There is a lot of confusion and errors in this hub. And the correction is out of love, for those God loves he corrects. So, all that's been written here is out of a man misinterpreting of the scriptures for we are to pray without ceasing and ask for God's help and guide on understanding of the word. God put pairs one female and male in the garden to bear fruit create human life and one pair male and female of the animals in the ark and God does bless marriages where it's male with female. God intended to be this way in Genesis there is no debates on this in the beginning it was male and female women made out of the rib of the man. I pray before I read the bible and the rainbow is the symbol of God promise that he won't destroy the world threw water the flood. And we all have learned this in church as a child. If fordination is a sin and adultery is a sin then having sex with the same sex is a sin. This world is saying evil is good and good is evil mentality. It's an spirit of the flesh the world but Christians are not part of the world. well I didn't enjoy your miss inform of scriptures. It reads error something isn't right here. So in Provers it reads "It's better to open rebuke... than a hidden love." And also As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. So there is no judgment here just God's correction. Water reflects a face, so man's heart reflects the man.
Did He really? Did He? It is so hard to understand that.
Stealing is wrong. Some say that others have a predisposition to the practice (kleptomania) however, this does not now make thievery a "good or acceptable" practice. There is your, or whomever's "thorn". We all deal with some sin. But we must recognize it as such, or we find ourselves scrambling to tell God what should and should not be sinful. Sin is sin and it was written down for all to see. His grace and mercy covers all though. We worship God in spirit and truth. We must show him our hearts and allow him to show us what we need to do. He is a father and will not cut you off for imperfection. Arrogance and "self" are his antagonists.
I did not "choose" to be gay. You do not "choose" your sexual orientation. When did you choose to be straight? When did you actively choose who you would or would not be attracted to? What if the world told you that you were "wrong" for liking who you were attracted to? Would you like it very much?
Please don't be offended. God corrects me on my "garbage". I'm am NOT gay, but I am all kinds of other "sexually wrong". I too find no fault in you. the bible says that WE are wrong. But oh how different people would feel if they could see your HEART...
my heart is a physical organ that pumps blood to the rest of my body. That's all it does. That's all that your heart does too.
Oh! Well now you are speaking from a carnal standpoint. Spiritually, the heart of you is your center being; the origin of thought and deed. The bible needs to be understood spiritually. From the heart (not that fleshy thing just waiting to return to dust...
no, I'm speaking from a realistic standpoint. The heart does not originate thought or deed. The brain does. The brain thinks. The heart pumps blood. It is not the center of your emotions. It is not the center of your thoughts. It is an organ that pumps blood. No, really, it is. Have you ever taken anatomy?
Yes. I HATED that subject!!! The body is so intricate. So, when you read your bible, and you saw the word "heart" you thought it meant the blood pumping mechanism??? Science calls that the heart because it is the center of life and body. But the biblical heart is the center of all that you say and do. Contemplation, though you feel it takes place in the brain, actually takes place in the part that doctors can't see. They will NEVER know HOW/WHY you put together your thoughts. That part takes place in the spiritual realm.
no, when I read "heart" in the bible, I realized that it was a metaphor for your emotional seat, which is still in the brain. Not the heart.
Wow!!! Can you tell me what the bible says about flesh??? I am almost sure you know. See, fleshy brains and hearts are not in the bible.
It was written by men made of flesh. So what must you mean?
I meant that the biblical heart of a man is not visible to naked eyes. It was stated that the heart is the chest pumping mechanism, no more, no less.
Flesh means nothing. Spirit and TRUTH is the way we should worship. Biblically, flesh is not important.
So we are not instructed to take care of our bodies?
The body houses the temple of God??? Hmmm... Jesus said, it is not what goes in that defiles you, but what comes out. What comes out comes from the heart. I don't think it to be instruction to pay attention to the body or flesh. The scripture was speaking about sexual immorality which is sin against the body that belongs to God because it was bought with a price.
Agree the biblical heart is not visible. We can easily discern though that the bible was written by men of flesh. Like most men are, each is subject to what every man is subject to. The mind of man (duality) and the mind of God (oneness).
Don't know if you are aware or not? You just contradicted the opening post. God is not concerned about things of the flesh yes, only those things of the spirit. However, you are failing to see how your concern about same sex couples is exactly a fleshly concern and not a spiritual one. Unless you can see into the heart and spirit of another/others making such a claim (same sex is a sin) is erroneous.
Talking about whether or not sex between same sex couples is sin, is definitely a spiritual issue. As I have already stated a while back, the heart of the man is most important to God. If your heart is right, you go back with him, homosexual or not. This conversation deals with the nature of the act from a biblical standpoint. If truth is what you are after, it can be found in the bible. Sex between same-sex couples is wrong biblically. But Gods grace and everlasting mercy is offered to all.
Therefore if the heart of the same sex person is spiritually in the grace of God there really is no problem. Since God is within each and everyone of us, what we choose to be or do in the flesh is of no real consequence unless ones heart is not in alignment with the God within. Our external (fleshly) life then will reflect the true nature of what is going on with our internal (spiritual/heart) life. No other man except for the one experiencing their life can determine whether the external life is that of a blessing or curse. Whatever they discern this to be, will be a natural consequence of their alignment (or in some cases non alignment) with the God within.
Genea, it's one thing to say you sin. It's another to tell someone else they do. I'm sure any adult can determine for themselves what they consider to be right and wrong. I wonder how you would feel if someone told you it was sinful to be a woman, or that your eye color was an offense to God. We are all what we are. We have to be what, and who, we are. If accepting yourself for who you are is a sin, then where is the love?
To convince me of anything WRONG, one must first point me to the scripture. One cannot just "tell" me my gender and eye color are wrong. Those things don't matter to God. I can say I sin. And since we know a tree by the fruit it bears, I can point out your sin too. However,I have no tools to hold you accountable. I cannot tell you you are "wrong" if you honestly (from the heart) see that the scriptures do not address your "issue". God sees the heart, is my other way of saying that he knows your thoughts behind your (or anyone else's) actions. He KNOWS if you KNOW that you are wrong when no one else can tell. He is judge. He judged fairly.
If you know your bible, some "meat" fit for my consumption is a no-no for yours. God knows which is which.
Ok. If God sees the heart and knows if you see something as a sin, or not. How do you address the problem of one person seeing something as wrong and insisting it is, when the heart of another says it isn't? Because, it seems to me you can't. And to attempt to causes undue emotional stress to the person you are attempting to convince to follow your heart, not theirs.
That is precisely, excuse me, "pacifically" why we cannot judge one another. The bible does say that homosexuality is wrong. But I too know without a shadow of doubt, that some homosexuals will be with him on that day to live forever...
You can sugar coat it all you want. But, knowing who someone is and going out of your way to point out you think God considers their behavior to be sin is judging. I'm confused as to how you can't see that.
We may deem sin to be sin if the bible says that it is sin. That is not judgement. Judgement is different for different people. It may be tied to what you think someone's punishment should be; or stating that you are "more wronger" than I.
What God says is written in black and white on purpose.
but it's not in clear black and white. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, and they disagree on just about EVERYTHING. If it was really that black and white wouldn't there only be ONE church that agreed on everything?
Interpretation is probably not that important either. It all has to do with what you personally take from scripture. If you take the words, "honor thy mother and father" to mean that they should get a big gold bracelet every Christmas, then by faith you would make sure they have it. I personally take the interpretation a bit simpler and give them my respect. But I cannot tell the bracelet buyer that he's wrong if he honestly believes he's right. That is Gods business. Just like homosexuality. If I read the scriptures on same-sex sex and see no wrong, you can't tell me nothin'. God knows the heart and if he knows that you know and you did nothing about your knowledge, he judges. Humility helps me here. Lord knows that I have my faults. He knows that I know. He knows that my humility about it is intact. "Lord, stop, that shouldn't be no sin" is not acceptable. "Lord, I need your help, have mercy" is.
so if someone interpreted everything that the bible said on slavery to be true and applicable today, you would be okay with them carrying that out and subjugating other people to their own interpretations? You wouldn't see a problem with that at all?
Come on!!!! We got more to talk about than OT slavery. it was used for a time biblically, but haven't you heard... The "captives" been freed.
slavery was still relevant and justified in the New Testament. "slaves obey your masters". new Testament. Sound familiar?
Yes, we had slaves up until just 200+ years ago, give or take... Slaves (how about employees?) obey your masters ( how about employers?) we have "paid" slaves now.
If people in all of the churches would open their eyes that God i snot just their God but everyones we would all be in a better shape, I grew up in a very narrow minded church, anti catholic and converted almost 5 yrs ago. I am telling you the truth, I saw them say all who were not pentecostal would go directly to hell would not pass go, I am sure of what I tell you as I lived thru it, My family was hurt by it. I am not a basher of any any Faith, no no I am not. I do know God hates all sin so thats what we all need to be concerned with is keeping ourselves right before our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father the Son the Holy Spirit, ask Mother to help us and live as if its our last day every day. All I will post since this says it all.
No. The Bible is shades of gray. Which is why it is open for interpretation. Don't say it isn't. Few Christians agree on every point. They haven't since the beginning of the religion.
Best I can say is, your "gray" should match up with God's. not EVERY point is valid enough for lots of discussion. Not every matter is important. Most non believers that I come in contact with like to "pick" out certain biblical passages and gnaw like crazy. But most of it is just not that important. Take the biblical discussion about tithing. Jesus said, "aw come on..." Or something like that.
but you said that interpretation of scripture isn't important. If two people have two different interpretations, they're going to have varying opinions about what god wants and what god feels and what god likes. There's either one interpretation and it's therefore the one that god intended, or there are multiple interpretations, each with a varying different meaning for god. Which is it?
Well to me, it's like this: Some interpret scripture along the lines of how they feel. Big no. Scripture lines up with the spirit of God. Most interpretations of scripture contain a "feel-good" clause. In other words, people interpret scripture based upon how it makes them feel. They are not concerned with truth. But God said to let the wheat and tare grow together. And when he comes, he will seperate. He knows if you know.
My understanding was that Jesus didn't think much of tithing. Didn't he send the disciples to catch a fish to find a coin to tithe with?
I don't think I gnaw at the book, but I see no problem with it. I simply think Jesus explained why the law had been given, what the law boiled down to and how one could easily stay within the parameters. I don't think gay bashing qualifies as having gotten the same point I got. But, everyone is different.
Something plain to see needs no explanation. The scripture is clear on that point unless it hurts your feelings and then we find NEW meaning (interpretation) but God knows if you know. He knows. Not me, or any other.
I'm not sure what is considered plain to see by you, unless plain to see means I would automatically see what you see. You'd have to share what you see. Somehow, I think it wouldn't be quite so plain.
Well, depends. The interpretation of "man should not lay with men as with womankind," is pretty straightforward to me. But, if I were gay, I would probably "interpret" differently, to squeeze myself into the "right" box. If I were atheist, I would not give a good God"damn" about a Christians scripts. and DEFINITELY would NOT argue their "God's" silly little imaginary points. But thats just me...
God knows how I feel exactly. Even when I don't know for sure.
Well, I don't think atheists care so much about what God thinks of them. As you say, they claim they to not believe. However, by virtue of the fact that Christians claim to follow God their statements that homosexuality is wrong means that they are judging another individual and seeing them as somehow bad. No one wants to be judged and no one appreciates being called bad when they don't see themselves that way.
As far as God knowing how you feel; I would say that God also knows how others feel. The point is looking at each other and understanding how we feel. And caring enough to not contribute to anyone feeling bad.
There are no "feelings" in Gods kingdom!!! (Really laughing hard, I'm joking.) but really; I don't believe The Lord asks anyone how they FEEL about the law that he created. Uh. I don't even think MOSES had a say. "Moses, how would you feel about stretching out your rod if I asked?" "Little children of the most high, how do you feel about not killing or stealing from anyone?" "Moses, ask the kids how they feel about not making graven images. Nope, no questions about feelings in the bible, I don't think.
I'm afraid I disagree. I think the Pharisees had the same take on the matter you do. And,I think, they couldn't understand the simple point of Jesus's message for the same reason you can't. Unfortunate, really. Of course, it is entirely possible God is a hateful butt. I don't think we would exist if that were so, but that is simply what I think.
Oh Lord!!!! Which part of Jesus' message am I misunderstanding??? We CANNOT have that... You say the Pharisees had my "problem" with interpretation??? What part did I miss???
Also, do you mean to say that God is concerned about how we feel about his commands?
I think that what Emile is trying to say (and I'm certain that she will correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Pharisees were bound by the law to the extent that they were unable to recognize the message behind it when Jesus was standing right in front of them (if he existed). They were so wrapped up in trying to follow the commandments that they liked (while excusing or ignoring the ones they didn't) that they were unable to see the bigger picture and understand the reasons behind that law and it's eminent fulfillment.
""Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Matthew 23:13
See? Following commands "they like" is the issue. When God told the gay man that he was wrong, the gay man said, "well now I don't believe you exist!!! Ha!!! A loving and caring God would not "make me feel bad" for being happy for stealing fr... I mean, homosexuality. He loves me! Why would he try to make me GIVE UP SOMETHING THAT I "LIKE" SO MUCH??? No God then!!! Problem solved!!!
no, that is neither what I said or what I implied, and I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you underwent to get to that conclusion.
You are QUITE familiar with this brand of mental gymnastics. Did I pass you???
Think about it. Who were the pharisees? Those who felt they were qualified to interpret law. What is law in this perspective? The words in the Bible. What have you claimed? You understand the intent of the words in the Bible. Your understanding must be adhered to.
What did Jesus say of the pharisees? About the same as most arguing here have said to you. Did the pharisees stop to think? No. Why? Because they were dead in the law. They thought following law would make them righteous. But, by strictly adhering to law they lost sight of the reason for the law and became unworthy of being looked to any longer as having an understanding of God.
You deem fairly about them I guess. It's just that Jesus not only told them that they were wrong in how they thought about scripture. He also ILLUSTRATED VERBALLY exactly how the script should be interpreted. He did not say that no one is able to understand. The Pharisees were deemed unworthy for their arrogance in ignorance of the law that God "himself" tried to show them (God being Jesus in this sense). He knows the heart of God because he HAS the heart of God. SPIRIT. The Pharisees were proud and boastful and wrong as two left shoes themselves, trying to "correct" the King.
OK. Let's go with this statement here. That is a very fair assessment of the standard Christian argument. You use Old Testament and anything from the New Testament which supports your argument, while completely ignoring the words, actions and example of Jesus. Are you not then attempting to 'correct the King'? Are you not a mirror image of a pharisee; by this statement alone?
I don't get it. Please explain. I say what the King says. My words are garbage. In what way do I ignore Jesus' example?
I didn't call your words garbage genaea and I never would.. Your view is as valuable as any other. But, I don't consider it the view that reflects the view of Jesus as portrayed and documented in the gospels. I see it as blinded by the same problems the pharisees had.
I myself called my words garbage. This is why I limit them please tell me HOW you see that I have the Pharisee issue, please.
I already have. You can't consider it because you don't want to see it. Just as the pharisees couldn't ponder the possibility that they had strayed off course. Their heart was in the wrong place, but their head convinced them it was in the right place.
The Thang IS ... One sin is no greater than another, scripture says!
Is it more sinful to take a running leap over the edge of a cliff than a small step over a slippery slope?
Scripture also says "In the same manner that we judge we will be judged!
Well as for me, this means that (if it were up to me?) I would be judging everyone as forgiven SOsss, I in like manner will be judged to be forgiven.
To all of us believers ... In following what we preach .. we need to produce more evidence so as to be found guilty of being non judgmental and a forgiving type of people like Jesus tried to show us how to be.
Who said "A Word to the Wise is sufficient"?
"No one sin is greater than the other." This probably caps it. If I tell you that you must go to hell for your homosexuality. I will slide down right behind you probably faster for my two divorces. It is wrong to pluck someone else's splinter when you have a log. Now, I still believe that it is ok to point out your splinter. You just may not know its there... But I can't get my tweezers. My log is weighing me down. See???
You must be joking. So good? It's OK to point out the splinter in the eye of another without first addressing the log in your own eye? How is that good? Because the other might not know a splinter is there? But, if they can plainly see the log in your eye; how do you think that will play out?
I'll tell you how it will play out. Back and forth holier than thou bickering, animosity over the hypocrisy, and/or an eye roll.
Uh, Emile, the God of the bible promises that all will know what the words of The Lord are. We must tell it. If we by chance mislead; woe!!! No one is "qualified" as we ALL have sin. However the charge to spread the good news is ever present. The conversation may go as such: "Girl could you help me with this log in my eye, it's just too heavy; oh, you got a splinter on your thigh!" No harm, no foul.
