Queen James Bible Now Theres a Gay-Friendly Version of Scripture
Posted on December 13, 2012 at 2:23pm by Billy Hallowell
According to the editors, King James I, the man behind the popular Bible translation, was a bisexual "known amongst friends and courtiers as 'Queen James' because of his many gay lovers."
The Queen James Bible resolves any homophobic interpretations of the Bible, but the Bible is still filled with inequality and even contradiction that we have not addressed, the web site notes. No Bible is perfect, including this one. We wanted to make a book filled with the word of God that nobody could use to incorrectly condemn Gods LGBT children, and we succeeded.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/queen-j … scripture/
Is this an answer to a problem or does it create another problem?homophobic is not only incorrect, it is defamatory, and inflammatory.
People are not afraid of homosexuals they just don't relate to them, or agree with their lifestyle.
Homophobic is a term in the same class as fags and queers.I disagree. I know plenty of people (unfortunately) who are actually afraid of those that are homosexual. I have actually heard them say that they will be raped by them. It's tragic that they believe that, but it is true.
In this version does God rain marshmallows down on the Sodomites instead of fire and brimstone?
you know that the sin of sodom (according to the rest of the scriptures that is) was not "being gay". It was arrogance and being inhospitable.
Oh sure, but much much more than that, and sexual immorality was definitely on the list.
Ah yes... sexual immorality. But on the upside he did save Lot. Good thing too or Lot would have never gone on to get drunk and impregnate his daughters.
The Bible also tells us that Abraham was a righteous man. Righteous means, “right-standing with God.” It means that Abraham had a good relationship with God. We aren't told if Lot had a relationship with God. It says that God remembered Abraham and saved Lot. God protected Lot because of Abraham. God didn't protect Lot because Lot was good or because Lot deserved to be saved. God saved Lot because He “remembered Abraham.”
Just as God “remembers” Jesus and saves us. God doesn't save us because we are good or because we deserve to be saved. He saves us because He “remembers” Jesus.
Nope sexual immorality was nothing to do with it. In fact it is never mentioned as being a sin for which Sodom was punished.
Ezekiel 16:49
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.According to some prophets it was a factor.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.Actually according to a literal translation we have whoredom and other flesh. Other flesh does not state homosexuality. It is so vague it could mean anything you want it to be.
Besides which seeing as this Jude from the 2nd century (not an apostle mind you) refers to the Book of Enoch believing it to be a true and accurate account, how can you believe Jude is scripture? He also thinks angels can rebel contrary to Jewish belief, has them placed in a pagan Tartarus, and alludes to the half brained idea that angels had sex with women producing hybrid giant men. How can you take this writing seriously? It was of the disputed books of the cannon for this reason and was voted in."So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God, like it or not. With this in mind, let's quit judging each other. Give me a break, we all know what is right and wrong, yet we play games as if we don't. Please, do not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother or sister's way.
Understand this, if you are able. All have fallen short. We need each other to stand tall, and stand we will, for God is able to give us a boost up."
That's the King Quipper's translation of some stuff in the Book of Romans (actually a formal letter). Every writer should know this, right?. Give me your hand and give me a boost!I think you need to back up and read what we were talking about. I said sexual immorality in general not just Homosexuality. you said "it is never mentioned as being a sin for which Sodom was punished." when clearly it was mentioned by Biblical prophets. The subject is, after all, concerning a revision of the King James Bible which includes Jude. So dismissing Jude is out of the question even for the Queen James' standard.
Was Jude a prophet? I think not. What is sexual immorality? What acts you define as being immoral another sees as normal. You cannot claim that someone is sexually immoral without some specific definitions of what that is.
Jude was a biblical author, and apostle of Christ. (Not one of the original twelve, none the less an apostle and coauthor of the King James Bible) It is fine for you to make up your own standard for what is and isn't moral, that's your right, you can run with it, you can debate people about it, and I don't have a single care if you do.
I have my own Ideas as well concerning the subject and I never claimed to assert whether or not one form of sexual expression or another is immoral on this thread. Try to pay close attention here because the next part seems to be alluding you. We are talking about what is sexually immoral according to the people who wrote the Bible. Not me, not you. the people who wrote the Bible. Understand?you mean, of course, that there is a book of the bible named after jude, and not, of course, that he actually wrote it - since aside from about 7 letters that are widely believed and accepted to have been written by paul, the authorship of the new testament is debatable at best - and at worst blatantly forged. Not to mention the fact that the epistle of jude is just that - an epistle. Not a prophecy.
Additionally - no one knows who wrote the bible. I would even bet that at the introduction of the four gospels, your bible will say outright that the authorship is uncertain at best.I can agree with most of that. however I wouldn't call the book of Jude a blatant forgery, (whether it was written by Jude or Paul is of minute consequence). You seem to be focused on the authenticity of the book of Jude despite the fact that it is still included in the Queen James version.
But since we're splitting hairs the introduction to my new testament says; "Translated out of the original Greek and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty's command".
The Queen James version doesn't even hold to a standard. They straight up changed the words of the epistles regardless of whether or not they are authentic to suit their motives. Anybody could do that.The point about Jude is that he very much appears to hold some wacky ideas, such as believing the Book of Enoch, believing in fallen angels that had sex with women, believing in a pagan Greek Tartarus. So if he has no credibility here, he has no credibility talking about Sodom. Perhaps he only wrote down the same hearsay about Sodom as you've been told, because the Hebrew Scriptures do not support his writing.
You only accept Jude as being scripture because you have been told it is via it's inclusion in the NT. It was a disputed work, and had it not been voted in it is quite possible that you would not be adding the sin of sexual immorality to the Sodomites.
Concerning what is sexual immorality; true what is written is the author's understanding of sexual immorality, but unless it is defined explicitly, it's irrelevant what they thought it was, because on the whole they are not saying.I think biblical authors say a lot about what is and isn't sexual immorality. Still the point is, it is intellectually dishonest to change an authors words to suit ones political beliefs, which is exactly what the people who wrote the Queen James Bible did. And Jude is still an author in both the King and Queen James Bibles whether you believe in him or not. I find it interesting that Apostles have the intelligence and inspiration from God to separate the truth from the fiction in order to convey his message. And there is no stipulation which prevented them from doing this.
It's also what the authors of every English language Bible did, and what the council that formalized the contents of the current Bible did when selectively excluding texts in which females played a central role.
You mean like excluding Ruth and, Naomi, and Esther, and Jesus' mom? That didn't happen. But I am talking about changing what people wrote in the first place. Do you agree with this? Is it okay for people to simply change what an author wrote in order to accommodate their political agenda? After all the publishers of the Queen James Bible didn't have a problem with the original format.
No, I am talking about gospels where female disciples took proactive roles ad editing out the female godhood from the Old testament.
And I am talking about King James and rendering the word 'poisoner' as 'witch' leading to many being tortured and killed (amongst other changes).
This version of the bible does nothing not already done by the KJB and before it. The only difference is that they are being open about it.Actually there is no Hebrew word for poisoner, there are two words for poison which are not found in translations where the word (ka shap), (keshep) or (ka shshap) are applied. The words in their widest use simply refer to a witch or a sorcerer. And the ancient languages Akkadian and Ugaritic prove this.
kashaph {kaw-shaf'}, Strong’s number 3784.
“Meaning: 1) to practice witchcraft or sorcery, use witchcraft 1a) sorcerer, sorceress
Origin: a primitive root; properly, to whisper a spell, i.e. to enchant or practice magic"
In all actuality the Queen James version does much more than to simply mistranslate a verse, (which as you can see wasn't mistranslated in the first place), they deliberately took the authors words out of context just for the sake of inventing their own version of God.In actuality, that is exactly what King James' rewriters did, in many places.
A God that just happens to suit modern conservatives. If this were not the case, we would have more transliterated versions that get back closer to the originals.The fact is that a liberal interpretation of the Bible, such as the Queen James version, takes it further away from the original. Just like with our our laws they loosely interpret words in order to push their agenda, or in this case rewrite them to change the entire meaning. For example they wish to redefine the second amendment to apply only to law enforcement and the military, and assert that it was only intended for game hunting and sporting activities.
