note absolutely no reference to sex.

Ok…I don’t agree with these rulings and they are not biblical. They do nothing to discredit Christianity or what it teaches.

Quote

I agree there. I simply do not believe that there is anything wrong with a monogamous relationship, whether the other person is the same or different race, or same or different sex.

I’ll agree that you don’t agree.

***Then we will continue to disagree. I believe history will eventually relegate this debate to the same page as the debate over interracial marriages. I think future generations will look back on this issue and wonder what all the fuss was about; gays will be married/united or whatever, society will not have collapsed, and they will be as accepted as we accept interracial couples today. Time will tell.***

If our culture continues on the post-Christianity path that began after WWII and has steadily increased in pace, you might be correct. The moral decay of our society isn’t slowing down much.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>do the math concerning the physics of it all (square peg not
>designed to go into a round hole) in reference to normality . . .

Are you really going to bring up the idea that missionary-position sex is more 'normal' or natural than any other form of sex (which it isn't) as an argument that only people who can _perform_ missionary style sex should be married? Cause a lot of guys can't without artificial aids. (between 8 and 10% of US males have erectile dysfunction.)

Wow…I have no idea how you got that from what I said. That’s not at all what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out the obvious fact that “two guys fu%$in” is just plain wrong and they’re not physically built to do that.

Quote

Every study that I've seen shows that two parents are far better than one.

You know what I’m talking about. The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children has been established in study to be a 2 parent home with a mother and a father.

Quote

No; then you would exclude certain minorities from marriage.

I hate to keep bringing up arguments that we’ve been over and over but what’s the difference between what you’re saying in regards to allowing marriage for a homosexual and allowing marriage for a polygamist? There are Americans with those beliefs/feelings also. Are you in favor of allowing that? You’ll probably say that one is biological and, therefore, uncontrollable and the other is not. I’d then ask you to give me credible proof that homosexuality is, in fact, a trait that someone is born with.

Marriage, defined as being between one man and one woman, is tried and true throughout the world and has been since the beginning of civilization for thousands of years. You know how I feel about abortion.

Social engineering is generally frowned upon. I can only imagine your reaction if a social engineer found a way to determine whether a 4 week old fetus would grow up with any defects so it could be aborted early! It would surely result in a better (i.e. more healthy) society overall, but I suspect you would think the costs would not be worth it.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I know you’re stance. I’m just stating what I believe to be true. IMO, the Bible is accurate enough to be considered trustworthy and, therefore, an authoritative source for my position.

To me, this is like if I were to say, "IMO, if PhillyKev tells me that the cube root of 125,433,786 is 4,429, I'm gonna go with that and put all my faith in his answer."

First of all, how is it a matter of faith? In the end, either god really IS god, and Jesus really IS the son of god, and god really DID do all that the bible says and he created the universe, etc., OR NOT. But it doesn't come down to OPINION any more than the cube root of 125,433,786 does. Faith, maybe -- but to me, faith is like expecting me to believe that my brother has moved the Eiffel Tower into his back yard without having the slightest bit of proof. Why would I believe something soooo incredible with absolutely no reason at all?

How can one use the "word of god" to justify faith in god when that very god is the thing you're wondering whether you should believe in?! That's circular logic, and as such it fails to be valid.

You say, "God tells us to have faith and believe in him."
I say, "Oh, so you have to already believe in god in order to believe the scripture that tells you to believe in god. How reasonable."

Ptthhhhht! Nope -- not for me!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

And I don't go to church picnics and tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

HAHA! Actually, that is a great idea. That's what I should do this summer when the Catholic church by my house has it's annual fair to raise money for the church (and for the priest who drives a Porsche and lives in a country club....yet preaches to others to lead simple lives)

Don't you know, he's just throwing himself on a grenade! He's living an opulent life, sacrificing himself and his soul, in order to provide an example to many people of how not to be! He is the one soul that must perish in order that the rest may flourish! He's being selfless, hon. You should honor and respect his sacrifice!

Bleargh!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Those that were picked and chosen at Nicea. There were more gospels that didn't make the cut because they didn't fit with the councils views. That's why I can't buy into it.

I don’t really know all of the reasons why the others that you mention were not included. I believe some of them were written well over 200 years after the fact, however. Maybe that was one of the reasons relating to their reliability. The Gospels which were included were all written within a relatively short period of time of the death of Christ. Prior to that, much was transferred by word of mouth which was the custom. Anyway, I see the preponderance of the evidence leaning towards the reliability of the text. The ones that “didn’t make the cut”, however, do not take away from the truth in the ones that did.

"Transferred by word of mouth which was the custom."

In other words, about as reliable as a game of "Telephone." Dude, you can't even get a string of twenty people to accurately reproduce the sentence, "Go to the store holding the goldfish and tell the clerk you wanted a catfish," accurately down the line, but you want us to base an entire system of living on "word of mouth"?! That's far beyond what I will agree to.

And as far as "the ones left out" not having a bearing on the truth of the rest, that could be as troublesome as this:

"We stormed the building, rescued the hostages, and arrested the terrorists whom we then took out in back of the building and summarily executed without trial and now everything is fine."

Would you say that what is omitted may be significant to the credibility of what is left out?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

That is a huge piece of very questionable interpretation. Especially being followed by "Their blood shall be upon them" Not jesus' blood, theirs.

If spiritual death really is what's meant by that edition of the bible do you not think the translator or the editor could have made it just a tiny bit clearer?

You’re misquoting the Bible verse above. Leviticus is an Old Testament text and Jesus wasn’t born yet.

Oh, yes, another inconsistency problem!
God gave us the Old Testament, let us live as human civilization for a while (how long was it, anyway?) until he FINALLY got around to giving us this son of his whose death would redeem us all. It seems a little irresponsible of god to leave us hanging after the first volume, because I have to presume that those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven, since the key to that came later in the form of Jesus.

HOW IS THIS STUFF EXPLAINED AWAY?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"