What is the Good News? Certainly not what is being spread around here. It has to qualify as Good News to be seen as good news.
Oh, well God already stamped his word as good. Who can stand against him ??? To me, all of the words are good news. Jesus died for my sin and will come back with all power in his hands, is more good news. You do not have to remain bogged down with sin. God teaches his own to run with a limp. Good news, good news.
The good news was what came from the gospels. The rest of the new testament is jumping through hoops attempting to tie it into the religion that went so far off course that a radical move had to be made. An attempt to negate the value of the radical move. Sounds like pharisees trying to gain lost ground. And you bought into it. Hook, line and sinker.
I haven't read thru this thread so I don't know who's taking what point of view, but from what I understood from her post, what she said was that she had enough sin of her own that made her worthy of being separated from God, that she couldn't judge anyone else for having sin in their life too. Maybe I misunderstood, but that is my way of thinking... that it is only the forgiveness of God that redeems any of us from the sins we've committed.
That is an acceptable statement. But, since she added that it was perfectly fine for her to point out the speck in the eye of another; since she felt she had a log in her own, one is left to wonder. Wouldn't time be better served whittling away at a log, as opposed to pointing out a speck? Think about it this way. If I'm cheating on my taxes, you know I am cheating on my taxes, I cheerfully admit to cheating on my taxes; and I make a big stink because you didn't account for a purchase made where they didn't withhold sales tax; insisting that you were breaking the law...how could you do that... that was so, so bad. What would you think? Wouldn't you think, 'Hm, funny that a tax evader would make a point of calling me a thief.'?
lol, yes I would, and to be honest, I think that is human nature. Have you ever noticed that the thing that bugs ppl most about other ppl is that which is most askew in their own lives? I don't shy away from stating that every word of the Bible is true, but I don't make a point of calling other ppl sinners as I have yet to meet a person who isn't. I admit to my sin, because hiding it would simply be another sin. I'm no better or worse than anyone, but I do know that God offers me forgiveness and I would be a fool to turn my back on Him. We all may do as we please, but I will always admit to my great need of a Savior.
Notice you put a "but" in their and proceeded to explain that you have something others don't. "I am no better than anyone else, but I have forgiveness and have ben forgiven"
Well, if the evader is spiritual, he knows his wrong. He has "given" his life to God. He will not, being spiritual, say that you will lift up your eyes in "hellfire" because he knows the penalty for the sin that he himself commits. But!!! He may say what the word of God says. This will prick his "heart" and correct his own wrong as God sees fit. The bible cuts back and forth. Witnessing is a huge eye-opener to self. We must tell it... It helps us too.
Sorry, genaea. I think witnessing is an exercise in vanity. It doesn't 'help' anyone at all. It hurts those who didn't ask for it and it causes the one doing it to continue blindly ignoring the needs of others,
The exercise in vanity to me is the constant mention of how YOU feel. Vanity is selfish, right???
My argument is totally interlaced with the words of God. What I believe them to be and/or mean. No, my opinion is not of great importance in this conversation so when the spirit speaks, I listen. Sounding brass nor rocks crumbling get my attention. I know what I know. Faith makes ME sure. If you have a valid point that shakes the core of my belief, please share.
I don't know that I was commenting on how I feel. I was speaking of how you make others feel. You don't bother me. I don't care what you think of me. I don't mean that unkindly. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is what I think of me and why I think it.
What GOD thinks...
Making others feel "bad" about scripture is the spirit/ conscience at work. I quoted biblical script. If that makes one to feel bad...sin it SURELY IS for him/her. Works the same for me too. But I am covered.
No. This is all you. You quoted what makes you feel good about you. But, thinking bad of others, in order to make you feel good, is something you need to understand why you need to do it.
Huh??? The bible is not a reflection of me. Nor does it reflect my opinions. My feel good comes from within. I needn't rain on a parade to relieve my tensions.
sure it is. You pick out the parts of it that you like and use them to make yourself feel good. That's what makes it all about you.
Nice. But I too meant that the "judgment" is here, only a conversation about what God says. Not judgment at all. My sin is EVER before me, too. Without God I don't know that my sin is sinful. Without God, I don't care...
Who was it who said to not throw the first stone? You both defend your own issues and say God is helping you and forgiving them and then state others are sining.
You are held accountable for sin without faith in God and the sacrifice that Jesus made. We do not condemn. This is a discussion about what the bible says.
And this would be a good time for you to think for yourself what is right and wrong. Is it wrong because the bible says so? Is slavery, rape and murder right because the bible says so? Right or wrong? Does homosexuality hurt you in anyway? Do your divorces hurt any others in any way? Does discriminating against others because of what an old book says hurt any others in any way? Answer these questions honestly and you will get your answer.
Judgment of right and wrong cannot be obtained without the spirit of God. Eve thought it would be ok to "do it just this once" girl went and messed up for all of us. God says what's right and wrong; he sent Jesus to show us how...
You are capable of knowing right from wrong. You of course know it's wrong to punish others for disobedience of one.
Oh, so do you punish all your children for the mistakes of one? Do you use extortion to get things from others as the bible says God does? Do you beat your slaves to within an inch of their death as the bible says?
I do, but then my children are my slaves so I feel it's reasonable.
I do.. Wait, this may not apply to me since I only have one.. nevermind
Here is how you get around that. You wait till he's a little older and have a birthday party for him. If one of them misbehaves punish them all and include each consecutive generation.
Now I see why people think that God is a falacy. The translation of scripture, and the "harp" on two or three verses.
Listen please, I have no desire to feed you baloney. As I have said many times, this is not about me. I actually believe my position is solid. You have no desire to believe as I do. Who will be swayed... Who uplifted??? Where is stop? Must we constantly dance ceremoniously about the mulberry??? I am FIRM. No homo, no divorcees, no fornication, no killing. If you do not agree, what may I say??? Really...
Ha!!! now where were YOU when I was growing up???
Guess it would be OK if you judged me for being Homosexual; which would be a great example as to why we shouldn't judge anyone al all !
I am not homosexual .... I would be except for my genetic disposition. I was born this way, predisposed to be a lesbian traped in a mans body ??? I am what I am regardless of this vessel in which I reside.
Well said. I to am a Lesbian trapped in a male body.
I am a millionaire. Trapped in a poor person's body. I cannot judge you. I cannot tell you that your relationship with the father has not covered every last single flaw. White-like but according to script, it IS flaw. I got mine too. Difference between us is that I will be forgiven. Am already. And before you start with the name-calling, My gift of salvation and pardon is offered to ALL who have an ear to hear God when he speaks. I cannot be "special" by myself. It is all God. He "walks" and "talks" with me. His pardon is the result of the time we spend together. He corrects my bad thinking and he shows me myself regularly (this should be "fun"). Shoot...
no, your interpretation of the Bible says yes, which makes you feel justified in telling other people that same sex sex is a sin.
Is it the majority Christian opinion? for now, yes - but popularity does not make something right. The argument from popularity and authority doesn't work - and the bottom line is that a LOT of Christians are starting to disagree with you.
You fit the bible to make you feel better about yourself. You interpret it in order to make yourself feel happy, even though you've broken its rules. You feel like you're covered - but that's only because you can make the bible say anything you want it to say so you can justify it to yourself. By saying that homosexuality is a sin, you ARE, in fact, judging others - and you are making yourself and your interpretation (which you said was irrelevant) superior to the beliefs, lives and interpretations of others. You don't see anything wrong with that - but a lot of other people sure do.
You raised a curiosity in me JM. Does your interpretation of the Bible support homosexuality?
nope, but I know many, many christians who believe it does.
The bible is an old book that speaks volumes about cultural shifts and iconography. I don't take it's teachings, laws or mandates any more seriously than I would take the Koran or any of the other religious books - I just know it better.
This duscussion is not about me. Same-sex marriage would be legal if I were in charge. we would all just "chill" all day with margaritas and cigarettes. And the "new" morning would be noon! I do not need the leadership of God's people under my belt, as you can see... But professing what I've learned from the spirit is essential.
You God's people???
I guess Matthew 7:4-5 don't matter.
4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam [d]of timber in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother’s eye.
Basically, these scriptures are telling you that before you even try to point out the speck in your brother's eye, you must first take the beam from your own. In layman's terms: Sweep around your own front door before trying to sweep another's
Yes, I totally agree. This was the scripture I referred to. Again as I said, I cannot "get my tweezers" (you know you wrong and need to clean up your act; thus tugging at the splinter) however, stating scripture and rightfully dividing is paramount. I cannot sweep your door, but I may offer you my broom.
And if you were a man who was against same sex one could easily write that it was God who inspired him and have his own prejudices become a law unto the bible. Funny how that works.
Yeah, by the way, I heard something about King James being possibly gay. Have you? If that is true, it further demonstrates the power of God to get his point across no matter who is "editing" on earth. See, those chapter and verses were not removed although James would have had a "reason" to omit them for his own sake. God is in control of scripture. He knows what he is doing.
In which case God wanted the meaning of his Bible changed every time it was translated. Which is is if it was perfect to begin with.
JMcFarland you said, ‘What if the world told you that you were "wrong" for liking who you were attracted to? Would you like it very much?’
Is that what it is all about? What you like very much?
What if the world told Jerry Sandusky that he was “wrong” for liking who he was attracted to? Would he like it very much?
Sexual orientation is not solely determined by genetics, like race or gender (except perhaps for extreme examples some keep giving me). And it is not orientation that matters, it is willful actions.
Take Catholic priests. They all have a sexual orientation of one sort or another. Most have a heterosexual orientation I would assume. Some have an orientation toward more than one woman. Some have an orientation toward men, and some boys. What matters is what those priests do about the orientation, their willful actions.
again, with the slippery slope into pedophilia. Someone's going to get the impression that you're just obsessed with sex pedophilia and bestiality specifically.
children are under the age of consent. They cannot consent to sexual relations with an adult. It hurts and damages the child - often for the rest of their lives.
Committed homosexual relationships don't hurt anyone. both partners consent, and it's far more than just "sex". That's like saying heterosexual relationship are only about sex, not about the commitment. Not about the companionship. Not about the support.
I'm a lesbian. I'm in love with my wife, and we have been legally married for almost a year. We've been together for almost 3. My marriage does not hurt anyone. It does not force anyone to enjoy it or watch it or agree with it. There are a lot of heterosexual relationship that I don't agree with, but it is not my place to tell them that they shouldn't be married. it is not my job to make laws to prevent them from being married or have that marriage recognized. I see heterosexual relationships falling apart all around me, and my friends have repeatedly told me that my wife and I have the best marriage that they've seen - and they want to be more like us. my marriage harms NO ONE. It affects NO ONE in a negative manner. that's the bottom line.
Actually, though I am NOT trying to get on your nerves, the BOTTOM line is what GOD says/how he feels,
You don't know how god feels or what he says, and yet you feel the need to hide behind what you think he says without ever considering what's right.
this post was actually not addressed to you at all. That being said, why would you imagine that you've gotten on my nerves at all?
I know that the post was not for me per se, which is why the statement about your nerves. You made the bottom line something else. I was just pointing out the truth of the matter. God's desire seems to be at the "BOTTOM" for this conversation. Who else cares about "sin"; or has rules governing it?
And hows that working out for them? And once again you bring up pedophilia, but this time you only mentioned pedophilia towards boys as if it's not a problem if directed towards girls? A pattern is beginning to emerge.
God did not make "gay" people, we are sinful people, it is in our sinful nature, but that is it. Its a form of "lust". Because truly no man can love a man like a woman can and vice versa.
I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Wait, perhaps believe is not the right word, the right word is know.
And you know this by experience, or is that what other people keep feeding you?
Since I can't make heads or tails of the OP, I'll just address the title. If you think same sex is sin, don't do it. That should be all you have to think about. If someone offers it to you, say no. Please, point to anything you call scripture that impels you to attempt to force your idea of right and wrong onto the heart of another individual and I bet five people can come up with ten passages between them to prove you wrong. So, God isn't standing behind you, or beside you, on this one. These are your prejudices getting the better of you.
I'll take your bet. What do you want to bet?
I'm probably not the best qualified to cross scriptural swords, but OK. Can we agree to ground rules? Since I assume you are a Christian, I would think you could agree that Jesus' words take precedent over, say, something someone else said? Any quote from him should immediately disqualify something contradictory said by another?
Let's go with what you specifically said. If you think something Jesus said contradicts something else said, it's up to you to prove it.
You said, "Please, point to anything you call scripture that impels you to attempt to force your idea of right and wrong onto the heart of another individual and I bet five people can come up with ten passages between them to prove you wrong.”
I’ll start with 1 Timothy 5:20: “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also be fearful of sinning.”
Okay, hit me up with the ten passages between five people to prove me wrong.
With your ten passages you may want to try and find ones of what Jesus said to contradict the verse I quoted above.
You do realize I'm only one person? I'm not so egotistical to think I'm worth five. Ok, let me think about this a few minutes and I'll hit you with two. Unless someone else chimes in first. Then I'll simply save the two I found for later.
You said ten. I'll wait for the ten. Unless I get bored with waiting.
Yes, I said ten. Five people could find ten passages. I assumed we both understood we would divide ten by five. Well, I'll give it a shot.
Hey. You have to give me a pertinent quote. First, that says they should rebuke sin in the church. This is no church. Second, it assumes we are talking about sin. You have to first prove it is sin we are talking about.
The preceding verses in the chapter prove it is sin.
Again you said, "Please, point to anything you call scripture that impels you to attempt to force your idea of right and wrong onto the heart of another individual . . ."
I would be far more likely to rebuke the leader in a church than others.
For example let's take a minister who is engaged in an extra-marital affair. Are you saying Jesus would say it's wrong that if I felt called up to rebuke that minister by referring to Scripture?
If so, I guess I'm in big trouble.
First, you'll have to be more specific. The preceding chapters I see are all about church organization. I'm sure I'm missing some incredibly savvy point here.
But, I would say I would venture to guess that Jesus would be more interested in the reason you felt justified to rebuke than he would be in the actual rebuke. I'm sure those who stood ready to stone the woman were backed by scripture. He didn't appear to be cheering them on.
There is a biblical duty to warn. Some people don't know what the bible says. It is our job to tell it like it is. However, that is all. We've all "read the words" it is important to glean what hits you. God KNOWS the heart.
Anyone who wants to know what the bible says can read it free online whenever they want. People who don't do that probably don't want to know.
I think it's insane to believe that no one has "heard what the bible says about _____" by now - especially in the United States. I don't need to be told about the Bible. I've read it many, many times in many different languages. I'm familiar. More familiar than a lot of other people that I talk to who actually believe in it. Funny, that.
They are for whom this message is sent. All will know... The bible promises.
You realize that when you make a statement like that you are going to stir up a hornets nest among the homosexual population that love to hate the God of the Bible because He fails to allow for their sexual lifestyle.
One thing I will say is I understand what you are doing but living a lifestyle of the Word of God will say more about the love of God then openly judging others. Jesus did not come to this world to condemn the world but to save the world.
Ah yes, that word condemn.
The Old Testament condemned certain behavior. The penalty was death. There is no condemnation in the New Testament. Jesus took care of that. But that does not mean that there is not still sinful behavior that must be reformed and repented to be right with God.
Did not Jesus die for our said sins? What was the point if it did not remove sin?
It removes sin for those who put their faith and trust in it.
Why does he only care for the gullible? Didn't he make us all as we are? Do you have any idea how elitist you sound?
No, sin makes us who we are. God makes us who he wants us to be once we say yes to his will and way. He wants to commune with those who trust him. He does not sit well with suspicion. Questions, no problem. But once the answer is received, to ask it again sends off a signal of mistrust, rite???
Yes that's what I said. He wants to continue with those who trust what that can't see or detect. The gullible. The gullible are those who believe what people wrote thousands of years ago while trying to give their people a sense of entitlement. Hook line and sinker.
Well, people who don't believe what the bible says believe all kinds of other things. Who do YOU trust to tell you the truth?
I trust those with evidence. I trust those who think for themselves. You are trusting the word of those thousands of years ago with an agenda. Some trust Mohammad. Both are just books from a long time ago written by people trying to inspire it's people.
Evidence??? That is relative too. I can show you "evidence" of Jesus with the picture of him on the church wall. You MUST ACCEPT your evidence as evidence, in other words, you must have faith in it. Do you trust my picture? I don't either. I trust the spirit of God.
faith requires believing in something without evidence. A picture is not evidence and those pictures are only illustrations. I suspect your picture is also not of you. Should I take your word on faith?