The conservatives edit the bible for their own purposes too... does that take it further from the truth?
Sorry I'm slow what is physically impossible again?
Go one verse farther: Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." So that was definitely part of the reason according to the bible. I am sure it will read differently in the Queen James.
and what is the context of the use of the word "abomination" in the Old Testament? go on. Enlighten us. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality. " in the Hebrew "toevah". Unlike what the English translation implies, toevah did not usually signify something intrinsically evil, but something which is ritually unclean for Jews. Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, trimming beards, mixing fibers in clothing, and having sex during a women's menstrual period is just as much an "abomination". It is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. In many other OT verses it simply means idolatry."
Furthermore, it was a common practice at the time for the men of a city (or a victorious army) to rape and violate the survivors of the opposing side. The Israelite army did it. A lot of other armies did it. I don't see fire and brimstone for all of those offenses. If the sin of Sodom was really that EVERY MALE was gay (and since that's logically impossible to begin with) why would Lot in turn offer his two virgin daughters to the crowd in attempt to appease them?
Again, the story of the men trying to rape angels is not confined to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe that it happens later on in Genesis, too.Typically the gay and lesbian community constitutes less than 5% of today's Western populations. Do you seriously think that 100% of Sodom's population was gay?
100% acknowledged it as normal behavior. There was all kinds of modern stuff going on there.
If so then why did God even worry about it? 30... 40 years at max and the issue would have been moot.
Whenever someone questions God, God's thoughts, motives, viewpoints, rules of thumb, or anything else, my cell phone rings, and I am asked to deliver a message.
Here's the answer to your question. God isn't "worried" about homosexuality. It is not what he created people to do in their spare time. If anyone insists on getting all fired up that way, then God just gives them over to their desire. Plain and simple, no ifs ands or buts.
As a matter of fact, you know this well and still you balk. Good luck with that.
Now as far as why these things are this way, I am of no service. I am not privy, and no one has issued a message for me to deliver.I've read your post several times. I still have no idea what it says.
Maybe I need more coffee.
What am I balking at again?Maybe I need some, too. I'll buy. You are a hoot!
Lot was a righteous man by faith. Remember 2nd Peter, and how Lot treated the angels in the city. Plenty of righteous men in the bible had short comings when it comes to women. However that doesn't take away from their righteousness or having favor with God. Lot was a good man he was just taken advantage of by his daughters. The sin was committed against Lot who had no idea what was happening he was drunk. The King James rumors are convenient lies, he was not bisexual. King James endured many assassination attempts so he would have his bodyguards sleep beside him in bed. James was not gay but you can see how people would have jumped to conclusions, this was simply for his safety. All men fall short of the glory of God . If people ignore what Lots daughters did to him, then by definition Lot was righteous. I always use the Merriam Webster dictionary among others. I hate how people use homophobic, we are not afraid of you. We can just see how what you do is wrong and perversion, sin. Trying to make King James out to be gay doesn't make gays right for their sin. Even if James was, which he wasn't, the fruit of the truth of the word is still there and it tells me lesbians and gays are wrong. People who live this way are so insecure, post like these, special laws and treatment, marriage rights. I want special treatment then because I'm straight, I don't look for biblical loopholes to convince others of. I don't complain about how life is so hard at school, or work because I'm straight. Stop telling everyone and treating it like some big secret. No one cares you live life the way you do, the bible does not support your life style. This post and this bible is just another sign we are living in the last days.
If being gay was merely a lifestyle choice then how come just about everyone can remember a kid in junior school who was wired differently to the other boys? You probably didn't know what his different behaviours meant at the time, but looking back now you would interpret it as indications he was gay. Now at that young age, who was telling him that the way he acted was because he was gay, or some lifestyle choice? Nobody, Carl was just being Carl.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0I find the idea rather bizarre. To refer to something as scripture implies a belief that a divine source guided the hand of the writers. Doesn't rewriting a 'divine' text, in order to make it more palatable, seem like cheating? I suppose we can look forward to a woman friendly Bible? A slave friendly Bible? Maybe a Canaanite friendly Bible would work well. They were definitely spoken of poorly. An abortion friendly Bible might be handy. Everyone can thump everyone else on the head with a Bible that says 'God says' exactly what each person wants to hear.
We would all be money ahead if we simply took the Bible at face value for the interesting window it provides into life in an ancient culture and stopped needing it to make us feel good about ourselves. And definitely stop allowing others to use it to make us feel bad about ourselves. Rewriting it only opens a can of worms inside a can of worms.If a "divine hand" caused the bible to be written in the first place, who's to say it hasn't intervened again?
I personally take full stock in the Lol Cat Bible
www.lolcatbible.com
Unless you are reading the Bible in Hebrew and Aramaic you are reading a version written by someone with an agenda. Some were written a bit earlier than others, that is all. I would not assume anything about the accuracy of any version without having a language/history scholar give an opinion,
Oooohh! Another set of holy writings of God's words, designed to be politically correct and appease one group while alienating another.
That's just what we need.
I wonder what the projected profit from selling it is?Sorry, but this is just crazy. The Bible was created at the Council of Manzea (sp) thus created by man. Most of the men back in that area of the globe are unfortunately bisexual. The oldest version and more 'accurate' is actually the Kuran. Just remember if you buy a version of the Kuran you will be put on a terrorist list.
The only thing everyone needs to remember is to be good, do unto others and help your neighbor.I always enjoy what you have to say, Sarra
Hee hee hee... that's actually pretty damn funny.
Since there are already Bibles written in "LOLcat speek" and Bibles aimed at teenagers that masquerade as "hip" teen magazines and are written in today's slang, I guess something like this was inevitable.I think the Lolcat bible was written for teh kittehs. Teh Kittehs needs teh holey words 2!
All hailz de mighty Ceiling Cat, from whom all cheezburgers 'n' invisible bicycles flow.
Taken from the Springfiled News. Cat Heaven real. People heaven NOT!!
Be warned
The word of God is not to be changed to accommodate a filthy politically correct lifestyle.
“Now, O Israel, listen to the Laws I am teaching you. Do them so that you may live and go in to take the land for your own that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to the Word that I tell you, and do not take away from it. Keep the Laws of the Lord your God which I tell you. 3 Your eyes saw what the Lord did because of Baal-peor. The Lord your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed the Baal of Peor. Deuteronomy 4:1-3
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.Leviticus 18:22
It is easy to spread malcious slander against a dead person, it is also a coward as you know they cannot defend themselves.Man created God and man can do whatever we want with him or her or even it.
teacherjoe
Dam righteous of you,
It's better to hate gays and keep those laws against gay in the 80 countries they occupy now. Who needs that kind of the 10% of the world's population roaming around our backsides.
OK, lets slow it down a little bit, lets go after the 3% atheist first"....lets go after the 3% atheist first"? What's next, a Bible for athiests, agnostics and the non-religious?
I'd read the Bible for atheists. I'll bet it's pretty entertaining. I think they call those science books though
it's actually called the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and it points out all the inaccuracies, fallacies, horrible commands, murders, rapes, etc" It's online - and now available in print.
actually, that's not an atheist bible. I respect it, but the field of evolution has evolved (no pun intended) beyond Darwin's comprehension with the study of DNA, common ancestry, etc. Darwin was just before his time, but I hardly worship him.
Indeed. What on earth does evolution have to do with core beliefs and ethics? That's like saying I worship gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.
A.C. Grayling, an atheist, wrote his own book called "The Good Book, A Secular Bible". He based it off the King James Bible, declaring it to be for the humanitarians that don't believe in God, but needed moral skills to live by.
I found it interesting enough to write a hub about it.
- Miriam Weissmannposted 11 years ago0
I'm not a Christian so only the Old Testament is relevant for me and my family, but I ask myself "why not?" What's wrong with having a gay bible? What's wrong with gay Christains? What's wrong with gay anything? Nothing at all. I'm not a religious woman at all really, but I'm open to everything.
There's absolutly nothing wrong with gay people.
I wonder if these people have the "ba11s" to have a go at rewriting a gay version of the Koran?