Faith is hope in things not seen. Have you ever seen evidence that God is not real? Or did you believe (have faith) in the words of someone ELSE who said, "I found evidence!!!"
We do not assert that no god exists. We say that god has not been sufficiently proven. You cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that unicorns don't exist. Therefore, only very few atheists will ever say definitively that there is no god. We lack belief until it can be proven to exist at all.
You show a disturbing lack of faith in Zeus.
Have you been peeking in my temple windows again?
So as long as one has faith and trust, sin is removed? How so?
No so. This is simply how she get through life. She can do no wrong. She is a slave to her super-ego.
If even a murdering pedophile can go to heaven for believing in God, that's a jacked up system.
A murdering pedophile is probably not a believer. But only God is judge. He does not "respect" persons. Whosoever will, let him come. That is not the end though. It is only the beginning of life with God. He corrects his own via the spirit. When you believe you come to love. When you love, you want to please.
And the ego allows you to believe that you are in some way "better" than the murdering pedophile???
That sounds a bit like "judgement"
You have weighed your sin against someone else's and tipped your own scale in your favor. See, God nor his spirit, works that way.
First, sin is weighed equally. All sin is sin.
Second, there may be something within him that makes him susceptible; quite a bit weaker; not as apt as you. He may even be really remorseful. God knows. In you, there may be NO excuse! God knows.
We must search our own hearts; God does.
Pride goeth before destruction, in the good book.
You guys always say that line. "Sin is sin." It makes me chuckle because even YOU don't all believe it. LoL. Your reaction to someone lying to you is QUITE different from your reaction to finding out that a little girl was raped and then murdered. Why? Because the second scenario is more heinous and disgusting than the first. And you instinctively know it and you react accordingly. (I'm using "you" in general, but am also including you in it). That kind of thinking is dangerous. Acts have more or less weight than others because of the degree of harm that they cause. It has nothing to do with judging a person. If someone lies to me, I'm going to find out the intent behind the lie, and we'll find some way to reconcile if it's consequences are not too dire. If I had a child and someone raped and then murdered her, I'd probably have to be restrained from killing them. But to equate the two is madness.
Well, since God knows the heart. He has a different perspective than either of us. He takes all into consideration. We only see surface.
Take your scenario... Two people in the bible died on the spot for telling a lie. While the woman caught in adultery was forgiven without so much as a stern scolding. See??? God sees the heart. Say, your rapist/murderer was a 13 year old autistic boy with parents who molested and rented him out for years??? Are you STILL ready to "kill" him???
Yes, of course that would still be my initial instinct, which is why someone would have to restrain me. However, I am studying to be a psychotherapist, and I was aware that you might take the conversation there. That particular point is irrelevant, however, because looking at the two acts separate from the persons committing them, the acts themselves are on two different planes of heinous, which is the actual point of my post. You would react differently to the acts themselves, regardless of who committed them. The person's "heart" and the acts they commit are not the same thing. If a perfectly average man were to commit the first act, and another perfectly average man were to commit the other would the two sins be equal? No. That's a more fitting analogy. So sin isn't a sin isn't a sin. But the reasons behind a "sin" can vary.
We are not speaking if how you or I respond to sin. We are talking about my father. I personally believe that my initial reaction would be total empathy for the autistic child; so we do differ there. But does it matter? God has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT perspective than we. Only he may judge fairly. We may only dig a deep hole for ourselves pointing daggers at the "filthy". We are judged by our own standard.
You're missing the point. But ok. Whatever satisfies you.
In actuality, you have missed the point. You interjected at sin is sin. Well, in God's eyes, it is. The big picture is sin itself. I don't think there was ever biblically stated that there were little sins and big sins. God did give an analogy of what you should prefer as punishment for offending the very least of his; but no "little" sin declaration.
Speaking of missing the point, are you a Christian? And does sin matter to you?
Please elaborate. It is hard to put together a response for, "absolutely," I would really like to know what you are agreeing or not agreeing with.
If you are responding to my final question, then I must respond as I did to A Thousand... Our perspective is much different than God's. he looks at the total picture. Mercy is one of his favorite "emotions" he looks beyond fault. An autistic boy who has been molested and abused for most of his life, is probably not in a position to be judged as, say you or I. Our God takes all factors into consideration. He loves our "rapist" and he loves us, equally. Not even we punish our children the same (we KNOW them).
It means "yes".
People like this who are mentally competent go to jail. Those who are not are incarcerated in a psychiatric facility which amounts to the same thing.
Which is beside the point because your statement was that a believer could go to heaven regardless of their circumstances. This presumably includes the murderer with no such mitigating factors.
I would repeat, if the selfless atheist burns and the murdering pedophile Christian gets eternal bliss--that is a jacked up system. And that is a nightclub bouncer God that does not inspire any admiration in me.
Even the current Pope has a more progressive point-of-view than this.
Yes to what??? I needed to know what the yes was for. Thanks, but no thanks on that.
However, for your response to me, thanks again.
My major point is, God looks at everything that makes you you. He does not look at you with contempt when you trust him. He knows that your faith in him can allow for HIS work on the inside of you. He knows that you are sensitive to his prompting and correction when you love and trust him. He did not ask us to help him rule the world. We don't know how. He knows that. He also knows that we are incapable of judging his beloved children. We would stone one who has the SAME sin we do... Remember???
You have no idea what any God thinks or does nor could you. You think you do because your brain is running a simulation of God which just so happens to fit nicely with your personality and flaws.
"Yes to what???" -- The question she quoted
"My major point is, God looks at everything that makes you you" -- Your main point was all Christians go to heaven. have you changed your mind about that?
"We would stone one who has the SAME sin we do... Remember???" -- I remember that section of the Bible, and that is not what it says and certainly not the core message or parable intended.
I love it when someone has so much information about the of something they claim we can not understand.
If you put on the right spirit, you can understand. We cannot know what he "means" without first knowing WHO he IS.
I know that that is exactly what you believe. How may you be "filled" with anything further??? Your "cup" is filled with your own knowledge already. Do you know what the bible says about that? Do you care???
Yes, the bible says knowledge is dangerous, which makes sense as most governments seem to want the uneducated to do the work an educated person wouldn't. You see, when Eve ate from the tree of knowledge she became aware and wanted the same for Adam. The story goes that God didn't want them to have knowledge as they would ask questions. You can stay in the dark and follow like a sheep if you like, but a little critical thinking will clear up that illusion for you.
Only knowledge that does not acknowledge him is dangerous. Not all knowledge. When you follow this life, all thought should go according to his lines. Not our own. We know only a little. We can find out only a little. Did you know that your thoughts are finite? We may only draw conclusions based on the "little" information we have.
See more contradictions. My thought is limited, but you claim you have all the answers.
Why must you insist your God is so needy as to not want our thought to stray from him. If you asked that of any other human he would think you are needy and insecure.
Needy and insecure without God, yes!!!
Your thoughts may stray away from him as much as you deem. The only instruction to that is, when you go to thinkin', you need your guard in place. Otherwise, you go with every word that "sounds" good to your ears. Without your guard, "jump from this mountain and I will give you this land" sounds a bit tempting.
The evidence clearly shows the opposite is true. Christians are over represented entering prisons with Atheists making up about 20% of the North American population make up far less than 0.5% of prison inmates. Unless you have evidence that suggests Christians are more moral people I'll have to go with the statistics I've got.
Have you checked the stats on which Christians are filling up those jails??? Oh, and have you checked the stats for who predominately claims Atheist staus???
That's a typical response. "Those aren't the same Christians that I am". You can't claim to be morally superior without supplying evidence.
I am EXACTLY the same "kind" of Christian!!! THAT is what I'm saying.
Most of those prisoners look "just like me"... And do you know WHY most of them are in prison??? Oh, and what about the second stat??? You get that info???
What second stat, I had no idea what you were talking about.
Who-predominantly-claims-Atheist-status? But you missed the first. Nevermind...
Atheist claim atheist status. Who else would do that.
I realize, as a Canadian, you might not understand genaea's point. Poor black males disproportionately comprise the prison population. Many times, they will be sent to jail when a person from a different ethnic group or economic standing, committing the same crime, will not. I believe that was the point she was attempting to get you to acknowledge. Also, I think white males are considered to be the usual outspoken atheist.
I could be wrong. If so, I'm sure she will correct me.
As much as I loathe getting into a dialogue with someone who is obviously trolling, I'm gonna risk it.
I don't particularly care whether God is merciful (he isn't btw, which you'd know if you read your bible), I'm not. I'm specifically not merciful to those who hurt my children. If God can kill an entire planet because of sin or turn an entire city to dust because they were rude, then I can most certainly take out a rapist who hurts my child.
God set the example for that one.
In addition, there is a big difference between autistic and lacking in ability to discern right from wrong. We are talking autistic not moronic. But since you are obviously wrong on just about everything you post, understanding the difference might be outside of your abilities.
So thank you for proving you know nothing about the Bible OR autism. I'll go back to dismissing everything you say based on my very strong personal opinion that you are just randomly banging your head on your keyboard and, by chance, making words.
I suggest you get a dog... they give unconditional attention.
Condescension is expected from one who equates themself with God. It is necessary when things do not sway your way. no offense taken...
I am allergic to dander, possibly by design. I need to belong to God. He has all the unconditional love that I can stand!!! and he does not hold back.
In response to how you are well able to do what God can do... Nevermind...
By the way, what is a troll on Hubpages? My own definition matches you.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Please feel free to return to your quest for negative attention.
I feel the need to shower just from this brief exchange.
You can follow a document as complex and ambiguous as the Bible, but not the very simple rules of this forum?
Rule no 1: no personal insults.
Have I "personally insulted" someone??? Please tell me where. I have as much respect as Im given, probably more. I feel I have no need to insult anyone personally, though I cannot say the same for the persons with whom I converse.
The forum rules are complex, but I have no idea WHO wrote/authorized them.
The term troll appears to be used here frequently. I usually get called one when I've hit a nerve or someone lacks a good argument. I'd say, you've hit a nerve. I don't think you have to worry about having a view that couldn't be challenged with a good argument. and I wouldn't worry. The term troll appears when someone wants to insult you, without getting banned for a personal insult.
Thanks Emile. I am still baffled though as to what makes it as a personal insult. I have been banned twice. the first time, I kinda know why, but I was more on the "receiving" end to me. The second time, I have no idea. Unless the term "your whining" qualifies. But is THAT "personally insulting"???
You get called a troll when you are trolling.
Don't flatter yourself into thinking otherwise.
I rarely use the word. Usually in a 'I know you are, but what am I?' manner. But, honestly Melissa; your behavior fits the mold. I don't call you one since I'm sure you don't view yourself in that way. What was your purpose in posting the comment to genaea? You were trolling. There was no positive addition to the conversation. You were trolling. What was your purpose when you got upset and hijacked the thread I started recently? You were trolling. If you want to call people trolls, then you can. So can I. See how that works? All righty then.
Possibly. Except I don't really care if anyone responds to my posts and both of you seem to get off on it. That's why I define the posts as trolling posts.
I'm just giving my opinion on the utter worthlessness of these kinds of posts... and the motivations behind them.
In lieu of interesting, well-thought out and intellectual debates that used to fill these forums, we have this kind of worthless slimy-snot dripping inanity that serves only to give the self-absorbed and attention-starved a place to roll around in any pathetic amounts of notice they can get.
It's always the women too... which makes me cringe. I hate to admit that what good conversation there is left is almost universally from the male posters (with a few exceptions). Maybe because they feel no need to jump up and down and beg for someone to look at them.
You appear to be jumping up and down at the moment screaming 'Look at me, look at me." But, hey. That's you so I suppose it is otay.
Enjoy your little rant. It is neither interesting or well thought out. As usual. I'll yield the floor since you have never shown an interest in understanding where anyone else is coming from. You appear to display the constant need to find fault wherever you look. I know what causes this. Do you? Probably not.
If you say so.
I find fault with people who have turned the forums into a "look at me" show rather than a place for interesting conversation.
Your arm-chair analysis of me would mean very little since I don't put a lot of stock in the intelligence of anything you write.
Sue me. It's hilarious, really. You get those who want to complain because a conversation isn't one they like. Yet, the same people will hijack a thread to talk about absolutely nothing of interest to the community, at large; and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I've worked through four pages of what can only be called idle chit chat.
Anyhoo, those who scream the loudest usually are clear reflections of what they complain of.
I honestly don't get anything you are attempting to do here. But, you have the same rights as any other poster. The fact that I don't agree with you and find some of your views offensive doesn't make you a troll. I take responsibility for that fact that I chose to be offended. I don't blame you for it.
Actually, I will admit that you do appear to be poking other hubbers with a stick at times.
If what I say pokes a stick, it is not intentional. I match personalities because I am capable. When sarcasm is the preferred method of discussion, I can hang. When, rhetoric is ordered, rhetoric it is. When wit is the comment, wit is replied. I can go with the "best" of them. But to ban one w/o banning the other seems unfair. I won't cry about it. Sometimes I NEED that rest...
I got banned once. With ATM. I didn't really think it was fair; since I think I was the rougher of the two of us. But, I assume he reported me and the moderators decided to kick us both off; for good measure.
I always forget to hit the link that shows the offense, and it never stays long. But thanks again. The rules seem as ambiguous as the bible. Difference is... Is there a difference???
haha. Way to pull it back to a discussion on the Bible. Actually, there is a difference. Hub Pages rules are not open to interpretation by anyone but the moderators. Anyone can claim to correctly interpret the Bible. And, if you are wrong, you don't get banned from earth because of it.
8) cool rite???
Biblical interpretation is only "open" to the children of God, who have his spirit. Only the moderators of Hubpages (only Gods children) hey... I think we have a match!!! Lets talk... If I don't agree with the moderators about their decision to ban me and I feel that "doodie head" is NOT offensive, do they, say... change their opinion???
Let me see if I follow your argument. You are comparing Hub Pages rules to the Bible? So it appears. The problem is, if Hub Pages rules were determined to be openly discriminatory, if they advocated genocide, if they threw you into a pit of never ending fire if you refused to participate...I don't think they would survive as an independent website. The moderators would be in jail for crimes against humanity.
Basically, the two aren't comparable. However, if God exists, all of humanity are his children so the point is moot. Imo.
The bible begs to differ with you. Which brings me to my next point... When I speak, I speak from a biblical standpoint. When you speak, you speak from your standpoint. The two are not compatible. How do we squirm from this pickle???
Your description of the bible and your depiction of its words are funny I laugh when you describe it that way. The spirit of God is MOST gracious. MOST gentle. MOST loving. The bible illustrates the story as it is. Yes, God punishes harshly at times. But don't we??? We are made in his image. NOT in his wisdom. He KNOWS best. I can speculate on quite a bit of the WHY he stoned, burned, flooded and killed. But it doesn't matter to me. The promise that we have is Jesus. The commands we have on living this life come from him. He was/is remarkably superb at that. if you start quoting his words from the bible you will come to know the Christian way. You are watching humans try... It aint the same.
The killing, rape, stoning is now ONLY an "excuse" for those of us who "need" one. The bible states that all who want to know will. And all who don't (really) wont.
Ah, so you support rape, slavery, and infanticide, then?
Because God sure does.
No. He doesn't. He did for a time, I can ONLY speculate the why. But no longer is there human judgment and punishment. God took that into his own hands when he split the curtain.
Ok, here we go...
He did it to set the bar. He wanted us to know how serious he considers sin to be. He wants us to KNOW what we actually deserve for our foolishness. And he wants us to be safe.
If you rape, you will take care if that girl for the rest of her life. You stole something precious, and you will pay for the rest of her life. If she doesn't allow it, whoa to her. We MUST show how serious this is!
Uh, if your children disobey, stone them, we need all to see how serious it is to obey you first, then me!!!
If you work on the Sabbath, the day I TOLD YOU TO REST LIKE ME, off with your head!!! (Or something like that because he wanted uniformity for the people. It must have been important. But when I think about the number of people on that journey, chaos would have erupted without law!!! you KNOW we can get ignorant. Jesus said that the sabbath was for the people. So rest may have been most important and remembrance of what he said. It created uniformity, right??? It set the bar.
Quote from the Bible (off the top of my head here) 'I came to fulfill the law'. That is all you need to know concerning the OT. Throw out the Mosaic laws. They have been fulfilled. I would tell you how, and why. I doubt you would believe me.
Kind of... The only real difference I see is that now God does all the punishing. He no longer trusts us to chastise his own. We are HORRIBLE at it. We excuse our own sin to go to a stoning ceremony of another with glee. Our job is to tell the truth as he said. To know it ourselves, so that we may come to him correctly. Not as the rich man who was "proud" of all he had "DONE" TO SHOW HIMSELF WORTHY; But as the poverty stricken "child" who realizes that they NEED him to correct their wrong toward him.
Well well well... it is amazing how far people go to uplift self simultaneously squashing another. There seems to be no realization on who is who (the trollers labeling others, the liars labeling others, the ego-driven labeling others)
God knows though... that matters to me.
There are many definitions. The one on urban dictionary appears to be the most accurate reason we call each other trolls. It is:
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."
actually, i am a homosexual atheist. I don't believe in the god of the bible, therefore I have no reason to hate him. Do you make a habit of hating things that you don't believe exist?
Intelligently said by the non believer! Even the non believer have something to reason about. But the truth is, go look in the mirror... Look around, and confess all intelligent things were creatively designed. And who designed us? Isn't it isn't that enough to believe there is a God? I agree there are a lot of demented Christians out there that belong to different branches of this so call Tree... Oh and speaking about branches and trees, there are also other different demented religions and trees and all the inconsistencies in the Bible and other scriptures, BUT, on top of all that, there is a God! Look at your beautiful eyes, you reflect him handsome. Don't let your heart get ugly, stay handsome
Jesus never condemned. But he corrected frequently. He showed the KNOW-it-alls of his day, the errors in their discernment of script. He showed us how to do it too.
Yyou Christians hate being corrected like dumb Peter, Saul, etceta from the Bible at some point in their lives. Go on and continue to hate you hypocrite, it is what you do best, Jealous. Love your brthers and your sisters, you're a little older than some in your faith. There will be many surprises in heaven. Jesus showed the know-it-alls just like He'll show you. Jesus is not even his real name and there is no power in that name since the was no letter "J" till the 1500's. The devils laugh at all your aka names for God. Here, let me give you a new name miss hater, it will be Peaches! He said cast demons out in His name, obvious Jesus isn't it because the Church changed that. He also changed in the old testament Bible by saying the it is ok to mingle interacially and that it is okay to eat all kinds of meats! And yet though he said not one verse will not be jotted out, things were changed. God changes for our our sake believe it or not. Use your reasoning skills, dont believe every the Bible says, because the Bible has been tampered with. He even okay'd that it is okay to wear all kinds of fabrics, dont be a dumb donkey and enjoy life the right way. Be happy, everyone deserve to be love. And girl, you're stuck in ancient Egyptian times. We cant sleep around with our brothers and sister or with our cousins and cousins like the Bible teaches. And who do you think changed that? Go on and run your mouth, what else is new! If I can choose to do right or wrong, hen what the is destiny, explain that teacher? Its a bunch of nonsense what who ever created the Bible, and not even you who behaves like an all-knowing can follow and obey everything there-in, stop accusing and stop persecuting me, he lgbt people. Oh' and no you cant have more than one husband or many wives like the kings and queens and ancient people use to have just because the Bible said it was okay, and who you think changed that, who said we cant have more than one husband or wife, the church or government? The government would be out of business if that were the case. And no! You cant keep enslaving citizens or aliens immigrants like the Bible teaches!
Sorry, this one I will not read. Please break it down point by point. It just sounded SO hateful, I decided not to work my brain after the first 5 or 6 sentences.
Its explains itself if you stop being lazy and read it. You insult lgbt indirectly with kind l sweet sound sounding words,you're exposed as dry honey. Well, reap what you sow. Good love.bye love bee, becareful who you sting.
Not lazy. Attention defunct.
I don't insult lgbt. I simply ask that truth is recognized. If lgbt are "offended" by what I say, then it is called conviction. I speak along biblical lines. God does not bend the rules for any of us. We MUST recognize the truth of the matter. I have laid quite a few of my "issues" out. The Lord does not say to me, "ok, Genaea, you have had 2 husbands and since you belong to me, I declare it NO LONGER SIN!!!" His conversation goes more along the lines of, "now, Genaea, you know you wrong girl, you "heard" what I said! But since you love me and you trust me, I will WALK you through it. Don't let go, I love you, I do not hold it against you." Truth, TRUTH, truth, and TrUtH!!!
YE SHALL "KNOW" THE "TRUTH", AND IT WILL MAKE YOU FREE"
Just for you Cgenaea. You Christians hate being corrected like dumb Peter, Saul, etceta from the Bible at some point in their lives. Go on and continue to hate you hypocrite, it is what you do best, Jealous. Love your brothers and your sisters, you're a little older than some in your faith. There will be many surprises in heaven. Jesus showed the know-it-alls just like He'll show you. Jesus is not even his real name and there is no power in that name since the was no letter "J" till the 1500's. The devils laugh at all your aka names for God. Here, let me give you a new name miss hater, it will be Peaches! He said cast demons out in His name, obvious Jesus isn't it because the Church changed that. He also changed in the old testament Bible by saying the it is ok to mingle interacially and that it is okay to eat all kinds of meats! And yet though he said not one verse will not be jotted out, things were changed. God changes for our our sake believe it or not. Use your reasoning skills, dont believe every the Bible says, because the Bible has been tampered with. He even okay'd that it is okay to wear all kinds of fabrics, dont be a dumb donkey and enjoy life the right way. Be happy, everyone deserve to be love. And girl, you're stuck in ancient Egyptian times. We cant sleep around with our brothers and sister or with our cousins and cousins like the Bible teaches. And who do you think changed that? Go on and run your mouth, what else is new! If I can choose to do right or wrong, hen what the is destiny, explain that teacher? Its a bunch of nonsense what who ever created the Bible, and not even you who behaves like an all-knowing can followi and obey everything there-in, stop accusing and stop persecuting me, he lgbt people. Oh' and no you cant have more than one husband or many wives like the kings and queens and ancient people use to have just because the Bible said it was okay, and who you think changed that, who said we cant have more than one husband or wife, the church or government? The government would be out of business if that were the case. And no! You cant keep enslaving citizens or aliens immigrants like the Bible teaches! Change and treat others fairly just like you want to be treated.
There have always been earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, battles, Wars, homosexuals, transexuals or eunuchs, liars, corruption, winners, losers, Kings, rulers, demons, angels, ufo's, rain, famines, rapes, etc- There is nothing new under the Sun. I don't know any intelligent righteous holy father that would throw his own image or child into a lake of fire, especially if he/she believes in him. God is merciful and great in love, compassionate and forgiving.
I'm a transexual-intersexual-natal/cis gender woman, so if God don't make mistakes and he created me with a penis and a vagina and I decide to lay or have sexual intercourse in marriage with a man who has a penis like I do or if I decide to lay or have sexual intercourse with a woman who has a vagina like I do , I don't see how I would be wrong or sinning.Homosexuality is a man-made created human stupidity by stupid believers who use God's name to lie. The prophets in the Bible are
inconsistent with each other, and Paul the apostle inconsistent with himself. Back then there was no plastic for douching since it had not yet been created according to today's Science, so anal sex was pure nasty. But we don't live in those days anymore. The church people are always talking about the rapture, wars, hate, survival in case of famines, etc. They seem to push these subjects all the time upon thee Americas hoping to increase the pace of ending this world by claiming that the world is
coming to an end like people throughout the entire A.D. era has and calling upon God to come get them like the Bible teaches them to for the world is evil; And I have to admit, that sounds pretty suicidal in artistic words. And please stop blaming the government for everything. Isn't it obvious that your government are Christian ruling believing leaders in Christ- many are if you ask them, and those that are' obviously believe the separation of church and state is plain bullshit in their eyes if they cant follow the rules and American laws.
There is still an on going debate as to whether or not transsexuals are intersexuals in mind. There are many different types of intersexuals, some of which are transsexuals- I am a woman, just a different type of classy woman.
God did not create people to have same sex. one male one female that's the order. and that's the way he made it to be . The devil evil demons put this in people mind to sin cause he does not want you to know the truth and go to heaven . God is love and he created you in his image. And he has given free will so it your chooice but know that the way you live it's either your way light or darkness you can't serve two masters you either love one or hate the other. I say love the sinner but hate the sin.
Earth is the centre of the universe that is the order. Saying it is not, is sin.
Do we still have to suffer this self righteous arrogant, ignorant barbarians? Isn't 2000 years enough?
Are you calling another Hubber an ignorant barbarian??!!
It is your post that comes off as self-righteous and arrogant, and really hateful!
The thread author was stating Biblical fact, and actually, common-sense moral facts about humanity. And you want to attack! This is not right.
So what do you call a fellow who follows what ancient barbarians followed, saint?
For condemning what barbarians used to do? For not hating my fellow being because he/she is not of the same sexal orientation as mine?
Yes, fact of barbarians who lived 20 century before, whose knowledge about the world was near to nothing.
Earth is flat too was common sense, so?
Whose moral? Morality does not ask anybody to look what two consenting adults are doing in private. They are called "peeping tom" and are condemned.
Barbarians are not to be encouraged.
Have you actually seen or heard a physical demon? Have you seen the devil? Do you have any independent credible objective witness or evidence for such things?
How can you base a belief on something you have never seen? When you see the word Devil or demon in the NT have you never wondered why you don't see these things in the OT? Are you sure you understand these things? Have you ever considered that these ideas have evolved over the centuries in accordance with the cultural beliefs of those at each time? Have you never considered that these things might be just allegorical?
You see very clearly in the OT that the evil one was present. Have you read the bible??? He showed up soon after the people got here, remember???
And yes, we see the devil clearly with a spiritual eye, everyday. He is just about everywhere. Haven't you "seen" him too???
You do not "see" your thoughts. But that does not mean that you don't have them, rite???
You clearly don't understand the OT or the Jewish culture for which it was written.
The only place you see the devil is in your own imagination.
Please!!!! Help me out!!! I wanna understand the Jewish culture so that I may understand that I already knew what I was speaking of. I need YET ANOTHER confirmation. I will wait.
Simple. Just go read up some Jewish encyclopaedias and Jewish theology. Jews do not believe the Christian satan exists; there is simply no arch fiend fallen angel in rebellion against God. These are Western Christian mythological ideas, so you won't find a devil in the OT unless your pastor told you it was there.
Well if I remember correctly, the Jews were chosen as Gods people until they rejected Christ. Then the Gentiles who were willing to listen to the CORRECT messages about scripture were offered the kingdom of God. So, there you have it... The Jews rejected Jesus and that may be why they can reject other things.
the way I understand it; God kinda told his self, Hummm! I need to make an example of somebody SOooos tha rest of ta people can see what benefits they can recieve if they were to be mine! Well ? ... let me see, I guess I'll use43 these people over here. I choose them! It wasn't that there was anything special about them; they were just there. So, The Hebrews were his chosen people.
And they didn't behave quite as well as he had expected; considering all of the mericles he did for them and all?? ANYWAY/ ? here we are today ?
Wow!!! You've really been boning up on the bible. teach me your ways!!! . (As sarcastic as allowed.)
WELL (?) I heard once upon a time that humani6y sometimes out thinks themswlves sometimes; and i don't want to ever be accused of doing that SOooo I tend to try to look at things from the most basicly simplistic point of view as possible, having faith as a child.
(As humble as allowed.)
So WHAT were you saying about the Jews? Please plainly and humbly.
The Hebrews were chosen as Gods "chosen" people, kinda like as if God had played a game of roulett to choose his chosen people? and the Hebrews won ........ or lost ..... depending upon how you want to look it.(?) as his chosen people, as a way of introducing himself to the rest of the Nations.
God blessed the Hebrew people and that appreciation from the people never lasted beyond the next generation. ... And we wonder why he never shows
himself any more?
So you think people *shouldn't* read the bible?
Ok, this is one of those moments where I laugh. I really could really dig into this one. But!!! I refrain
But you didn't refrain, or explain, just express disdain.
Not very Christian.
Are you watching my so-called Christian actions? For sure there was refrain, as well as disdain. And as a Christian those actions are perfectly legal. You ask if I feel that people should or should not read, I can't remember which, the bible but I have always been clear about that. So I actually did refrain from my initial response (which I am POSITIVE would NOT have been very Christian.) I do have many flaws. But truth is paramount.
So on the basis that the Jews did not recognise Jesus as the Christ you think they also missed Satan as well? Your illogical conclusion is most amusing.
Reading Bible and prayer may help the gay people to realize the sin they are involved.
I've done it. Still gay. And now an atheist.
What else you got?
It could possibly not be sin for you per se. The Lord deals with us individually. He may have a "covering" especially for YOUR situation. He covers me for sure. He will definitely cover you too. The bible clearly points out "to me" that what is sin for some is not for others. It reminds me of how my parents were with my brother and I. As two different individuals, we needed individual scholastic guidelines. For example, I was rewarded for A's my brother "B's" our abilities were different. God knows what we need. And he sends us just that. I can't say if he accepts/covers YOUR homosexuality. Only he may say. But I know that your feelings really do matter it his area. If one feels condemned/guilty, then they are probably on the sinnin' side.
This doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you're saying that sin is different for everybody and what is not a sin for you would be a sin for someone else. That for some people being gay may not be a sin, but it would be a sin for others. the problem is that, for christians, there is ONE book. You've said interpretation is not an issue. You've said that personal feelings are not an issue. So what is the issue? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
God - is - judge...
He knows the heart (again , not the fleshy beating thingy).
The bible speaks on this issue when discussing the laws for the meat that was left on the altar. Many of the people felt it sinful to eat that meat; for them, it was sin. Some had no neg feeling related to the eating of the meat. For them, not sin.
Reading Bible and prayer may help YOU realize the sin they are involved. It may not, but some thought will help.
So you either love God and Believe or you don't love God and are a atheist who is lost and does not know the truth and a sinner who is blind and can not see the truth or want to see the truth. They love to be in the carnal mind you reap in the flesh shall reap corruption but He who sow in the Spirit shall of the Spirt reap life everlasting. GOD IS EVERLASTING CREATOR OF THE MATHMATICS 0 +0=0 0+1=1GOD 1+1=2 a pair One female one Male = a pair add more people
In a perfect world, if there were an equal proportion of males versis females, and each person were allowed only has one mate, It would then be a very bad thing if two men were to marry, CAUSE two women would have to do without.
Sometimes our decisions does affect ohers more than we think or have a right to do???? maybe not!.
Has nothing to do with statistics.
It's a bad thing no matter what.
yeah, there's nothing about my life, my marriage or my relationship that's bad. Hate to break it to you, but we have a beautiful life - and we don't need your acceptance OR your approval to have it. We have a legal marriage. We have federal recognition of our legal marriage, and we have the same rights and responsibility that you do. That's the way it is, and I don't particularly care if you like it or not. You don't have to accept it. It's your right not to - but you do have to deal with it.
This is not about like/dislike of another human about your preference. This is about what the bible (what I believe to be God's word) says about it.
No you ARE NOT bound by what the world thinks of you. God is judge. He said (if you believe the bible to be his word) that homosexuality is sin. It is THE SAME "NO " FOR ANY UNMARRIED COUPLE HAVING SEX. But surprisingly, we don't hear so much "bashing" for heterosexual UNMARRIED; Probably because the "world" has put a stamp of approval on it. However, it takes a "heart" that pleases God. Our "actions" just don't measure up.
yes, well I don't have to worry about that. Since I am legally married. Just like everyone else.
Jesus condemns divorce, but you don't hear the christians out there touting that particular rule.
You also don't hear them talking about the fact that biblical marriages WERE polygamous, or that extremely often brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc got married. That all gets ignored. But lets all talk about the sin of the gays. It's called cherry picking, and it's incredibly dishonest.
Again for clarification; this is not about the WORLD's acceptance. How does God feel about it is what the matter here is. When God is for you, no one can stand against. What matters is right standing with him.
I believe that polygamous marriage and marrying thy brothers wife are more for care of widows and quick procreation in that time. The laws on who could marry who were adjusted I do believe. Like the laws for how close into the family one could marry. Then the "one wife" thing.
You are right when you point out the "cherry picking." Your brother is no "righter" for bedding the chick he took out last night. Although the masses have "accepted" that behavior. But God still does NOT.
However, God does not think how we do. He sees the heart. That makes a HUGE difference.
I don't base acceptance of my LIFE (not lifestyle) on a 6000+ year old book that has changed the definition of "marriage" more times than I can count.
Where were the "laws of marriage" changed? Because I'm pretty certain that, according to the bible, women should be forced to marry their rapists, and if they don't scream loudly enough (while being raped) they should be dragged out to the gates of the city and stoned.
That seems to be what the god of the bible wants. You're cool with that, right?