I dare them to try.
(I see a fatwa on it's way).
And the Christians are constantly accused of intolerance.
But, unlike radical moslems, we (Christians)let God deal with this His way, not US doing it for Him.That is because you have no more soldiers left to fight for Jesus, they got educated. Remember the crusades, witch hunting, public burning and lynching?
OH< RIGHT, I forgot.
I was part of that generation in a previous life!
Except I don't believe in reincarnation.
These lame comebacks are boring as.
Try something original next time.
That generation was fanatics just like the present day Muslims. Now you have no soldiers to fight and die for Jesus, and if anybody come forward to do that they'll be locked up in an asylum. So people are no more idiotic to believe the Jesus story and die for it, is the reason why you can criticize bible and not because of any inherent tolerance of Christianity. Probably you already knew that and just wanted to feel morally superior to Muslims, a sign of Christian humility perhaps! Next time remove the log from your eyes before pointing finger, try obeying Jesus for a change.
What does this have to do with crusades, witch burning, etc?
You seem to ramble way off topic."I dare them to try. (I see a fatwa on it's way).
And the Christians are constantly accused of intolerance." Your words.
The present day Muslims and the Christians of the yore are the same, intolerant. Then why do you accuse Muslims alone being as intolerant? You would also behave the same if not for the secularists, and your post shows your frustration in not being able to do so.More like frustration with lame posts like yours.
When was the last suicide bomber a Christian? Please refresh my memory.riddle is right. Most wars hide behind a religious extreme. In the height of the Crusades they didn't have bombers. But they still did some horrendous things. It's not a bash on Christianity, it's a bash on humanity using something that is meant to be beautiful as a reason to do something ugly
I think there was somebody called Bush who killed Iraqis because god asked him to do so.
Another called Anders Behring Breivik killed some 85 people in the name of religion, your religion.
Look into the mirror, if it wasn't for the secular people you would also be 'stoning the heretics'.
Your moral high ground is not due to your religion which killed people over the centuries but because of the atheists and secularists whom you deride."My religion"?
What category are you placing me in?
You are 99.999999% chance wrong, but, have your moment of glory.Did you actually answer this? Maybe I missed something.
When was the last suicide bomber a Christian? Please refresh my memory.Unfortunately the rare christians who are still living, is in asylums to get bombs. That species is dead.
What you have now is those people who were changed because the secularists are deciding the education system, those people who are not "willing to waste their life for jesus".Unfortunately?
Sounds like you're disappointed that NONE are in our society who are actual threats to the public.
Interesting twist, that secularists have taught "us".
I haven't yet heard a single sermon from a secularist that has tempered me from my faith in the Word of God. But, I do note you speak of "them" and refer to me, in the same breath. Why would that be?
Do you know me?If not for the secularists you would still be studying bible only and just like the Muslims of now, will be sending' heretics' to burned or lynched. When the Muslims become as educated as the Christian they too would be tolerant. After all in the middle ages the Muslims were more tolerant than Christians.
Unfortunate because I cannot give you a classical example, there were no bombs in middle ages.But bush was a Christian who killed in gods name. One need not commit suicide to kill in God's name, it is only those without power who need to die to kill.I've been following this thread and I have to agree with riddle here. It was the largely secular period of enlightenment that began to put an end the the medieval superstitions, absolute power of the pope and the atrocities committed by the Church.
With regards to the Islamic World, it is changing. Their enlightenment is coming via the Internet that is opening the minds of the people to the outside World. Increasingly young people in Saudi are questioning why they should obey the dictates of the unelected religious leaders. It is fear of the people waking up that the Iranian regime is building it's own Iranian-net and cutting off the Internet from the people.
The claim that Christians are oft to make that the medieval Church was not Christian is not entirely based upon their own sense of "What would Jesus do?". People behave in a manner acceptable to the society they live in. It's why medieval Europe thought it acceptable to burn heretics and why American settlers thought it acceptable to commit genocide of Native Americans and steal their lands. The American Christian Right still harbours prejudices against those not in their clubs, but their judgmental attitudes are held in check by the laws of the land.Let's put this into a world wide perspective. American settlers were of European decent, for the most part. Imperialism was the world they knew. Europeans were responsible for the mass slaughter (most figure 90% of the population of South America.) We learned from our fathers. I am certainly not attempting to make light of the take over of the world by England, the subjugation of an entire continent by Europeans that lasted until the 20th century, leaving the indigenous population in a life of virtual slavery, or the debacle that has become the Middle East (thanks to European fiddling); however, the world we inhabit is not am American invention or an American problem. Nor is it the result of religious problems.
I agree with Disappearing. If you study history at all - especially religious history, the catholic/christian church was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the age of enlightenment and reason. They had to change or die - evolve, so to speak. Their extremities would no longer be tolerated, so they changed. Instead of burning, torturing and murdering heretics, they changed their tunes somewhat. Sure, you still have the preacher who screams about hellfire from the pulpit (but strangely, this is mostly an American phenomenon and you'd be hard-pressed to find it in Europe or other parts of the world) but the age when they attack everyone who disagrees is mostly behind them. Muslims are just about 500 years behind, but they'll get there too.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
In this day of moral and ethical decline why would it surprise anyone to change the rules ,Lets just adjust the wording of the bible to our declining character ! If it doesnt fit your lifestyle ,hell ,just change the wording , turn your head the other way !, Gay marriage .....puuuhh ! Lets re-word the origional ! . Atheistic behavior , deviant moral practices ? Just like the laws of today . Lets just dumb ourselves down one more notch ! Lets just adjust our hearts and minds and behaviors down to that of the jungle ! oh yea ............
Yes, let us keep it unchanged. Let us kill the heretics and keep slaves.
It sounds like there's an underlying issue here. Everybody is interjecting their opinions about what the "bible" is and isn't, what it's supposed to be and what is shouldn't be. But the real issue isn't the bible, it's equality and the idea of a right and wrong way of thinking. None of your opinions, world views and personal observations will be heard by the other parties in discussion as long as your all trying to "impose" your beliefs upon the others. Here's a thought, instead of throwing your opinions "at" each other, why not "lay" all of your opinions "at the table" and use use collaborative observations, critical thinking skill and a little respect for everybody's input to come up with a way to at least communicate and come to some sort of common ground. Because in the end, do you want your children growing up having a "discussion" like the one at hand? "/ and if so, think about where it's gotten any of you so far. I hope that "my input" helps you all in whatever your trying to actual accomplish with yours, because "my observation" is that it's going nowhere "/ peace, blessings and happiness to all of you and your lives ones.
- ChleotheWitchposted 11 years ago0
Apart from Homophobia and inequality toward those set of people, the Bible has many more problems to solve than just that. Although that is a step forward, there is many more things in the Bible such as treating women as inferior.
That comment is absurd! Bush did not go to war because God told him to!
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Not to mention, Bush's father, Bush senior is infamous for the following comment:
President Bush made the comments during a campaign stop on August 27, 1988
at O'Hare airport. He spoke with Robert Sherman, chief spokesman for
American Atheists:
RS: "Mr. President, what will you do to win the votes of Americans
who are Atheists?"
GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in
God is pretty important to me."
RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"
GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under
God."You answer with much research on your subject however it doesn't convince me of the truth to what you claim. Heresay from the news media certainly does not convince me.
Yes, George W prayed and I believe he heard from God on many matters. I don't agree that he said those words. I could be wrong. I would have to hear it for myself before I could believe he said it like that. I believe his words could be misinterpreted.Seriously? You don't trust news sources, eyewitnesses and video clips of him actually speaking those words - but you may or may not trust the words of a 6000 year old book that was written by no eyewitnesses and was not faxed from heaven. Interesting.
The integrity of news media is not what it used to be. Video clips can be doctored. Even if it wasn't doctored I still believe it could have been misinterpreted. I didn't see the clip for myself so hard for me to say. As far as the Word of God that has stood the test of time by all means I believe in faith it is the true spoken Word of God. I base my life on it.
You really don't see the contradiction?