Well, the bible is a telling of things that occurred many years ago. The bible speaks of marital changes, "husband of one wife" is mentioned somewhere. And also the rules about how close a bloodline married persons should have. However, if you do not agree with "the book" and do NOT base your life on it, this is probably not a good conversation for you. I thought that this discussion was "biblically" based since we're talking about sin and all...
husband and wife is mentioned multiple times - and in the culture of when it was written, that meant that one man could be married to multiple women. It meant that cousins, siblings etc could get married. Who exactly do you think the children of adam and eve (if they ever existed) married and had children with? Who married Noah's grandchildren?
Just because I don't believe in the bible doesn't mean that I cannot discuss it. You don't seem to even know what it says about marriage - or where it says it, yet the atheist does. That's saying something, don't you think?
Would you like to be stoned if you were raped, or would you like to take the easy way out and be forced to marry your rapist, give birth to his children and live the rest of your life being subservient to him? Would you like your husband to be able to sell your daughter into slavery? Would you like to have your husband picked out for you, regardless of your desires or wishes? If you're not down with any of those options, then you're probably not on board with biblical marriage.
Maybe you should google. The bible speaks of men being the husband of one wife in the NT. there ARE also rules about the bloodlines. With the children in the garden, I think we have them marrying and mating with angels. However, none of it matters. The rules were laid down for marriage AND divorce.
Just so you know that I know; the devil Lucifer himself, knows the bible back and forth. I am nowhere near as "skilled" as he at bibling. but he aint "saved" either.
the devil, Lucifer himself? You mean the Devil that did an about face and suddenly appeared in the New Testament, when the Jews only had the "adversary" - nothing like he's portrayed in the NT.
I don't need to google. I have several bibles right here. Which language do you prefer? Google might, in fact, come in handy for you, however - since you don't even seem to know what verses to reference to support YOUR position.
Then I got "lucky" with you!!! You know the bible better than I, no NEED for references. where are my scriptures found again???
which scriptures do you want me to find for you again?
Husband of ONE wife. And something about how closely related persons can be in order to marry.
The Bible doesn't say anything about rules of marriage between relatives, just rules of sex.
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
Cousins are acceptable... and half-siblings are as well...
Leviticus 18:20 points out the relatives marriage law
That's kinda the verse I just quoted.
It doesn't really say marriage, just sex.
Oh sorry. But I do believe that sex at that time was the sign of marriage in those days. But there is another scripture. I will try to find it.
only in the sense that if a man rapes a virgin, he is forced to pay a monetary fine to the girl's father - then he can marry her.
This was also prevalent in the middle ages.
Then you have one of the bigger differences between Christianity and Muslim and you fall on the Muslim side.
Interestingly enough, back to Abraham again.
Not only did he marry his half-sister, but he had sex with her maid to have a child (Ishmael). Many Christians think of Hagar as his concubine. Most Muslims view her as his wife (Because of the sex equals marriage thing).
So the person at the root of three religions was both incestuous and a bigamist (or merely an adulterer, depending on faith).
EXACTLY!!! Depending on faith. Only God may justify. And Abraham and Sarah had his approval. Though I cannot say that the maid idea was approved. She and her child were sent away. The maid was impatience on the part of the couple. Or maybe even by design to spread out Abrahams descendants. But God knows for sure.
Leviticus has a lot of rules.
Do you follow them all, or just the ones that you like?
Are you wearing a cotton/poly blend?
Do you like Shrimp?
Do you eat bacon?
Do you burn all of your furniture if you sit on it while you're on your period?
Have you eaten grain that was planted next to another crop?
oh...and please make sure that you don't eat a kid that was boiled in its mother's milk.
Oh...and do you gather the WHOLE town to stone your disobedient children, or do just a few relatives suffice?
and how, exactly, does the bible condemn incest - except for when it's a good thing. Like Adam and Eve's children? Or Noah's descendants? (here's a hint - if they didn't marry siblings, then according to the bible, the human race would no longer exist)
We could always talk about Abraham and Sarah here... they are kinda important in the whole formation of...well almost every major religion on the planet.
I don't follow ALL of any of it. however, I agree. The rules for the travelers in the desert were in large part due to safety issues. Now, with refrigeration and running water and anticeptics a lot of that info is obsolete. Jesus said, "it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, it is what comes out." He did not mean fecal (for you literal translators). He meant verbal/behavioral.
Was just wondering what ya thought Gods plan would be if women out numbered men two to one?
What mankind does, or what happens by course of nature, and how mankind reacts, is sometimes just that, Jerami-------mankind's doings.
It wouldn't necessarily indicate any particular "plan of God" if women outnumbered men two to one. And any "statistics" would have to take into account the fact that some women (as well as some men) have always wanted to stay single, and the fact that the cycle of life-and-death leaves people as widows or widowers who are eligible to marry one of those who are single, etc.
If the majority of people decide to jump off cliffs, does that mean God had it planned that way? Heck NO.
I dunno. If an all knowing, all powerful God makes a race of cliff jumpers, I think He's implicated.
for so few words as it was, that said an awful lot !!
And don't see how anyone can argue with it.
Jerami, are you joking?
I guess I must've figured wrong when I thought you actually were interested in the Bible and sorting out its truths.........
you seem to keep leaning further and further left all the time.........
oh well. Just an observation. That's your choice.
Anyone that disagrees with you and your specific interpretations automatically is uninterested in the bible and sorting out all of it's truths? Can you just be impressed by a profound statement by taking it for what it is and not making judgements on others because of a simple, single statement?
Are you Jerami?
'Cause I was replying to Jerami, not you.
Can you not jump into the middle of something that doesn't concern you, especially bringing your own personal bias into it?
In case you didn't notice, Brenda, this is an open forum, which means that anyone is free to comment on anything they'd like at any time as long as they follow the forum rules. I've seen you jump in on conversations multiple times - or are you now of the position that you can do whatever you'd like, but no one else should be able to do the same? Darn that freedom of speech thing. It doesn't just work one way.
Yeah, like you were whining yesterday that I jumped into one of your conversions. Which I didn't.
Not whining. Pointing out a sequence of events. Notable difference to most people, present company apparently excluded.
I did not, in any way, imply that you did not have the right to post. If you read it again, it was without emotion, including anger. I was correcting your version of what happened, since my first post was in direct response to something someone asked me directly, which you responded to. You're perfectly allowed to respond, and I'm allowedto disagree. What I didn't like was your claim to victory when I just decided, based on your responses that I no longer wanted to participate in the discussion with you, and I even told you why. That doesn't mean you "won" but if that's what you choose to believe, that's fine.
Yeah .... Everbody is doin it so why don't everybody say
Yep,I did it too ..... say I'm sorry and don't do it no more, no more 'or hit the road Jack AND DON'T COME BACK NO MORE ...." sorry about that, don't know why that melody happen to invaid my head when it did.
That is some sort of _______phobic slur. I just have to figure out which one.
Did you have an older sister who picked on you named Jack or something? (short for Jacqueline of course).
JMcFarland, I can make you laugh any time I want to. Probably cry and scream too. But that's not what I want to talk about.
My concern is about what same-sex marriage will lead to next. Polygamy? Incestuous marriage? Marriage between humans and animals?
Since the verses in Leviticus regarding mankind lying with mankind and bestiality are one right after another, no doubt humans marrying animals will be next.
I never thought humans marrying animals would happen so quickly, but it is, and here's the proof:
http://www.benningtonvalepress.com/2013 … uling.html
You know that all of these questions were brought up when interracial marriage was legalized too, right? It didn't work any better then, either.
I am okay with polygamous marriage and fail to see any equivalence at all to bestiality and incest. States already seem to get one fine disagreeing about just what incest is in terms of marriage.
In the end I think slippery slope argument are not valid. The thing should be argued for or against on its own merits. Not some kind of scare tactic that it will lead to people marrying their televisions.
Eh....so far, just their cars.
Don't be naive!
I actually saw a show where a man claimed to be in love with his car; yep, he cuddled with it and even "had sex" with it...........they showed him under the car in a position prepared to "cuddle" or masturbate or whatever, but thank God they didn't actually show any sexual acts. I think it was on Montel Williams, I'm trying to remember.........But the point is that the guy wanted sympathy and affirmation, even saying he wondered if there were other people out there like himself. I believe mental health counseling was mentioned by the show's host, but truly the fact that they even had the guy on the show was a form of promoting his fetish as possibly normal.
Like I've said before, there are some things that need to be kept private, or sought help for from a counselor or doctor etc. Certainly shouldn't be promoted as normal or good. Yet, if you do a Google search, you'll find that there are people who've formed a group of "car lovers" who have sex with their (and other people's!) vehicles........and they mean it literally.
All I know is that anyone who wants to perform perverted acts upon my car better think twice and not do it, 'cause if I catch 'em, I'm gonna try to send them to jail. No one should have to deal with the nasty results of someone's perverted sexual fetish.
For some reason, this reminds me of that old Paul Simon song "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover".....
"Just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
Get on the bus, Gus"
I dunno. If an all knowing, all powerful God makes a race of cliff jumpers, I think He's implicated.
What is it about this statement do you find objectionable?
Basically, people who think it's a sin probably shouldn't do it,
People who don't think its a sin or don't even believe in sin should do whatever they want to. It's a free country, and a secular one.
Yep,I did it too ..... I'm sorry and I won't do it no more, no more ,,, no more no more
Sinse God is most likely androgynous, perhaps being gay (male and female in one body) is a level up from the dualists.
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls [Romans 14]
If you're a Christian, your Bible says that he will judge all, including you. You will have to give account for every decision you make. Be careful.
It is not judging to tell people what God says in the Bible. I love your hub and what you said is true. Sadly you will get a lot of feedback that is negative and I know how that feels. Just stay strong and I am praying for your strength to stay strong. Great Hub. Congratulations for an honest Hub!!
You are right Forum writer, The Bible which is Gods Holy Word, states that homosexuality is a sin, and its also an abomination, wish I had my Bbile right here and would give you the scripture for this, however its in the New Testament. Most do not want to hear it, maybe feel sorry for those who are different, and try to look over it, but we must also pray for these people who are men and women doing horrible things and well, God will judge unless they change their minds.
actually, the abomination part is in Leviticus - which is the OLD testament. Kthanx.
We also show the abomination part in the NT. Where it matters is your faith. If you can wrap up all the scripture about homosexuality and see no sin in it, God is judge. But for the majority, it is black and white con. The Lord does not like homosexuality from my standpoint. But that is not where I struggle, though many people do. My struggle is about what I do that I KNOW is wrong. You can SAY that you don't believe the scriptures say that homosexuality is wrong all you want. What does your inner man say? Is there peace behind your decision or do you feel led to convince? Conscience is at the beginning of heart/spirit. The Lord works with the heart (conscience) to reveal flaw. He reveals mine to me; he reveals yours to you. Whether we accept it or not.
actually, the word "abomination" is only found twice in the entire New Testament. once in Revelations 21:27
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
and once in Luke 16:15
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God
Neither mention homosexuality.
You forgot Matthew and Mark. Interesting. You must have a different Concordance.
I don't mean my statements as judging, however they openly parade it all over the media and its as commonplace as going to work in the morning. I do not like the subject but answered to my best ability. God does not wink at the sin and nether should we, we certainly should never let anyone think we belive its right!
you do realize, that when you're gay - it IS just as commonplace as getting up in the morning. I'm married to my wife. It's in the news because the overturning of DOMA and Don't ask don't tell is, I don't know, newsworthy. There are a lot of topics in the news. murder, mayhem, mischief. Should that not be reported either? What would you LIKE to see in the news, exactly? More on the divorce rates in heterosexual relationships?
I'm not certain why you posted that to me, but if everyone simply worried about being the best they could be and stopped pointing fingers at what they think others should do we would have a better world. Which goes all ways, of course. But, I think those of us who argue against the belief that homosexuality is wrong only do it because threads such as these are started. As I told the OP, if you think it's wrong, don't do it. Leave it at that.
The ? was here I was trying to participate I do not hate gays ok., God hates the sin, as he does all sins..People taking the Bible out of the proper context is what gets on my nerves like nails on a chalkboard would.....Please read the whole bible without taking one or two things to say its ok to sin. Look in NT and you will find the verse I refereed to and you will with an open mind see what I am referring to.
Not to state the obvious, but you just said that we shouldn't just pick one or two verses out of the Bible to draw a conclusion... and then pointed us to one specific verse to draw a conclusion.
actually, I have looked in the new testament. I listed the verses that talk about abominations in the New Testament. homosexuality is not among them, so you'll need to try again.
I know what you are referring to. I simply disagree. I disagree because I do believe that behavior which caused this thread to be started and behavior which causes people to attempt to defend that position were the primary things your namesake was preaching against. Sin exists in the eye of the beholder. You choose to see sin.
*blinks* why exactly does everyone that disagrees with you have to be gay? I don't understand that at all.
For the same reason that I support public transportation so therefore I must be a bus.
Shall I salute you or run you up a flag pole?
The U.S. mint has suddenly become my favorite cause.
I'll take both - but I imagine it's cold up there.
I'd start supporting squirrels then... so you can grow fur.
Well, I would have suggested supporting fire...
But then you would have been a flaming flag.
I had a gay dream once, but no, I'm not gay. I simply see no reason to hurt others. I can imagine how it must feel to be told God hates you for who you are. Can't you?
you didn't tell me that you were dreaming of me again.
God hates no one. He hates sin. If you sinnin' he hates your sin. Not u.
The problem with that statement is, if you perceive sin and denounce an act as sin...and the person you consider to be sinning doesn't see it as sin...how is that resolved? They can only perceive it as God hating them. They aren't going to change. They have no reason to. They don't consider it sin. How do you find remorse for something you honestly don't see as bad? But, there is still this lady in the corner insisting you are doing bad things.
That's why it doesn't matter what we think of each other's actions. One person will tell you it's wrong to swear, another will say God doesn't care if you swear, a word is an expression for joy or anger etc... so who cares what someone else perceives as sin? We must read for ourselves what God thinks of as sin. It is our sin that separates us from Him and that's why He hates it. If we cannot trust others interpretation, we should read the word and pray and discover what actions God says will separate us from Him.
Well, I think it is a little more complicated. If I were perfect, I don't think I'd suddenly have the wisdom of Jesus or Bhudda. I think I would have to view the world in the same manner. I think the separation comes through our judgment. We accept that we are imperfect, so we have the need to see imperfection in all we see. We point it out in order to showcase that we are, if not perfect, at least closer to perfect than others. Searching the Bible to validate this behavior simply gives another layer to the veil of separation.
Perception can be vivid. Truth is what matters. Again, God knows who knows. Many people fight for the right to be right. But the heart screams in the Lord's ear. You cannot lie to him. He just knows.
Matthew and Mark are quoting the old testament - Daniel specifically. I left those out of my search.
I should have made that more clear.
Apologies, and thank you.
OK I want to make sure you guys know this, The Bible is Gods infallible word that it is a SIN no two ways about it, the sin God hates the sinners of any sin he LOVES.
Based entirely on the premise that sin isn't imaginary and that any god exists, let alone your favorite one, which you haven't proven. So any further examination or conjecture is silly until the foundational claim is evidenced.
I see on your profile page you want to run for political office.
*blinks again* what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
I thought it was rather obvious. He wants to run for political office. Based upon his statement above, I would think that all the heathens on this thread would want to send him campaign contributions.
actually, being a "godless heathen" myself, I don't support political candidates based solely on their beliefs or lack thereof. I support them based on their positions on multiple issues.
I think it's only the religious that expect and seek out a religious agenda of their candidates.
If they are heathens most of their positions on multiple issues are likely to be compatible with your own.
Are there any atheists who do not support same-sex marriage? I never met one, myself.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but are you saying you would vote for anyone who is against gay marriage regardless of his or her character?
One person's point of view is another persons life, love, marriage and main joy in life. To a person who is gay, it is not a theoretical debate.
One person's point of view is another person's life, love, marriage and main joy in life. To a person who is a member of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) or the other NAMBLA (North American Man-Beast Love Association), it it is not a theoretical debate.
I don't think anybody clicked on the link I provided yesterday about men marrying beasts.
You can't plus yourself. It's like talking to yourself. We have to take away the ten. Subtract one as a penalty. Minus one since I had to take the time to type this. You are now at negative two.
You understand the difference between Homosexuality and those other things you are interested in right?
This has been my background for my HP's profile for a week or so. It's kind of my philosophy, but I would be the first to say that how we live our lives matters to God and to the ppl whose lives we touch. We all will answer to someone for our choices... of course, I'm thinking of myself here when I say this.