You do not accept eyewitness accounts of an actual even that happened less than twenty years ago because it might have been doctored, altered or misinterpreted, yet you believe in the Bible which has known forgeries, additions, was put together for political reasons (new testament) and was written at the very earliest by non-eye witnesses 50 years after the fact. That is a blatant contradiction, and I don't understand how you justify it in your own head. You don't even realize that its a contradiction.
Nope! You see all the information you Tate is not based on facts but others opinions. Faith is believing in those things that not seen. I have faith in my God regardless of how things may look. You may find that incredible but trust me God has been there for me through many situations in my life and always came through for me. There is so much wisdom in the word of God. You can't find better anywhere.
Do you know how the bible was compiled, who wrote it or how it's been changed/altered/deliberately forged? It seems like you don't care. You want to believe that it's perfect, so you believe it - even though nothing could be further from the truth. That's called blind faith at best - willfully ignorant at best.
A news story that is cited over many sources, giving direct quotes and interviewing eyewitnesses that AGREE is not opinion. That is NOT what the bible is. Quite the opposite, in fact.Actually I do happen to have knowledge about the bible, how it was inspired then written, how it was interpreted for the English language and also understand that the Hebrew text and Greek texts say it better in many instances due to such a broad scope of meaning to the language however the truth is the truth and it will prevail regardless. As you fellowship with the Holyspirit he guides you to the true meaning of the word despite mans ignorance in interpretation.
Great! I went to one of the best theological schools in the country. So tell me, who wrote the gospels? When was the new testament compiled, by whom and why?
Additionally, why don't you go into why the holy spirit is confused - since everyone interprets your bible differently, and they all seem to claim communion with the holy spirit - why can't any christians agree?
That negates the fact entirely, however, that you would believe a 2000-6000 year old BOOK that has been changed, forged intentionally and altered over millenniums but you don't trust an eyewitness account in your lifetime of something notable that a president said on several occasions.You see knowledge can sometimes be your worst enemy
so you're going to say being intelligent is ultimately a bad thing - and fail to answer any of my questions. You claim to be knowledgeable on the subject, so let's hear it.
Isn't she clear enough?
"I have faith in my God regardless of how things may look. You may find that incredible but trust me God has been there for me through many situations in my life and always came through for me."
She made a 'god' hypothesis to explain all that happened in her life. Once you made it clear that the explanations are all wrong, she will have to start all over. Her cherished beliefs are threatened, she will have to re-think her life. And if she is above middle age, she will find that most her life is wasted, and is too much for anybody.
Agreed, it is your own worst enemy when avoided at all costs.
Book of Matthew is believed to be written by Matthew otherwise known as Levi but later named Matthew. Mark was believed to be written by Mark otherwise known as John mark. Luke is believed to be the author of not only luke but Acts also although some would argue that Paul wrote the Acts.John was authored by the one who Jesus loved none other than John the son of Zebede.
All believed to be, not by. Unfortunately none of the gospels were written by eyewitness, in fact all the gospels are hearsay and about accounts that never occurred or occurred to other people like jesus Ananus.
Absolutely not true. Firstly, Mark was not written until AD 70 at the earliest. All the other gospels came later. None were written by the disciples of Jesus - and I'd bet that your bible even says so if you open the cover and look at the introduction to each gospel. At best they were written as hearsay (you know, the thing you don't like at all) 2-4 generations later, and john wasn't written specifically until over a hundred years after christ supposedly lived. This is common knowledge for biblical scholars. You first made a point to tell everyone how knowledgeable you were on the subject. Then you said knowledge is a bad thing. then you proved how incorrect your supposed knowledge was. Thank you for proving my point.
I have done as you suggested and from what I have read in the introductions in my study bible, they were all written around 62 and 66 AD. Just before the civil wars broke out in Jerusamen between the four major sects.
There were hundreds of writtings submitted for consideration for inclusion to the canon. Why the councit chose the ones that they did, no one will ever know? Though I will say that Constantine had a political motive.I don't know what study bible you're reading, but I have 6 bibles in the house (funny, for an atheist, but I have a history of study on the subject) and NONE of them date any of the gospels until after AD 73
Just Been looking for them, due to remodeling I've boxed a lot of stuff up. I'll find them tomorrow.
I have found only one the other is packed someplace else
I was reading the MacArthur Study Bible
Revelation and a couple others that John is thought to have been the auther was believed to have been written after the temple was destroyed beginning after 80 and Rev. in 96 ADJohn isn't actually thought to be the author of the gospel of john, and it is doubtful that he wrote revelations either.
Additionally -
have you heard of the Easter challenge? There is a standing reward of $1000 for anyone who can take the four accounts of the resurrection and put everything in chronological order without leaving anything out with no contradictions. To date, although the challenge was issued at least 10 years ago, no one has been able to do it - not renowned christian apologists, not bible scholars, not laypeople. Why don't you try? Look up Dan Barker's Easter challenge. Since you're so knowledgeable (but wait, that's supposed to be bad) it should be easy for you to do.
It will just create more divisiveness from religious people. They’ll will call it a fake bible. I don’t know the answer to what this trying to solve, I just notice how things seem to go whenever something like this comes into being.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Jees ! , Atheists here sure do seem to have to stand and wave thier bright colorful flags in the faces of all the others , crying foul the entire time against those who DO stand to defend thier faith ! The simple truth is GOD and those of faith, sure seem to 'bother " you an awful lot ! ......NEWS FLASH ! Atheists spend far too much time on the offense about what they beleive to be non-existant ! Hmmmm? .....interesting ....or as I believe ,are these threads merely the crys of weak of faith searching , searching ?.......
nope you're wrong. I can't speak for every atheist, but with a theology, ancient languages and apologetics background at a great bible college, I'm an atheist that just likes to debate and find many christian beliefs and justifications and scrambling to defend something that is inherently indefensible to be amusing - thank you very much. what a weak argument.
Nonsense. Atheists spent too much time on the offense of those people who spread "ideas about a non-existant thing" that is they oppose those who, according to them, spread lies.
Atheists oppose those who say there is god, not god, just like you oppose Allah or Thor. Because you oppose Allah or Thor, does that mean they exist as well?
Does god need your support? God knows what to do with Atheists and if god has let them do what ever they are doing, what is in it for you?
Another comment about the bibles we know today. The bible has been translated, and re-translated many times over. Who knows how many times it was written to make a statement, our re-worded so that some king or person of power could use the word of the bible, (That they probably had someone write into it.) To strike fear into whatever group of people they are trying to control.
There are many documentaries on PBS, and independent news channels, where someone is always trying to pick apart the bible. Some even say that the people who translated the bible weren't even sure that what they re-wrote was accurate. That's probably why there are so many different versions of the bible and so many different religions, because each original writer had their own agenda.
So, to be skeptical of a gay friendly version of a bible, which nobody knows is accurate, is kinda funny. Why don't we just all be in-accurate together! LOL!!Naomi's Banner wrote:
You see knowledge can sometimes be your worst enemy
================
Thinking that a little bit of knowledge is sufficient is very dangerousYou know me not. You frankly don't know what I think really. You base your assumption on one comment in a post. I find it repulsive when " theologians " boast of t here knowledge when it can be God given as well without going to so called " best of schools ".
Don't get me wrong I love education and I enjoy knowledge just to find the need to throw it people's face to make a point. When I said I have knowledge I was just making the point that I am not ignorant on the subject. I have studied and know what is up and how the Bible was written. The originals transcribers are not here to tell so all of this knowledges is based on supposition at best. Regardless of how and who I choose to believe. I have had personal in counters with God and believe His Word to be true.Forgive my typos and my auto corrects.
That is a lie. God is not a salesman who go around telling/selling stuff for you to believe or to have 'encounter with'. What you believe is people who say what they say is God's words, not God's words and what you say is explanation of your experience based on the belief in humans, ignorant humans.
And putting down people because they told you the truth and contradicted you is arrogance and shows contempt for education.You believe it to be a lie tells me you have not experienced such an encounter yourself. I find that sad. I could care less whether or not you are educated or not. I have no contempt for education that is a mistaken assumption on your part of that I assure you. I see you took offense to my comment for that I apologize that was not my intention. I have a great deal of respect for education as a matter of fact. Education should show in the manner in which you conduct yourself without having to throw it in someone's face to make a point. I pray you too will encounter the goodness of God. I so enjoy my fellowship with Him.