It doesn't matter who we are and what we are doing; self justifinacion is at our fingertips.
It is like the air is full of excuses and all we gotta do is pick the one that goes best with what we are serving.
"Everbody is doin it". when we come to a place where we no longer need to "Pick an excuse" we might be a little closer to where we ought to be.
We have a case of adjusting script for feel good purposes with the one who is at "fault". If we were speaking of divorce, I could not/would not argue. God deals with me according to my faith. Now I cannot look at scripture and label my divorce acceptable and yours not...
Note that just as homosexuality is a sin so is premarital sex, oral sex, shacking up, cheating, phone sex, porn, lusting, and masterbation. So when calling out a homosexual man and or woman, be reminded that no one sin is greater that the other. Homosexuality is not a species it is a spirit. Everything in nature is created perfectly and balanced appropriately. Still we do not have the right to judge. We are ordered to do two things, spread the gospel and pray.
so you're telling me that I have a "spirit" of homosexuality? Like a demon?
Yeah, my parents tried that one. It didn't take. There is NO proof whatsoever for this assertion.
The Bible tells us that the Word is so righteous that it pierces between the soul and spirit. This is a reminder that the soul and the spirit are not the same. Our spirits Make up our personalities. To answer your question yes homosexuality is a spirit. In your heart you know that what it is you desire is wrong yet you are compelled to do it for emotional and sexual reasons. Just as the average cheating male or female do what they do for self satisfaction. I am not condemning you, please understand this. However people are susceptible to spiritual oppression and bondage when they are exposed to actions, hanits
Beth37 and all read the books of Leviticus and Exodus we are given the law.
I don't believe the Bible addresses oral sex between spouses at all. If you know of a specific verse or chapter, I would be very open to reading it. There are many who believe that there are veiled references to oral sex in the Song of Solomon. "Garden" refers to her genitals and "fruit" to his.
(Bride) Awake, O north wind
And come, wind of the south
Make my garden breathe out fragrance
Let its spices be wafted abroad
May my beloved come into his garden
And eat its choice fruits! (4:16)
Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
So is my beloved among the young men
In his shade I took great delight and sat down
And his fruit was sweet to my taste. (2:3)
The bible does not specially use the term oral sex but Ephesians 5:3 does say that there should not be even a hint of sexuality... This means thinking about it and doing things that bring about the same finale. The book if Leviticus tells us that if a mans semen touches a bed drape then the drape must be destroyed. The biblical term for immorality is found in 1 Corinthians and it refers to any conduct out side of marriage
@JMMcfarland... Demonic oppression and possession are not the same. An oppressed person is conscious of what they are doing and does what they do because they feel they must. A possessed person is conscious of the fact that something else altogether is in control of them. Draw your mind away from the Hollywood definition of spiritual interface and go back to the Bible, seek his truth for yourself. I know you had to be raised in A Christian home or a home that believe in the Biblical God because you stated that your parents told you that it was a spirit. You must understand that we battle not against flesh and blood. Why do think that God destroyed Sodom and Gomarrah? If he created gay people and if being gay is right then why would he have destroyed them. The first thing God commanded Adam and Eve to do was to be fruitful and multiply. How can his word be fulfilled if two women are joined. He said in his word that heaven and Earth shall pass away before he could lie. Read 1 Corinthians 5:11
god actually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of pride and inhospitably.
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.
See, that's the thing. I was raised in a Christian home, and I went to a Christian college where I learned Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I've read the bible. If you're going to try to use it against me, you might want to learn it a little better. Kthanx.
I know what the bible says about devils, demons, etc - at least in the new testament, which is VASTLY different from the belief in the adversary depicted in the Old. I just don't see a reason to believe that any of it is true - namely because neither you nor anyone else can actually, i don't know, PROVE IT.
Well, you seem to be making this sort of one-sided. I grew up in a Christian home and tho k Christian values. I went against all of it... But now my religion is actually relationship with God himself. I have only read the bible in English. However, we are not talking about self here. All your knowledge means 0 if, "a hearer only" you do NOT agree with the bible, but you need to "prove" that to me and others??? I believe you when you say that you don't believe, in spite of all that you have witnessed and learned in the Kingdom of God.
What does her lack of of belief have to do with anything that was said. She doesn't want to be a doer of his word because she isn't a christian. However, every single word she said was sound, looking at the scriptures concerning Sodom as a whole, instead of taking little parts out context to make it what she wanted, which is what the other woman did. Notice how she couldn't actually rebuttal anything intellectually.
The idea that she must prove her disbelief. I believe that she wants to be counted among the non believers. That topic is not under debate. My comment responded to her extensive knowledge on the subject at hand as well. Reading it and memorizing it is not enough to fully grasp the concepts. Doing it makes the difference. Reporting the heavy bible background seems a bit off.
Hopefully we are not here to make anyone feel bad or praise ourselves. Before I went back to God I was a fornicator too. The one thing Christianity does teach is to love. The bottom line is that everyone has to answer for him and herself. I can judge I can only share what I believe. We all believe differently but that difference in opinion should never usher in disrespect. Goodnight Hubbers.
except I'm not a fornicator. I'm actually legally married. Thanks for the concern though.
Sure, you're not here to judge - after telling me that I have a spirit and that my LIFE the very person that I am is a sin. that sure sounds like judging to me. I guess you must have a different definition of the word.
Sorry for anger but I'm not judging you only God can do that. The problem too many people try to use the bible for their definitions. You obviously have not read the story of sodom and Gomarrah. You are right it was not only homosexuality that corrupted the city but all types of sin of a sexual nature . When they arrived in the city the men saw the two Angels and beat on the door begging to have them . Lot offered his daughters to them instead.
Yes I have, and the bible itself spells out what the sin of sodom was, in the verse I just provided for you.
Let me give it to you again.
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.
Lets talk about the story in Genesis, if you don't want to take Ezekiel's word for it (incidentally, how do you NOT take Ezekiel's word for it, who was supposedly a prophet of god and supposedly knew what he was talking about)
You have two angels going to Lot's house in the middle of Sodom. The bible says that ALL OF THE MEN came out to try to rape them. Not only is it statistically impossible for all of the men of ANY city to be gay (since gays represent about 10% of the population at any given time) but you also have to understand the culture and context. It was not uncommon for soldiers on the victorious side of a battle to RAPE the soldiers of the losing side. It was an attempt to demean them - to put them in the place of women who were considered to be the property of their fathers - and then their husbands. This is why the bible says it's okay for a father to sell his daughter into slavery - or why it says it's okay to force a woman to marry her rapist.
Since it's impossible that all of the men of Sodom were gay already, it becomes even more clear when Lot offers his daughters for them to rape instead. Why would he offer them women - his virgin daughters - if they were all gay? Does that make any sense to you?
THEN read further in the story. The angels blinded the men so that Lot and his family could escape - then his DAUGHTERS (the same one that he offered for gang rape) turn around and get him drunk - so they can have sex with their father in order to continue the bloodline.
THAT'S your standard of morality? Really?
If you tell me that I am inhabited by a spirit (when you don't even know me, don't know my background, don't know my wife or what I had to go through to get to this point in my life) and tell me that who I am is wrong, I don't care HOW you slice it - you're judging me. As soon as you're called out on it, however, you immediately back down and say it's gods place to judge, not yours. Do you think god needs your help? Is that why you were judging me to begin with?
The bible also teaches to judge not lest you be judged - in the same way you judge others, so will you be judged yourself.
So you interpreted that according to what you believe to be statistically correct? Again I am apologetic for your anger. I am unmoved in my beliefs. I read it for what it says. That problem is that so many statistical interpretations has given birth to so many sects. Listen to the book. What does the book say? Either you believe it or you don't. If you don't believe don't try to synthesize it for others. Base all of your answers on your logic. Don't try to self promote by discrediting it.
I don't know what statistics have to do with anything. It's a fact that gay people historically make up between 8-10% of the population - and in biblical times no one was "gay". Everyone got married and had a family, whether they wanted to or not. It was the cultural standard and the cultural norm. If you disagree with that, then you have to have proof for your statement, and not just expect anyone (least of all me) to just accept it at face value because you said it - when I don't know you or anything about your background.
I don't care about your beliefs. I don't care what you do or don't believe. You have a right to your belief, but your right to your beliefs ENDS when they start infringing on the rights of others. You do not get to make laws based on your religious convictions - especially in the United States which is a democracy, not a theocracy.
You read the parts you want to read, and interpret them the way that you want to. A lot of Christians disagree with your interpretations. You don't just get to decide that your interpretation is correct while all other interpretations are wrong based on nothing more than your opinion.
I'm not trying to promote myself, and I don't know where you got that from. I'm pointing out that the Bible (which you believe in) ADAMANTLY STATES what the sin of sodom was - and it says NOTHING about homosexuality. You want to interpret Genesis the way you want, while throwing out Ezekiel completely. If you want to cherry pick scripture to fit your own particular bias, that's your right - but don't expect anyone else to buy it based solely on your opinion. Rational thought and reasonable discussions don't work that way - and if you're going to pound the bible at me, you need to be more familiar with what it actually SAYS and not what you have interpreted it to mean. I know what it says. I don't have to believe in it to know what it says.
Ironically, in all of the recent pew studies, atheists are far more biblically literate than their believing counterparts. Why do you think that is?
Because they search the scripts daily looking for a "loophole" and/or "contradiction". Their souls long to be right, they try to find themselves right or a way to discredit the story altogether. That's why. Kthanks
Or... they were raised in an abusive Christian house that forcefully shoved the Bible down their throat, got a degree in it and then realized that it wasn't true for them... Sometimes actually reading the Bible has that effect on people of a rational mindset.
Looking for a falsehood/contradiction in the Bible? Here's one of my favorites:
In Ezekiel chapter 26, God says he's going to destroy the city of Tyre/Sour in Lebanon, because Old Testament God is kind of a jerk. Ezekiel 26:21 states, "I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God."
...But clearly that wasn't the case...
You are adamant about what you feel based on an emotional connection to the traditional, popular, and yet cherry-picked and uneducated interpretations of Biblical scripture. She is pointing out what the Bible actually says. Sorry, but there's no way around that. The only scripture that is actually specific about what Sodom did wrong happened to fail to put homosexuality on that list? Be honest with yourself, and set your emotional connections aside. But you probably can't do that because your world is based on creating an emotional connection to a book and the so called God of a book from 2,000 years ago.
Emotion does not play a part on my end. Honesty forces me to see the attempted rape of the men in that city and how it was viewed. "Eeeeewww!!!, here! Take my virgin babies instead" or something like that. The scripture is plain on the matter. We may look at it differently if we want, but our arms are too short. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. We cannot approve ourselves, what God disapproves. Vice versa.
You have deep seeded forgiveness issues. I am so sorry for what may have happened to you that makes you so bitter. Have you tried counseling. Let it go. I was not judging. I will stand before God to answer for my sins I believe I said that earlier.
Now you think you're my PSYCHOLOGIST? Based on what? A few posts in an open forum?
yeah, I studied psychology, too.
do you always make these types of snap judgements about complete strangers without even attempting to get to know them? Does that work well for you?
I've got to tell you - it sounds incredibly arrogant. I'm pretty sure that the bible says that pride is a sin, too.
4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
I'm not about to be waiting for you while you google scriptures. Goodnight. Do not go to bed angry.
I don't have to google. Yet another dishonest assumption by a christian. I'm not surprised.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was angry. I'm not. I actually don't take these types of forum discussions personally. I've been debating for over 20 years - you develop a thicker skin. When you apologized for anger, I assumed that you were apologizing for yours. You can't really apologize for someone else - especially if they're not the least bit angry.
Here's the thing. You can tell yourself that you're not judging, but it's clear to everyone that you are. You can tell yourself that I have anger issues or psychological issues - but you're not a licensed psychologist. You can argue about scripture, but i'd guess that you're not a biblical scholar either.
You can make yourself feel better by trying to minimize the intellect of others that disagree with you. You can make snap judgments of complete strangers to your hearts content - but that's not going to get you very far when trying to communicate with them. It's just going to make you look immature - and that's not going to get you very far when attempting to have a serious conversation about any topics.
You didn't disagree with my depiction of what happened in Sodom except for "statistics". You didn't disagree with what Ezekiel said, although you chose to ignore it in favor of your interpretation. You didn't disagree with my pointing out what Jesus said about judging.
And once again, you don't...know...me..at...all.
So what gives you the right to make ANY type of assumption/judgment about me?
Tree/ fruit it bears.
My "assessment" is anger and bitterness for making the preference a sin. Sort of like an "Ef-U-then!!!" But he aint angry. He understands better than you. He is faithful. He is still there. Try not to be angry if you can. As I said, he accepts us all with all our fault. If the heart is quickened by the scripture. For you it is sin. But God is a master sin-coverer.
One of the absolutely best religious lectures I ever got came from a wonderful older woman that LIVED Christianity.
I know it so well I can quote it verbatim.
She said "Girl you need to find Jesus"
I told her I was standing in the middle of his house.
She said "Oh you got Jesus in your mouth, you just ain't got him in your heart."
I'm gonna pass that on to you right now, because Girl, you need to find Jesus.
Well, I think the best way to find him would be to ask yourself if you are behaving in a way he would approve of.
I think atheist and Christian alike can agree that the Biblical Jesus never came onto a forum with the intention of saying how wrong someone else's love was. I seem to remember him being pretty big on Love. And he never spent hours trying to convince people that he was right and they were wrong.
Like I said, you may have Jesus in your mouth (and not even that, because you aren't quoting his words) but I don't think you have him in your heart.
Take the woman at the well, he stopped to talk to her which was unheard of at that time. Then he "told her all things she had ever done" you remember??? "...5 husbands, and none of them were yours???" He said tell it. You have "judged" incorrectly. Jesus is my very best friend.
You've misread. That was not judgment. She had been married repeatedly and was currently living with someone she wasn't married to. She didn't appear to take the comment as judgment. She was impressed by the fact he, as a stranger, knew. This is typical of the relationship Jesus had with those he encountered. The only judgment appeared toward the religious who went out of their way to point out law, but not understand its intent. The ones found lacking were the religious who attempted to use law to cause suffering for others. The woman at the well was not among them.
You've misread. I was responding to the comment that Jesus never went (on a forum) to tell someone how wrong their love was. The woman at the well was a perfect example that he surely did! He asked her for water, then offered her some water which she came to actually ask for. He went a step further with the woman about to be stoned for sex. He did not stand by, he rebuked those old "churched-out people" about to stone her for something they possibly secretly did themselves. He told HER to go away and sin no more. That part (sin no more) was what I consider to be "splinter plucking" which is something HE could do because he had no sin. Telling the truth is not the same as judgment.
And I am glad that you brought up the fact that he DID as well "chastise his own" because those people had the finger pointing bad. He wanted them to realize how wrong they were for passing judgment (trying to stone all the "sinners") while they too were filthy. Thanks Emile !!!
Gee genaea. That's interesting, because nowhere in the story of the woman at the well does he say she had sinned. It is not an example that he did. Please explain what hoops you jumped over to convince yourself of that.
I realize you choose to see it that way, but it simply isn't so.
He did not HAVE to tell her she sinned. HE KNEW THAT "SHE" KNEW... The "hoop" is spirit/ soul.
I realize that you choose to see things as obscurely as possible so that YOUR stance (ever-obscure) is not shaken. But again, something plain to see is not in need of explanation.
I would think, if he saw sin and HE KNEW THAT SHE KNEW she had sinned, she would most definitely have reacted differently. Her words in response make it clear she believed him to be a prophet and did not indicate that she was embarrassed, remorseful or afraid. I don't look at things as obscurely as possible. What I don't do is read into things what I want to see. You want to see sin so you see it everywhere. You want to be able to point fingers, so you imagine Jesus did it, so you can think you are justified. The only time he pointed a finger it was at those who thought they spoke for God.
Either way, this exchange has run its course. You have made it amply clear that you need to judge others. We all do what we need to do.
Quite clearly. And your need at this point is your big fuzzy warm "gray" blanket. Her reaction was sheer, "I need that water you speak of!!!" How was her "tone of voice???" Did she ask for that "water" remorsefully??? My bet is yes!!! And I KNOW that your bet is most likely a big "gray" I don't know...
At no point in our conversion have I said I don't know. You appear to assume if someone doesn't agree with you, then they don't know what they think. Then proceed to insist the only thing to think is what you think, or what some preacher had told you to think. You should start thinking for yourself. Try to put two and two together. Once you find four, add a little more. Keep adding, slowly. Double checking the calculations to make sure each thing added makes sense. Because this god you are attempting to sell doesn't.
The thing that I do well, is put together two and two. that is why I'm here. "I don't know" is your MAJOR response. It is why you "reason" so. No, you have not said it, but, you are it. It is you. The Lord does not lie. He does what he says and his word does not return void. It accomplishes... Now, did you find "proof" that the bible is correct??? That Alexander the Great thing wore me out.
I don't feel compelled to review my responses to prove that I didn't say 'I don't know'. Pretty sure I didn't and pretty sure your comments don't take into account conversations, but are consistently falling back on an 'I say it, so it has to be so' stance.
I don't need to search to find correctness within the Bible. Those who do find hurdles and tend to argue from untenable positions in order to shore up a belief that everyone must agree. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Reality is what it is. If God exists, this is his reality. If you can't accept reality, you are against God. Try the shoe on genaea. From my understanding of your argument it's a perfect fit.
I agreed with you when you said that you did not say you don't know in this conversation. Are you typing from an emotional standpoint? I hear that's a bad thing. She gon gitchu
No need to prove that you did not say it, we agree there
But you cannot answer questions about what you believe and why. Reality is relative. What is "real" to me, is not "real" to you. See???
Don't even try to act philosophical (as that would require intelligent thought). If I threw a brick at your head, you can't wish it away with your subjective reality nonsense. You can't claim the brick isn't real when it's stuck to your face.
So you admit you lied yet somehow that makes me emotional. Hmmm.
I don't know that I have ever been unable to explain what I believe and why. Is this another lie?
Here you go with the very offensive lie word...
No ay de mí. I lied??? Where???
You said I said something, then you admitted that you knew I didn't say it. Ergo...you lied. I am simply asking if, yet again, you knew your new statement was incorrect prior to stating it. I can't defend myself against a lie.
I never said you said you don't know in THIS conversation. Though you have said it MANY times to me before. I merely pointed out that you would say that you did not know whether or not the woman at the well spoke to Jesus remorsefully because she knew that he knew that she knew she sinned. I "bet" she was remorseful. You... I don't know.
Now WHO's the liar???
You would still fall into the category of the liar. Simply because you are attempting to back step out of your statements.
This is the only conversation you and I are in the middle of. To pretend that you weren't speaking of this conversation when you made the statement is dishonest and would certainly classify as a lie.
And, unless you are suffering an inability to read my posts, I did not say or imply that I did not know whether the woman at the well was remorseful, or not. I see no reason why anyone would believe she was remorseful, when the conversation is taken at face value. And, that position was amply clear in my post. There was no room for interpretation of my take on the matter. Soooo, which is it genaea? Did you not read my post, or are you attempting to imply that my intent was the opposite of what it was?
Now you making me laugh. I almost lost my kool-aid
YOU are bac stepping Emile. You said that I said that you said you did not know in this conversation. I know that you know by now that my memory pretty much wraps circles around the memory of many others here; thanks to God. I said no such thing. I merely bet that you would prefer to say you did not know if the woman was remorseful. You blatantly lied on me!!! But I don't care. Really... Mistakes can happen to anyone now you want to iron on the label of liar??? Well you're gonna have to take off your own t-shirt.
Are you serious? I was clear on what I thought. You said what you think I would say? OK. So, you didn't read the post. But, you were dishonest about it. And continue to be dishonest.
You are dishonest. You SAID that I said that you SAID I don't know. And I didn't. Now instead of you taking it back and going on to the next point; you rather I concede and agree with YOUR lie??? God forbid!!! You were and still are absolutely wrong. Maybe you are not reading. Emotion takes over you quickly. Yes, I SURELY remember ALL of the discussions that you and I have had. You are big on "I don't know" and you like to use the word liar ( highly offensive). You are big on "definitions"; "reality"; and what "the masses" agree to. You and I have quite a history.
Genaea, I admit that you said you would think I would say, however, I had said. There was no room for you to think what I might say since I had already clearly spoken.
You appear to consistently attempt to paint others with your shortcomings. Sorry, I'm not going to enable the delusions. A lie is a lie. A lie is a dishonest statement. You have, for quite some time, been full of them.
Well Emile, now Im floored. This really isn't funny anymore. You called me a liar. Then I proved it to be you on that end. You admit that I was right all along and then call ME the "painter"??? Ok, it's back funny again...
I love the way you turn things around in order to appear right. I don't want to ever be blind enough to be like that, but it is still fascinating to watch you do it.
You lied on several counts. When you said you knew what I would say, even though you knew what I had already said was the opposite. And you lied when you said I always say I don't know, when I have not said that once in this conversation.
Actually, Emile never says she doesn't know, at least not to me.
Cgenaea, if you keep this up no one will converse with you at all.
You and Emile agree. She doesn't really have to answer your "hard" questions like, "if there is no God, then what, how, who???" We've had many conversations and I remember quite a bit. So, thank you for letting me know how she deals with you, I guess that was important. But if you read our exchange, you will notice she finally admitted her error.
I am not here to make "friends". I like talking about what I know about God the father. But I can well understand a reluctance to converse with me. Luckily, it is NOT a requirement.
This is madness genaea. None of it is important enough to argue over. The conversation is documented. Let anyone come to whatever conclusion they like. We both know what conclusion we have come to. Neither of our views matter enough to dig our heels into a 'she said, she said' quarrel.
I think we've both gotten a pretty firm idea of what we think of the ideas of the other.
As you know, we handled the issue of who said what. We straightened it out and I am glad about the outcome. You have just said as I have said all along again. just not important. Our differences are numerous but again, that doesn't matter. A discussion about the bible results in "personal" attacks. It should not be. But Jesus got that too. It's expected. No worries here, and I hope that you are worry free as well.
Of course she is... they are discussing scripture. There's only one possible way to do that. By quoting it. Doesn't mean that she secretly believes they are true or accurate. She is simply pointing out what the book says. No strings attached.
Slightly off topic and excessively...er... something. I don't know what, I'm too tired for words... but excessively something anyway...
Is it even possible for lesbians to fornicate? I mean technically? Barring any err... implements..., isn't lesbian sex largely non...
Oh screw it, you know what I mean. Is everyone that engages in heavy petting and a bit of... screw it again... outside of marriage guilty of fornication?
Even if a man thinks about sex with one who does not belong to him. Sin according to scripture.
Thank you, but I was actually asking Julie. Not to be offensive, but I think she's more knowledgeable about it than you.
Don't take that the wrong way, what you feel about some things is important, but how you feel about the bible is irrelevant to what it says.
I took it the right way. My feeling ARE NOT important as far as the bible is concerned. Yours neither . I was pointing that out. It is hard to gain understanding of the words in the bible without first saying yes to God. It is the spirit you receive after using the "mustard seed" that helps to translate. Please let me say that most of us will come up with different translations of the "trivial" stuffs of the bible. But not necessarily wrong. God knows what he is doing. ALL who want the truth will have it.
Yes, I completely understand this and your comment is exactly what I've been talking about. You each think you've been given the ability to translate the bible and get what you want and need from it. That's why you argue even amongst yourselves. In you man you can change man into women because otherwise God would look sexist. But guess what? the writers of the bible were sexist. The thinking of the time was that women were incomplete men and were just a vessel for the mans baby to grow.
The bible warns against the "war of words" among brotheren (and "sisteren" since technicality seems in order) however, we do need to discuss the words. Someone who sees it wrong will have a chance to see it "right" in such interaction. But when you want to see foolishness in the bible because of the "mustard seed" you have placed in other people, places, or things; you find it quickly.
I cannot nor can any other human tell you that you are wrong for anything. We are having a discussion about what the bible says. Tell me... Are you hearing someone/thing tell you that you are wrong???
I havent read those words. Conviction is a funny phenomenon. It takes many forms. "Voices" in your head ( where YOUR heart lies)?
Come on Spirit and truth. Throne of grace/ obtain mercy. Though sins be as scarlet... You know the rest! God is not hoping to condemn you. His grace is fully sufficient. In his arms, there is rest for the "weary" soul.
Off from work
Romans 1:26 " because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men..."
I am joyful because I have come along way. I once was what I now advocate against. I am not ashamed of what I was and my sinful state was no different than that of a same sex state. Sin is sin. I said this earlier in the conversation. I am sorry if someone is anger without a cause. I now understand why though. When you know you are wrong and won't admit it, you will fight tooth and nail hand over foot to pretend to be right. I am no bible scholar and never claimed to be. It is true the devil does know the bible better than most saints. I also have two degrees and have published two books... My focus is empowering woman, saving marriages, and rebuilding families. In the end we are judge by our hearts not our knowledge or deeds. There is a right side and a wrong one. Lets just hope wherever we are we are winning. Again I did not judge, I got my sins to answer for.
http://static.lulu.com/browse/product_t … lution=320
I had an awesome evening with conversation. Everyone be blessed.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom God. And this what is what some of you we're, but are now washed..."
Ha!!!! I just love the word rightfully discerned. Now, the scramble begins to totally discredit that homosexual piece... Wait for it... In my Katt Williams voice.
That last part of freedom will be totally disregarded. The door is open.
Well the first discredit would be that the word homosexual didn't exist at the time that was written in the language it was written in...
The word that didn't exist till hundreds of years after the penning of the bible? Sure, that word meant homosexual. It was a bit late to be included in the original translations, but the middle age churches remedied that by retroactively creating it.
"The first known appearance of homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny"
So yeah, it's a pretty new addition to the bible.
There is nothing new under the sun. There WAS homosexuality then. There had to be a name for it. We definitely have a difference of opinion. ALL of God's children will be with him when he comes. Some of them will have been gay. If I am wrong, I will be corrected.
It doesn't bother you at all that the Bible is using a word that wasn't invented until less than a couple hundred years ago and has no equivalent in the original language, but you are basing opinions off of it and telling people they are sinners because of it?
And that the major writings connected to that word (that didn't exist) are essentially the laws for the holy men of another religion?
Again, there were homosexuals then, they must've had a name/title
To be fair, that word was not in the KJV Bible. It appears in latter versions and translations
Mainstream has brought it to the forefront in an attempt to normalize and gain approval. Spirit kinda knows what is implied. Carnality looks for the "deeper" meaning; for a "good" reason. Who wants to be wrong for something they like???
Anything can be implied in any situation and call it "spirit"
However, the spirit of God, has one voice. Only those who receive it are capable of understanding it. I'm not "calling" it spirit. I am saying that the spirit of God knows what is implied. If you have it, you know.
If you "have" it you think you "know." Just like the Christians who think the KJV was the first bible and is therefore the most accurate. I bet they'll tell you the "spirit" told them that, too. It's the emotional connections you've made, it's what those that you value as true believers have taught you. It's those things that resonate with what you think true morality looks like (regardless of whether or not you're always doing what you think is right, you have your ideas about what you "should" be doing.)Nothing more, nothing less. Some people think the "spirit" is telling them it's not okay for women to wear pants. Some don't. Some think it's telling them that women aren't allowed to be ministers/pastors in a church. Some don't. Just think about all the tens if not hundreds of denominations. Gee, the "spirit" is telling y'all a lot of different things.
The spirit of God has one voice. As I said earlier, those who want to know truth, will. It is not up for debate what the truth is. Interpretation with selfish motives most always finds a "catch".
Tens of thousands of denominations??? Well some of them are RIGHT on the important matters. They break away and start a new denomination when the trivial matters are not "agreed" upon.
God is not trivial. He is a parent. He looks at his children as they are. What he allows for one child he bars for another. All based upon who and where they are.
I said "tens if not hundreds," not "tens of thousands." Read carefully.
Anyway, what you're saying doesn't change the fact that all of those people believe the "spirit" is telling them things that outright contradict what others think the "spirit" is telling them.
"What he allows for one child he bars for another. All based upon who and where they are."
Talk about sowing confusion. Also sounds pretty "gray" to me.
It is supposed to sound gray to you. The spirit works with you as you are. If you feel "guilt" about the meat, don't eat it! It could harm your spirit. However, if you do not feel guilty, eat well.
Parenting is gray. That is why there is no rule book. Some children could be adversely affected by staying up late. Some children can handle it... Parents KNOW their children. In my house, my brother could go with his friends at 9pm. I could not!!! I HATED that...
I used the term "gray" specifically because it seems to have a negative connotation to you (in your conversation with Emile), and to many Christians, as the world is very black and white in your theology.
However, even though you've found a nice way to "explain" it, you still haven't gotten the point. You see, that would not be so in the OT. EVERY Jew was to uphold EVERYTHING about the law. The only people who did anything more were the priests/prophets, having a "direct connection" to God, but EVERYONE was held to the same standard as the laws were established.
So why is it that people now think that this God now operates differently?
What can personal perspective have anything to do with that? I thought "right was right" and "wrong was wrong?" Why does God bend his supposed morality to the personality of his children? If you're all supposed to be "holy," then you should all be held to the exact same standards. It would be more believable that there's some kind of "spirit" that speaks the "one truth" to you. You said he has "one voice." Shouldn't that "one voice" be consistent?
-Is it a sin to wear pants as a woman or not?
-Is it a sin for a woman to be a priest or pastor or not?
-Is it wrong for a woman to be uncovered when she's in church or not?
-Is it right or wrong to eat unclean animals?
-Is it right or wrong to talk about anything other than Godly things?
-Is it right or wrong to worship on Sundays (instead of Saturdays)?
I could go on and on.
It really more supports what I said earlier about the "spirit" being nothing but emotional connections that you've made in your mind to what you think is moral according to the Bible (even if you don't always follow it, you know what you "should" be doing), and to what people who you respect in the faith teach you/have taught you. But it is your own mind and your own emotions. That are especially strengthened by all that emotional "worship" time.
There's no good reason that your mom didn't let you hang out as late as your friends. If anything, that would've kept you sheltered. But you'll find some way to support her decision because she is your mother and the emotional connection you have to her and her ways as your mother.
Sheltered I was
The Lord is now, and always will be. The questions in this post are ALL trivial. The OT rules seperated the wanderers and assisted in good health; and the women rules possibly had something to do with the "garden thing". However Jesus said, "the sabbath was made for the people not the other way around." He also said, "it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, it is what comes out" He also pointed out the fact that they were "trivializing" the tithing thing. Not all things "lawful" are expedient (needed). The law of the Old Testament had quite a few rules that were applicable and needed for the time period for health reasons. Sexual rules probably were also for the health of the people. Without penicilin, them STDs could have really gotten out of hand. God knows what he's doing. Believe or don't. It's REALLY that simple.
Also "gray" has a VERY negative connotations for us Christians. The bible says that he prefer you to be hot or cold. Lukewarm (gray) makes him "nauseous".
@CGenaea... Everyone knows what is implied in that scripture. You are correct. More modern teachings have only focused on the corruption of the cities in a non sexual light because of the growing numbers of homosexuals in the world. I believe that one of these posts said something about it being 8-10% of the city population, but who is to say that it wasn't more. Who is to say that so even now with all of the people who are bisexual or in the closet it does not have the potential to in the next 10 years be 50% of our world pop? I do not want anyone to think as I think. I do however want my opinions to be heard just I find others opinions thought inspiring and sometimes valid.
I think bi-sexuals are already counted in among that number.
A 50% gay population would be awesome though.
Famine and overcrowding would end. Mass adoptions of unwanted children would happen. Unemployment percentages would drop like a rock. Now that would be a true blessing.
Sure. Validity is also measured with a spiritual stick. The ways of God are foolishness to the carnal mind. We have no power to say what is or is not valid. Rightful dividing of scripture without self involved, is what it takes. Relationship ties to the father makes rightful divide possible. All this chatter about NOT believing in a God that I spend ALL DAY talking about is to me, a bit...let me think...
@melissa... Lol. I cannot lie in my line of work I employ a large number of that sexual preference and they are always the most honest and friendliest people to be around. I love them... Then again I love everybody.
I wouldn't say that as a group they were any more honest or friendly than anyone else, so you got lucky.
LGBT people are just people. They don't really have any shared traits other than being L,G,B and/or T. They just want to be allowed to love the people they love and have families.
I'm not sure how that goes against the bible.
I'm also not sure why Atheists and Christians are sitting around debating what is essentially Jewish law... but hey, whatever.
The Bible says God made a companion for Adam, which ended up being a woman. Only man and woman can populate the world and there is no going around that.
I think the world's quite populated enough.
And while L and G alone can't populate the world, there's no reason many T's can't. And I, as a B, have certainly done my part in it.
In addition, God doesn't really send people to hell for being barren... generally he gives their husbands Egyptian concubines and starts other religions with their sons.