Took offense? For what? I disagreed.
The experience you say is experienced by countless others from all religions including atheists. Only you chose to ignore other possibilities and other gods because of what you are taught when you were a kid.
Say I had an accident a few months before, a grave one and I escaped without a scratch, though my car was near gone. If I were a christian I say Jesus saved me and I had a jesus experience, while a Muslim will substitute Allah for Jesus. But there is a factor you all ignore, that there are countless others who can die from the same accident and they are not here to thank. Again considering that, for god, whether you live or die is nothing, because your soul is always with him, he need not consider you or any one particularly, nor need to care whether you live here or there.You see that is where you show how wrong you are. I am the apple of Gods eye!
you are? You're god's favorite? How do you happen to know that little tidbit of glorious (and completely humble) knowledge?
Oh hush! There are some religious people who- possessing no self-esteem- must rely upon God's love to assure themselves that SOMEBODY loves them.
These are the same folks that say things like "God saved a wretch like me" and "We are not worthy of God's love"
If you take it away then they literally have nothing to make themselves feel worthwhile. Why would you want to take that away from them? It's cruel.It's not cruel. It's eye-opening. The reason they FEEL that way is because that's how their god wants them to feel. They are taught (sometimes from childhood) that "they are weak but he is strong". They're taught about original sin - how they're held responsible for the mistakes of others generations before them. God ultimately wants people to feel small, worthless and insignificant - so they recognize how good he is. If that was a spousal relationship, that would be considered outright abusive - yet when it's god, it's okay.
Furthermore, she stated that she was god's favorite. I don't think it's out of line to ask for evidence of that.It's not really eye-opening as your words probably aren't really going to change anything. If they do the result would be something akin to a delusional person being suddenly slammed into reality. That's the rebound effect that happens sometimes when schizophrenics start taking meds and kill themselves.
So it depends on your motivation for "opening her eyes" Sorry but it kinda feels spiteful. In addition her delusions/reality isn't really harming anybody. It may piss you off but so what? Lots of people piss other people off.
There are many different forms of Christianity. I firmly believe that each form draws people who would have followed their principles or had their mindset ANYWAY. Homophobes are drawn to churches that hate gays. People with low self-esteem are drawn to churches that tell them they are nothing without God.
It's the chicken/egg thing. I don't believe that religion makes a person one way or another. I believe they were that way anyway and use religion as confirmation that who they are is fine.
As such religion itself is neutral. What people choose to do in the NAME of God is purely up to them. They are just using him as a scapegoat/role model to do what they would have done anyway.I don't go out there with the idea to "change anyone" nor do I feel the need to evangelize my atheism. I just enjoy discussions, and I find people of Naomi's ilk to be humorous - and I slightly feel sorry for them. I don't think that pointing out someone's inconsistencies or blatant irrationalities to be spiteful. Sorry it feels that way to you, but I can't control how you perceive things. Nothing about this discussion (or any other on these forums) "pisses me off". As a former missionary turned atheist, I have to have a thick skin. If I didn't, I would be a weeping mess on the floor - and it's just not my style.
The fact that there are so many varying forms of christianity, each with their own beliefs, dogmas and interpretations simply points out that the bible is not sufficient or clear. It can be used to say anything. It was used to justify slavery and putting gays to death. It was used to forbid slavery and embrace gays into the church. God himself (according to the bible) is not the author of confusion - but christians are very confused - and no sect agrees with all of the others. Using religion as your crutch to fit into your preconceived ideals is one thing - when it starts moving away from a personal belief (as in the case with gay marriage) and people of faith vote to suppress and limit the rights of other human beings because of their faith, I start to have a problem with personal faith. People do not live in a vacuum. What you do affects others - and that is worrisome.
It's not just what people choose to do in the name of god. According to the bible, god has killed over 2 million people - either by himself, with an angel of death or by divine command. That's a problem with a supposedly loving, benevolent deity, in my opinion.No it really doesn't. I- once again- use the example of the sentence "It's a red car" The sentence couldn't not be any simpler... however the red car in your mind is not the one that was in my mind when I wrote it. EVERY written message is interpreted as it is being read. The interpretation is the responsibility of the reader not the author.
See above.
Actually PEOPLE used it to justify slavery and put gays to death. It may seem a small distinction but it's an important one. Ultimately the responsibility of an individuals actions lays on their shoulders. The Bible never killed anyone... well except for freak accidents.
See above. The Bible didn't forbid anything nor has it ever embraced anyone... once again except possibly for a freak accident here and there.
I'll go along with that to a point. My problem is most people who have a problem with gays would have a problem with gays regardless of the bible. In the end people get their opinions from lots of sources. Say a person had a problem with gays because they couldn't reproduce. Do you get mad at a biology text for giving that information?
Once again the problem isn't the information it's the person interpreting the information. If you focus on religion as the culprit you are attacking the shield... not the person holding it. The shield isn't the problem is it?
There are two problems with that statement... If you don't believe in God then how could you believe he killed anyone? Two: Lots of killers can be and are loving and benevolent.that's all well and good except for when you claim that the author is the only god in the universe. Christians proclaim that the bible is the living, breathing word of god - he inspired it and has spoken through it - but instead of faxing it down from heaven, he used fallable human beings to take dictation. I agree that human beings interpret it, but almost all of them claim that theirs is the "true" interpretation and all the rest are therefore false. I grant your point that it's the human's problem - but when you're claiming to speak for the "almighty god" no matter what you're saying, you'd think that it would carry a bit more weight.
The bible didn't forbid anything? Have you read the 613 commandments in the Old Testament - all the "thou shalt nots" are typically considered to be god himself COMMANDING or FORBIDDING certain actions.
I may take your point about per-existing bias to a point. But when it comes to gay marriage, especially, the arguments against it most often are because "god says so". the other arguments fall flat. Reproduction, for example. If marriage is only for breeding, then couples who do not want children, are infertile etc, should not be allowed to be married either.
I'm not interested in attacking anyone personally. I am interested in questioning and pointing out the inconsistencies in their religion of choice. Why? Because religion is used as a justification for a boat-load of negative actions. If you take the shield away (or at least shoot it full of holes) you're left with the human underneath. Most human beings have a sense of morality that defies their religion. For example, most christians I know do not stone their children to death for disobedience - which means that they are more moral than their holy book. Yet they claim the bible is the ultimate source for morality, and without it everyone would run around raping and murdering others. That kind of assumption is baseless. Therefore the shield IS the problem. It allows them to get away with certain acts and gives them something to hide behind without having to take responsibility. Stripping that shield away is therefore a fundamental part of the process.
I don't believe that god exists, I'm just going based on a tally in the bible. The bible that they claim, again, to be the infallible word of their god. According to that book, god himself has killed (or ordered the killing, or sent an angel to kill) over 2 million people. It's an easy study - just read through it and make a note every time someone dies. By the same token, Satan, the apparent enemy of god (and I'm using the term enemy lightly) has only killed 10 - and he killed those ten with god's blessing - and permission.
Killers can be benevolent? How so?1. Not all Christians claim that the bible is the living breathing anything... As a matter of fact less then 50 percent of Christians do.
2. What weight that any statement carries is completely dependent on the listener.
3. The bible is an inanimate object. It has no more power to forbid something than my couch.
4. Yes I have read the bible.
5. Once again it doesn't matter what a person uses to justify their opinions. They are their opinions. If you look at your own opinions you will find that your reasons are mostly justifications as well. You feel the way you do because that's how you feel.
6. Yes if you take away the shield there is a human being. Taking away the shield didn't change anything about the human being. You just took away their protection. Now the question I guess would be why? In this case the answer is because you don't like their opinion. You think yours is better and want to leave them defenseless so that you make them see that. It's what humans do but it's nice to recognize that it is what is going on. Whether it is for the "greater good" to have them agree with your opinion is up to you. You might want to remember that they feel the exact same way about making you agree with their opinion though... just food for thought.
Essentially what you just said is that you want to make others defenseless so they can be responsible to adhering to morality. Who's morality? Yours.
7. My father has killed- by his estimation- at least 10 people. He was in the military served in Vietnam then the entered the state police. There are hundreds of Police officers that kill people in the line of duty. There are wardens of prisons that "flip the switch" There are physicians that "pull the plug" I personally told the doctors to stop doing CPR on my child. I consider myself a fairly loving and benevolent person... and I KNOW my father is. I'm sure that many of those doctors policeman and wardens are as well.which denominations of christians do not believe that the bible is the word of god? I've certainly never encountered them
when commandments supposedly come from god himself, that statement would carry more weight than rules dictated by my mother or grandmother - it was used to terrify me as a child.
that's fine, as long as you don't claim it's the word of god
fantastic.
I'm curious to know what justifications you think I'm using to make assertions based on my own bias.
Why? It has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" their opinion. What I dislike is them using their opinion to limit, restrict or condemn other human beings. When you take the shield away, you have a human being who is then given the responsibility of thinking from themselves - and not simply parroting what they've been told or taught. I don't personally care if people agree with me or not. I'm not out to deconvert the world.
My morality has nothing to do with it. There are societal laws that are not beholden to any spiritual belief - they're for the good of society as a whole. Morality is a social construct, and you don't need a belief in a god to have it.
We're talking about two different types of killers. You're talking about people who have taken lives in self-defense, in according with legal principles or in the line of duty. That's entirely different from a sociopath or psychopath who kills others for pleasure - and a deity that supposedly created everyone and loves everyone so much to take human life without compunction or second-thought is right up there with an evil dictator in my book.46% of all Protestants believe it was "inspired by God" as opposed to the 41% that believe it is literal. Only 21% of Catholics believe it to be literal. A full 65% believe it to be inspired rather than literal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-b … rally.aspx
It appears that you might be letting your past experiences convince you that every religious person you meet thinks like you used to. Having conversations with religious zealots on forums will do little to change that perception. However your perceptions are apparently slightly skewed.
I know you can't really read tone over the internet... be assured I'm putting this as gently as I can. I'm sorry that your parents -or whoever- used the bible to terrify you into obedience. Please realize that was their fault not Christianity as a whole or even God.
I don't and again most Christians don't.
Please re-read your postings. Notice how many time you say "Christians _____" and how many times you refer to growing up a certain way and how it made you feel. Your past has colored your opinions... it has biased you. Now you are justifying trying to change another's beliefs -read shooting holes in their shield... opening their eyes... etc. as a positive thing because of your negative experience. You claim it is about gay rights. That is a self-justification. You believe it is okay to try to alter a persons beliefs because they are "bad". That is also a justification.
Every person parrots what they have been told or taught in every opinion they have. Personalities are developed like that. Whether we are taught by observing something on our own or by reading it in a book or being told it by our parents. Christians ARE thinking for themselves. Everyone does. They just aren't thinking what you are. Their experiences are different. Even when one is agreeing with a crowd it is because they chose to agree based on their own personal thoughts.
Norms are a societal construct. Morality is a personal set of beliefs. Every person is automatically living by their own morality. They have no option in this. Your moral code says Gay marriage is right. Another's says it isn't. By trying to change their opinion you are attempting to usurp their moral code with yours. If you are attempting to change societal norms then your beef isn't with a single individual's morality it's with society.
See that's both an issue with your morality and your interpretation of the bible. If you think what the bible says God did was immoral then that is your perception. As long as you don't try to force your perception on others then that's fine. You asked how a killer could be benevolent and loving. I answered.What do you think "inspired by god" means? It implies more than a simple human author sitting down to write whatever they feel like, no? You and I have different understandings of what "inspired" means. I have no problem admitting skewed perceptions, but I'm not entirely sure that those figures are correct, as I have not researched them.
Agreed, but they're hardly the minority.
Gay rights is only one example out of thousands. I try to see everything logically and with an open mind. I don't always succeed. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am trying to have a dialogue which may result in a challenge to what they blindly believe to be true. I am open to changing my own mind in light of evidence against it. How many believers (I will refrain from saying christians) would be able to say the same? The fact of the matter is that I'm not capable of forcing someone to change their beliefs. I am capable, however, of having an intelligent conversation - and as a result of that conversation, they may start to rethink things that they otherwise would blindly accept. I see that as a good thing - and I think dogmatic beliefs without evidence ARE bad. I'm not alone in that belief, but I'm not using it to justify anything - all I'm doing is talking.
You may be fundamentally right, but people change their minds about all sorts of things all the time. That's what research, knowledge and learning is for - to change preconceived notions. It seems as though you're saying that you'll just believe whatever you're raised with, and that you'll never be able to change your mind - I'm living proof that isn't true. Otherwise, I'd still be an evangelical christian like my parents. I'm far from it - not because I'm now "parroting" someone else, but because I am now thinking for myself and examining a variety of different viewpoints and therefore making my own conclusions.
Not true. Morality is not solely personal - it is societal. If everyone were living in their own morality, there would be mass chaos and anarchy.For the sake of the current debate and for the definition of the poll it means "not literal"... I did kinda give you the link
I'm going to ask you to find me some stats on that. In your life they were obviously not the minority... in my life those kinds of people were few and far between. Since we are two people with two obviously different experiences maybe we BOTH need to get a better idea of what average is. I think it's safe to say it's probably less than you think and more than I do.
To a point I agree with you... The problem I have is I believe that once a certain point of maturity NO ONE is believing blindly. Assuming average intelligence and emotional development they believe what they believe knowingly. Once again it doesn't matter why they initially formed that opinion... they now own it. To say otherwise assumes that the other person is somehow mentally deficient.
Now... lets say you believe XX about believers... It doesn't matter what that XX is but for this argument you say that all believers believe blindly and can't change their mind in light of evidence. Now say that you met a believer that obviously wasn't like that. Would that change your mind about all believers or just that one person?
On the converse of that is if you met 20 believers that all believed blindly and wouldn't change their mind in light of evidence... would that change your opinion of the first believer?
Sorry that was a digression but I think you get my point. When you are speaking of "believers" there is no qualifier. There is no "some" or even "most". The distinction is huge because then you stop thinking about "them" as a group and can address on an individual level... which is really the wise thing to do anyway.
As far as dogmatic beliefs....*shrugs* I'm not sure they are universally bad. There are lots of things that we need to believe everyday without specifically knowing every detail behind that belief. There are also lots of dogmatic beliefs that result in people doing "good" things for obscure reasons.
In addition... and my last counter point to this point...Say I believed being gay was wrong because it was icky. (And honestly you will find that at the root of most anti-gay arguments this is there somewhere) Do I need a reason to be repulsed by something? I personally gag around egg-nog. As such I don't want it in my house. Would it be better if all anti-gay people suddenly stopped saying "God said" and instead said "it's icky"? If they internally gag at something then how on Earth would you convince them that it was wrong to be repulsed by something? Why would they be wrong in their repulsion?
I am going to go personal here for just one second. I changed my mind TO Christianity. I'm a pretty logical and intelligent person I think... more emotional than logical but the capacity for logic is pretty well formed. Therefore you must also assume that there might possibly be others of my faith that are both logical and intelligent... Just saying... it happens. Just reiterating the *it's the person not the faith* thing I've been pushing.
Not so... I assure you that everyone is squarely within their own moral code. That's why people behave differently than others and make different decisions. If morality was societal then there would be no need for laws. Luckily societal norms spring forth from the moral majority... meaning that completely within their own moral code they would or would not do something... and most other people feel the same way. To try that out take someone from a completely different culture and drop him into another society. His moral code will likely not change but his conformity to social norms will have to...(culture shock).
Another digression leading to my last point... What you are seeing with the Gay marriage thing is a gradual growth by a moral minority into a moral majority. That is leading to conflict in personal morality vs. societal norms. The tension will only ease when the moral minority becomes the majority and the societal norm cements itself. When you see that you realize that trying to change a largely ingrained individual moral code is as insignificant as removing a grain of sand from a beach before the tide comes in anyway... So let the piece of sand be content to be the same piece of sand it's always been in the time it has before it gets washed away.
Psalms 17:8 keep me as the apple of your eye. I have that right Along with David for He loves me just as He loves David.
To JMCFARLAND: In this case the repeated postings reiterating the same thing over and over really have nothing to do with religion. It's a personality thing. The bible never mentioned anything about arguing with strangers on an internet forum to glorify his name. In this case it's all Naomi.
that passage was a prayer from david to his god. He was asking god to do those things - god wasn't saying them to David. Big difference.
He takes the time to number the hairs on my head of course I am the apple of his eye. Sorry you don't agree but I know my Father in heaven and He loves me as He loves you.
I think you're taking a whole lot of liberties with the word of god. Aside from a handful of people in the old testament, I don't really think he plays favorites.
It is written it the Word of God. You too can be the apple of his eye if you choose Him.
That is called superiority complex. If you check history, the white men had the same complex and started to make the black men salves thinking them as inferiors. So when you flaunt such beliefs, everybody ought to oppose lest the world goes back to the "good old days" where only a sect was superior and entitled to all good things in life.
No, this is called knowing who you are in Christ. Being sure of your Salvation and all the benefits that come with it. No one is superior to another as all have the same opportunity. God is love and love conquers all fear. Those things you speak of are fear of oppression. With God all in His kingdom are equal so no opportunity for discrimination. I said I am Gods apple of His eye to make a point that all who choose to follow Him are the apple of His eye. Furthermore God has His eye on the world as He loves both you and me. He created us to love. He is seeking your love as well. Won't you give Him a chance? You won't regret it. He takes good care of those who seek Him with all of their heart.
What you are saying is that I won't regret if I follow you.For every human and animal is equal and he has no partiality. And if he want to say something he will not do a ridiculous act of killing himself but say it in unambiguous words.
"who choose to follow Him are the apple of His eye'
if god is love then everybody is an apple in his eye irrespective of whether you follow him or not. The people who are dead are also "apples" And you are following not god, but some ancient jews who said they know what god wants/said.Why go on a sightseeing tour of a place you don't like? If you don't dig the scene, don't divert traffic, just use your one way ticket to nowhere and ride it to the end of the line.
You like to put words in people's mouths to make your point. I gain nothing if you follow me. Jesus is calling you. The right answer would be yes!! God bless.
Actually, the right response would by "why?" There's no reason to believe in a god that cannot be proven. Why throw your life away for a "maybe"?
You have to ask yourself, but what if I'm right?? I'm willing to take that chance.
That would be admitting that you really don't know if you're right, which pretty much contradicts much of what you've claimed about your faith. And, to be gambling your eternal soul on such small odds considering how many gods there are, you have more of a chance at being right on a craps table in Vegas.
Because Jesus never lived. Even if he lived we have no saying available from him, all we have is other people's opinion about what he said. And that opinions are of ignorant people. They didn't even know that epilepsy is a disease that can be treated.
So when you ask me to follow Jesus, you are telling me that you like it hence I too should follow it.
This is a misrepresentation of the situation. All races have captured, sold and kept slaves except for the Irish.
First of all, the first person to "Brag" was you. You asserted that you had plenty of knowledge on the subject, which you then went on to prove was untrue.
Secondly, I'm sorry that I repulse you. I never claimed to be a theologian, I said I went to a great Bible school, which was true. The reason I said it was not to brag, but to back up the assertion I was about to state. In polite conversation or debate, it is common (if not expected) to share your background or qualifications prior to making a claim or an assertion. I'm sort you don't know that.
I'm also sorry that you went on to prove yourself at best mislead and at worst a liar. You claimed to have more than adequate knowledge on the subject, then immediately claimed that the gospels were Wooten by the people whose names are on them, completely ignorant of the fact that NO ONE believes that anymore, least of all biblical scholars or historians. How am I supposed to take anything else you say seriously when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. You don't care if your beliefs are true. You don't Cate if the Bible is true. You want to believe it, so you're going to, no matter what. I feel sorry for youI said I had knowledge. I did not say plenty of knowledge. You see how easily a quote can be misconstrued. You make my point!
you said, and I quote:
"Actually I do happen to have knowledge about the bible, how it was inspired then written, how it was interpreted for the English language and also understand that the Hebrew text and Greek texts say it better in many instances due to such a broad scope of meaning to the language however the truth is the truth and it will prevail regardless"
the word "plenty" was my addition, not yours. You claimed to know how it was inspired then written, how it was translated, etc - but you then failed on the most fundamental level when I asked you who wrote the 4 canonical gospels.
I did nothing to prove your point, you just further injured your own credibility. Thanks.I disagree. I stated simply it is believed that so in so wrote this book and that book. No one knows for certain but there is compelling evidence to believe this good be possible that the books were written by information gathered and documented by these men. I understand there are differing opinions and many of these opinions come from educated men and women. There are many translations out there today that have been re written directly from Greek and Hebrew writings and there is very little differences in these translations. I tend to lean towards these translations. I do keep an open mind by reading and comparing many different versions so as to get the most out of the meaning that the author was trying to convey.
I appreciate your discussion.who believes that these books were written by the actual apostles, since almost the entire community of biblical scholars no longer cling to that particular delusion? There are books upon books upon books on the subject of biblical authorship, dating the gospels, dating everything about the writing of the old and new testaments. The fact of the matter is that no one dates the earliest gospel until after the destruction of the temple in AD 73, and then the next two gospels (matthew and luke) built on mark's gospel and changed it, etc - then john was written much later than those three. The weren't written by eyewitnesses, and were therefore hearsay - which is the whole reason you don't believe Bush's well-documented quote on why he went to war. This brings the conversation full-circle, but you're willing to accept one but not the other without video or actually talking to the man face to face. Do you not see the inherent problem in that kind of logic - if it can be called logic at all? I actually do read Greek and Hebrew. Do you?
I have only studied bits and pieces. I find it a very complex yet compelling language the Hebrew I am speaking of. I can't begin to boast the ability to read. May I ask how you came to learn the languages?
I have home study coarses for them and so just in beginning stages. I have sat in on a symposium where age Jewish scholar describe the language which I found intriguing.
I am sorry that I didn't see this post earlier.
You have misunderstood my intent. So I apologize for not making myself more clear.
I was directing my comment to those who presume themselves wise because they have learned something from a book.
I, ... like you, have had my encounters that can not be learned from a book.
We ALL have a "small" portion of wisdom; ... some a tiny bit more than others, but basically about the same. We learn a single thing and precieve ourselves wise enough to give directions which is a dangerous thing to do.
If this comment sounds offensive to anyone, Well, I was including myself as a target for this insult.No problem at all. I tend to get defensive much too quickly as I find my thoughts attacked quite often in these forums.
It is often difficult to follow my train of thought. I tend to walk the middle ground.
I do understand the point of view which many atheist express concerning the bible and the 1000s of different interpretations coming from it.
I believe in the God of Abraham, and that Jesus Christ is the Messiah which was foretold by the prophets of old. I also believe that he fulfilled all of those prophesy as he said that he would.
"fulfilled all of those prophesy as He Said "That He Would" ". This is where I find myself separated from most Christians.
I still prefer the LOLcat version:
"In da beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez an da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sez, I can haz lyte? An lyte wuz."S'what I'm sayin'. But at least the kitteh version is cuter.
I could totally get behind that. Cheezburgers 'n' invisible bicycles for all!
damn cats!....what about the the luv of puppies!
Get real guys, don't compare dogs and Cats bibles with the Gay bible
Or the wrath of God will be upon your 3 false bibles
NO GODS BEFORE ME, THIS IS UNIVERSIAL TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE SPEACKINGdid you mean "speaking"?
No other gods BEFORE me - not that they don't exist...you just can't worship them above Yahweh. Good to know.That's actually a really good point. Doesn't that kind of imply there are more than him if he's worrying about you worshiping them?
DON'T CORRECT ME JM, I'M PERFECT AND MADE ADAM PERFECT TOO
I GAVE YOU EVERYTHING, ALL i WANT FROM YOU MELISSA AND EVERYONE IS TO WORSHIP MEwhat I find fascinating is the wording - and if you go back to the original Hebrew language, it's the same.
"thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me". It seems that god is acknowledging that other, lesser gods exist (which was a culturally accepted belief at the time world-wide) but HE is the one that should receive the majority of the worship. Why didn't he say "there are no other gods, worship me alone?"
Certainly leaves room for doubt, at the very least.Isaiah 45:5-6
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other.JM
YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT GOD.
IF YOU GET THE WRONG ANSWER TO ME, IT'S NOT MY FAULT THAT SATAN TORTURE YOU FOR LONG LONG TIME.
JUST REMEMBER ONE THING
I LOVE YOU UNCONDITIONALLY
DAM, WHY, DID I MAKE THOSE ATHEISTS AND GAYS IN THE FIRST PLACEAgain, I don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that you're not god - you have to prove that you are. :-)
THE REASON IS TOO STRONG IN THIS ONE, THERE MANY WHO FEAR ME, .....
I guess I'll need to try and steal some other soul. People are getting too wise in Politics, now a days.
The commandment, "though shalt have no other gods before me" doesn't necessarily mean that God is acknowledging other "lesser" gods. Isaiah 45:5 states by God "I am The Lord, and there is none else, no god besides me, i girded thee though thou hast not known me". It seems to be the acknowledgment of our desire to idolize many things in our lives. If you remember, when Moses an his people were wondering in the dessert for 40 days and 40 nights, some of his people created a golden calf to worship. They made that there god for a time for lack of faith. Despite the fact that God had proven to be powerful and the one to bring them out of captivity with wondrous miracles.
Other references in the bible would be Paul stated 1 Corinthian 8:4-6 "4) Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an
idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. (5) For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as
indeed there are many gods and many lords, (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we
exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
There are very specific references in the "king James Bible" and it's many translations that clarify every issue brought up here as many more not spoken about.
Ultimately, this discussion is more about "personal opinion" than factual and logical reasoning if what is and isn't about the "King James" version of the bible.
I personally have no objections to anyone's "opinions" however, I suggest that if a statement be made about the "King James" version of the bible, that as any good citizen would do, stick to the facts, offer opinions and consider other people's worldview with respect and an open mind.King "get jiggy" James. Man oh man, he could make it rain in the pub!
that's called "Pascal's Wager". Personally, you have a one in a million shot of being right. What if the Hindu god is the right one? Then you've wasted your life praying to the wrong god - and you're just as screwed as the rest of us. :-) Good luck with that.
I don't know... if it's Ganesh or Krishna she's probably fine. If it's Shiva or Murugan she might have a few problems.
Actually Allah is pretty cool about that (Assuming you are talking about the Islamic Allah I'm not sure if Hindus had a God named Allah) If you read the Quran it's actually possible to go to heaven on good deeds alone.
The Jihadists are taking the easy way out by doing the kill a couple infidels and straight shot thing... kinda like some of the "born again" crowd do with the "just believe in me and you're in" thing.
Straight shot to your virgins or cloud or whatever... no actual work required.Zeus could be interesting... he had a thing for mortal women...most of them did though. Which Ba'al?
any of them, really - or the original El, for that matter - you know, the midionite god that the Israelites kind of took over when they murdered the entire population. The god that held out bronze arms and you heated them to red-hot and then offered your children on them to satiate his lust for burning, innocent flesh. The war god.
Besides, the bible god had a thing for mortal women. he impregnated one, after all.I'm not sure impregnation by proxy counts as a "thing".
Technically if she's correct she will meet Ba'al. It's more of a title than an actual deity.
Have you ever read David Eddings? If so it's kinda like the Kal in Kal Torak.... if you've never read it then you have no idea what I am talking about.nope, never read it. I'm interested though.
It's a pretty good series... The Belgariad then the Malloreon. It's light fantasy fiction but it does illustrate how religion can effect different people...depending on the God they choose.
Now please understand that the recommendation comes from someone who adores Douglas Adams and has damn near built a temple to Terry Pratchett.
I am a geek in the true sense of the word...
Take book recommendations from me with that precaution. There are ten books to the series and I would hate for you to give up that chunk of your life without know from whom the recommendation came.Have you ever read the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind?
LOL! I want to be a mord-sith when I grow up. Edding's writing is a lot more laid back. His character development rocks but he is prone to sarcasm and over-use (if you're the serious type) of comic relief.
I enjoy sarcasm, and I learned all of my snark from joss whedon (but I gather that you figured out my love of sarcasm already)
*Groans* Please don't tell me you're a Buffy fan... Must all lesbians be Buffy fans? It's like Birkenstocks and Dockers and somehow Renee Zellwiger.
Is there a handbook that I missed?
(Please read the above with the sense of humor that was intended)yes, yes and yes (minus the dockers) - so quotes my wife, who found your post just as humorous and hilarious as I did.
The handbook came with the toaster - after you converted 10 young children. it was hard work, but someone's gotta do it - and the priests weren't really up to par.Maybe that's why I stay setting on the proverbial fence. I cant stand Birkenstocks...Never cared for Buffy... Dockers make EVERYONE's ass look bigger...
I could probably run with the Renee Zellwiger thing if I had to but Pauley Perrette is more my type.
Besides someone told me if I fell the wrong way off the fence that I'd have to change my own tires... and for some reason know how to fix a blender. They were quite adamant about the blender thing.Me personally? I'm more of an Anne Hathaway/Anna Kendrick type person. I'm more for wranglers than dockers, and I like Tivas - not birkens.
Have to stick with the buffy though. It's Sarah Michelle Gellar vs. Eliza Dushku. HELLO! They fight, and have snark-offs and puns. How does the world get better than that?
I don't know how to fix a blender, but I do know how to change a tire, assemble furniture and change my own oil. So there.
Yep! thanks for your contribution to the many colors which cover the world as we know it.
nope, still don't understand what you're saying.
and you won't till you want too.
Happy new year and good night.It's funny - I was understanding you perfectly when you were making sense, and speaking in paragraphs. When you reverted to one-liners and ambiguity, however, you lost me.
That is cool, you kill Allah will take you to heaven, live well the believers take care you reach heaven faster.
Related Discussions
- 6
If Hillary Clinton is a bisexual, then why doesn't she come out and tell the wor
by Brad 8 years ago
If Hillary Clinton is a bisexual, then why doesn't she come out and tell the world?Today, it is a badge of honor to come out of the closet. Hillary and Bill never had the average marriage. Bill has had a long line of women problems, while we hardly hear about Hillary. I don't care one way or...
- 21
Homo Say What? Are homophobes secretly gay?
by Stacie L 11 years ago
Why have some of the nation's most vehement anti-gay activists Ted Haggard, Larry Craig had gay sex scandals of their own? An op-ed in the New York Times' Sunday Review section tries to explain. The authors of the piece, two research psychologists, say they have "empirical evidence that...
- 82
Where Born Gay So Enough Of The Homophobia
by Callum 14 years ago
We do not wake up in the morning and decide to be gay today, we are naturally born gay just as others are born straight, bisexual and whatever else. Each to their own I say, we have no choice in being gay its who we are and what we are, why do people make such a big thing out of it? Are they afraid...
- 187
Ten reasons why homophobics are wrong
by Rainbowlove 13 years ago
I've been very hurt by the many things people have said to me and I was getting really tired of the ridiculous excuses. And I know it says ten reasons but I could only figure out five, sorry1.) Unlike many straight homophobic people, the LGBT society has not tried to interfere in the Heterosexual...
- 540
Are you homophobic like me?
by sooner than later 13 years ago
Actually I dont believe in the word homophobic. I have no fear of gay people, I would not harm any gay person nor would I waste my time countering their fight for gay rights. However, I do disagree with the lifestyle and if anyone asks me I will give my oppinion. Welcome to America. But that makes...
- 18
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible
by graceinus 8 years ago
How do we know if we understand the correct context when we study the Holy Bible?I have often wonder why we sometimes if not often misunderstand the context of chapters and/or verses when we study God's word. One can read a verse or chapter a number of times believing they understand it's meaning ,...