But, no matter what anyone truly says on here or debates about, all those who do not accept Christ in their heart and lifestyle will all face judgement. No one's personal opinions matter when it comes to God's judgment. Our opinions do not override God's truth.
The Bible also says that God destroyed Tyre/Sour in Lebanon and claimed it would never be found again. We did, in fact, find it just a few years later, and now Tyre/Sour is the 4th largest city in Lebanon.
If the bible says that Tyre/Sour is gone, and never to return; then it is GONE, and NEVER to return.
OK, I'm calling Po's Law on this one.
You can deny evolution, you can deny the history surrounding the Bible... You can even, I guess, say a word was in the Bible that wasn't even invented until a couple of thousand years later...
But you are seriously going to say that a city with 100,000 people just simply doesn't exist?
At this point I have to believe that you don't really believe anything you say and that this entire thread is one giant trolling expedition.
Again my faith is sure. I believe that the bible does not lie. You spoke of evolution. From my view, most of those pieces fit with evolution. In science, the world's atmosphere is much different from biblical times. Your 100,000 in population city is NOT the one biblically spoken of.
In case you've forgotten, Lebanon is a very, very small country, with a very small southern coast (where Tyre was located), and there's only so much coastline onto which you can build a large harbor town in the southern region of a very small country.
And there are only so many ancient cities on the southern coast of Lebanon that are also major archaeological sites that contain artifacts that identify the location as the ancient city of Tyre. In fact, there can only be one of those, because it's effing Tyre.
Read this, I just pulled it from the Internet.
When Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian empire, long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, the new island city of Tyre resisted his advances. Frustrated by their efforts, Alexander ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using the dust to create a way for his troops, thus fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea.
For me, this is easy to believe; know why???
yes, but what does the bible say about Tyre again?
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. 
1) Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon did not destroy Tyre. Alexander destroyed part of it.
2) Tyre was never to be rebuilt, according to the bible. It was, an it exists to this day.
still a failed prophecy.
Did you read my post? Are Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander related? Did you read that the thing was built? And the ashes were tossed in the water? Never to be rebuilt. Now, we have a proxy Tyre.
Unfulfilled prophecies of denial
This section is for prophecies that Biblical inerrantists claim to be fulfilled but are not. It also includes unfulfilled prophecies that inerrantists would prefer not to acknowledge.
 Destruction of Tyre
For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. 
In this block of text God states quite blatantly that Nebuchadnezzar would sack and destroy completely the city of Tyre. However the events given in this passage never did come to pass. After a 13 year siege Nebuchadnezzar withdrew his forces. Despite being conquered by Alexander the Great 240 years later,  Tyre still exists. 
 Destruction of Egypt
Egypt. What a desolate wasteland
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
This passage is one of the most erroneous in the entire Bible. Egypt has never been a desolate waste, there has never been a time when people have not walked through it, there has never been a period of forty years when Egypt was uninhabited, and it has never been surrounded by other desolate countries.
In Ezekiel 30:10-11 he further predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Egypt:
This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army—the most ruthless of nations— will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain. (NIV)
However, Nebuchadnezzar was defeated in his only attempt to invade Egypt.
 Nile will dry up
Yep, still there
Ezekiel 30:12 continues with a prediction that the Nile River will run dry.
I will dry up the streams of the Nile and sell the land to evil men; by the hand of foreigners I will lay waste the land and everything in it. I the LORD have spoken. (NIV)
There is no evidence that this has happened in recorded history.
 Triumph of Judah
In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies.
And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Yet it did come to pass. His enemies did harm him.
Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.
 Isaiah predicts the Nile drying up, Sea draining
In Isaiah 19:1-8 Isaiah tells us the Nile will dry up, ocean drains in the time of pagan Egypt.
Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. 2 And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.3 And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.6 And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.Isaiah 19:7 The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. 8 The fishermen will groan and lament, all who cast hooks into the Nile; those who throw nets on the water will pine away.
This is an interesting prophecy because Isaiah outlines a very clear timeframe, the alleged prophet is unmistakably referring to Pagan Egypt, which ceased to exist in the 4th Century. (Isaiah 19:1-3) Since then, Egyptians have stopped using charms, wizards, and there are no statue-worshiping idolaters anymore, (Isaiah 19:3) so the reader can conclude this isn't an end times prophecy. The alleged prophet blatantly identifies the dried up river (Isaiah 19:5) with the Nile (Isaiah 19:8). And he goes even further to say one of the seas Egypt borders will drain, and this appears to coincide with the Nile River drying up. There is absolutely no hint of this prophecy being interpreted symbolically or metaphorically. Isaiah actually goes out of his way to stress the literal, physical, carnal fulfillment of this prophecy.
 Egyptians will speak the dead language of Canaan
In Isaiah 19:18 Isaiah says Egyptians will learn the tongue of Canaanites
Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
Not only has the Canaanite language never been spoken by Egyptians, but it is now an extinct language. There is the very unlikely possibility Isaiah was referring to Hebrew, which is technically a Canaanite language. However, Hebrew was also never adopted by the Egyptians. And according to the context of this passage, Isaiah is specifically referring to Pagan Egypt, which ceased to exist in the 4th century. (See Above) So even if Egyptians started speaking Hebrew at this very moment, it would still be an inaccurate prediction. Also, it's worth noting that Isaiah believes the Egyptians will convert to Mosaic Judaism (a dead religion) and start offering sacrifices to the LORD shortly after this incident, (Isaiah 19:21) a practice no longer done by Jews since the Temple was destroyed and priesthood lost.
 Failure to smite Jebus
In Joshua 3:10 the eponymous Jew is quoted as saying the following:
Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
This is a repetition of a promise had from God's own lips in earlier books. However, mere moments later we learn that:
As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.
The Books of Samuel relate that Jerusalem eventually falls to David, however there is no mention of the Jebusites being driven out. The Book of Kings implies that the surviving Jebusites were made serfs
1 Kings 9:20: And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel,
1 Kings 9:21: Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day.
The above verses from 1 Kings also contradict Deuteronomy 20:17 (ie. the Jebusites were meant to be slaughtered entirely):
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
 Israelites will be unbeatable
In Exodus 23:27 God tells Moses that he will defeat every enemy he encounters:
I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. (NIV)
However, history indicates many defeats suffered by the Israelites. Note that most believers will pull a no true Scotsman and claim that the defeats happened only at times when the Israelites weren't pious enough.
 Land promises
In the Bible, God allegedly made promises to Abraham to deliver him land then under the control of other tribes. For example, upon Abraham entering Canaan, Genesis 12:7 states, in part, "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.'" (NIV) This promise was reiterated in slightly different ways throughout the books of Genesis and Exodus.
However, this did not reasonably soon thereafter come to be, as illustrated by Hebrews 11:13, which, regarding Abraham's descendents, states,
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. (NIV)
Similarly, in Exodus 23:31 God promises to give the Israelites all the land from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and from the Euphrates River to "the desert." Historically this never happened.
Joshua was also promised specific land. Per Joshua 1:3-5:
I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west. No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. (NIV)
Strangely, Joshua 11:23 indicates that he did indeed take the land:
So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war. (NIV)
However, history and the Bible indicate all the land was not taken. Per Joshua 13:1-5:
When Joshua was old and well advanced in years, the LORD said to him, "You are very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over. This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites: from the Shihor River on the east of Egypt to the territory of Ekron on the north, all of it counted as Canaanite; the territory of the five Philistine rulers in Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron—that of the Avvites from the south, all the land of the Canaanites, from Arah of the Sidonians as far as Aphek, the region of the Amorites, the area of the Gebalites; and all Lebanon to the east, from Baal Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo Hamath. (NIV)
 Israel will live in peace with its neighbors
A Merkava vineyard planter
Ezekiel 28:26-24 predicts that Israel will live in peace with its neighbors:
No longer will the people of Israel have malicious neighbors who are painful briers and sharp thorns. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I gather the people of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered, I will show myself holy among them in the sight of the nations. Then they will live in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God. (NIV)
Ouch, that one hurt. A consistent aspect of history is that Israel has never gotten along with its neighbors. (Or, if you prefer, that its neighbors have never gotten along with it.) There's still hope that Israel and the neighbourhood will be peaceful one day, but it requires everyone in the region to stop "inflicting punishment" on each other.
 Davidic line will endure forever
There are several specific biblical prophecies that were flat out wrong. now gymnastically worm your way into justifying these mistakes and make them to mean the opposite of what they actually said so you can still claim they're true. You can't. They're just wrong. Your god got it wrong. So much for omniscient, I guess.
Oh Lord!!! Somebody's "angry" gimmie a sec. This length of post really boggles my mind.
why does pointing out failed biblical prophecy make me angry, exactly?
Then why did you assume and assert that I was angry?
Because of the extremely long post. A lotta feeling, for no feeling.
Why does someone providing a lot of information have to be driven by feeling? See what I mean about your thing concerning emotions?
Yes, but you are the only one bringing up emotions every other post. my walk as a Christian is filled with emotion. However, as God's I am in control of them here. So MANY others get pissed and storm away, only to return a short time later. This "cry" is not emotional. It is spiritual.
Yes, I remember you... I will be kind so as to NOT get "banned" THIS TIME, ok???
You have found "proof" that God is a liar... Now, go find "proof" that he is NOT... I just know its there. And since the AD kicked in, I haven't the patience to read each report.
Tyre is gone. The Nile did or will dry. And Nebuchadnezzar's kids are probably still around. God DOES NOT lie.
How'd I do???
What are you talking about?
tyre is still there. The king of Babylon never destroyed it.
The Nile has never dried up.
Its a biblical prophecy, supposedly from god, that FAILED. its wrong. Plain and simple.
"Proxy" Tyre is there... And the Nile has, or WILL dry. God does not lie J...
1. Even if we believe for a second that your story is true about Alexander the Great using the ruins of Ancient Tyre to get to the (somehow now mysteriously an island) Hellenistic Tyre...he still found Ancient Tyre, which God said no one would ever do. Whoops?
2. It will take many hundreds of thousands of years for the Nile to run dry, assuming the African tectonic plate doesn't slide under the Eurasian plate, in which case it will absolutely never run dry because the entire Nile River Valley will be underwater. Whoops?
3. According to the Bible, God lied to Abraham when he said he required him to sacrifice Isaac. Sure, it turned out to be a test of faith and whatnot, but he still lied to Abraham by saying he was to sacrifice Isaac. No matter what the intention, a lie is a lie. Whoops?
Ok, the biblical Tyre is gone, just like The Lord said. Those plates move all the time. And from my limited knowledge the atmosphere changes too. Geology is different than in ancient times. Cities have been destroyed and rebuilt, without question, differently. Now maybe the people who saw this happen, honorarally have THEIR "new" city/island after it. But it's gone. And no one will EVER walk there again.
Do you know any history, geology or geography at all?
Oh! Oh! I just remembered something else! Not only does the Bible have talking snakes, it also says that magic is real! And I really don't think I need to elaborate on how incredibly stupid it is to believe in magic...do I?
Please tell me there's no one here idiotic enough to believe in magic.
I believe in majik! (Where's my "majik" expert???)
The bible is full of mystery to one who wishes to "debunk" it or "self" it. Quite plain to they with the spirit.
It only takes enough faith to ask and believe you will receive. He give knowledge of himself liberally, to ALL who so desires.
Thanks for not REALLY ending the discussion
These kinds of interactions are why I love the internet...
In really life this is how this conversation would play out...
Person 1: You see that city over there?
Person 2: The one with all the people and cars and woosits?
Person 1: Yep. That's Tyre.
Person 2: That city there with all the buildings and roads and whatchits?
Person 1: Yep. Tyre.
Person 2: THAT city? The one with that old stone arch and all the columns and those ruin thingies.
Person 1: YES! That's Tyre.
Person 2: Don't see it.
Person 1: What do you mean you don't see it? Are you daft? It's right there.
Person 2: Can't be.
Person 1: What do you mean it can't be? It bloody well is. It's right there! You can't possibly miss it.
Person 2. No it isn't. God said it isn't there.
Person 1: You're a loon.
And then person 1 would call a nice group of young men to escort person 2 to a quiet residential facility in the country. A place with only spoons to eat where no one owns a belt.
Here, we debate theology with them.
you think that I have lost?
That statement more than anything else you've ever said to me just proves to me that you don't care about the truth - as long as you can proclaim victory where none is present, you have proven yourself to be dishonest. Now I really believe that you're nothing more than a poe. you don't believe any of this stuff, you're just pretending. So why would I bother talking to you further?
Spirit confirms my victory. Actually, this here "battle" was won long ago. Now since you have promised to go away, please. I guess I have nothing further for you either.
The "spirit" confirms your victory? Does the holy spirit have nothing better to do than give you a victory pat on the back when you've lost so epically?
You're insisting on things that go completely against history, geography and geology - all of which you admit you haven't studied - but you insist they're all wrong, based on nothing more than your "spirit"
Why do you insist on being so dishonest that you can't even admit that you may have been incorrect about something? You're indignant that you're certain of your faith. This has nothing to do with your faith, but you still can't admit that, as a human, you can be wrong about something that you admit you know nothing about. I'm sure you'd be all over an atheist who behaved that way, but you're unable to admit it about yourself. Confirmation bias. Arrogance. Pretty sure Jesus had a lot to say about hubris. And lies. And putting yourself above others.
You're back!!! thanks! It's good to hear from you again I thought I lost you long ago
But for some reason, it seems as if you have not been listening either. Lost epically??? On what point??? The spirit of God confirms my answers. Sorry that upsets you. I have plenty of time to make things right if necessary. I WILL NOT concede.
This usually turns into a battle of words between me and three or four "nay-sayers" but I never feel out-numbered. I never "storm" away mad. And I do NOT lie. Emile specifically stated that I said something that I did NOT say. Once we cleared that up, I AM STILL THE LIAR??? It amuses me and she gets "back-up" for that???
Placing myself above anyone is extremely outside of my character. I do not operate that way. Your view is skewed. You feel that truth (my bible) is used to elevate myself??? You could not be more wrong. But you are entitled to opine. I am not offended or taken aback. I expect this kind of feedback.
Jesus got it too!!!
You want another lie from the Good Book?
Genesis 3:1 - "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made[...]"
Ignoring the hilarious spelling error (English pre-1800 is pretty hilarious as a whole), the snake is the most subtle animal in existence now? The same animal that was given bright colors, audible hissing, and (in many places) an extremely obvious rattle is more subtle than the chameleon, the stick bug, any other animal that uses camouflage ever, or the many millions of species of microscopic life forms that were undetectable before the advent of the microscope? What a crock of shyte.
Now you said that the snake was subtle. And the bible said that the snake was subtle. What is your point???
The Bible said the serpent was MORE SUBTLE than any other BEAST OF THE FIELD, which is Biblical terminology for ANY ANIMAL THAT IS NOT A BIRD OR A FISH.
So if the snake is not the most subtle land animal (it's not even a Top 10 contender), then that means the Bible has, as the Japanese would put it, told a red-faced lie redder than a monkey's ass.
Oh!!! Were there any stick bugs and chameleons at the time God spoke this??? The bible did say WAS the MOST subtle. He also had legs before he messed with Eve. Right???
And there's another award-winning detail of the story: the snake had legs. So basically, the snake used to be an oversized gecko. Oh, now that you mention it, that sounds like a skink, which are fairly closely related to snakes, so they probably share a common ancestor. The Bible actually accidentally got something somewhat almost correct!
...But then you realize skinks are about as subtle as a tool chest falling down the stairs and the whole thing makes even less sense.
Oh, and how could I forget the minor detail that proves the whole thing to be full of shyte: THE SNAKE TALKS. END OF DISCUSSION.
The snake was possessed by an evil spirit hell-bent on destroying human harmony with God! That spirit could speak. AND skinks were probably here then, but the bible did not name the skink as subtle. The bible named the SNAKE (that THEN had legs). Whoops!
The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. It's just a snake.
Please point out the verse where the Bible specifically states, "Oh, by the way, the snake in the Garden of Eden was possessed by The Devil."
And if the snake never talked before being possessed, wouldn't you think Eve would find that strange? "Oh, the snake is talking! How odd!" or something?
No, you see, the snake is supposed be the devil. But that doesn't come til NT book of Revelation stuff (and I believe it's only hinted at). The Jews never considered it the "Devil," nor do they believe in the Devil the way Christians do. To Jews, it was just a talking snake, and the scene has more of a metaphorical context than anything.
Trivially speaking, the snake was possessed. He fooled the woman. He was the subtlest. And he now slithers instead of talks.
Not dodge. Put in its trivial place. Who the blank cares if the snake was a Rock star? It is not important to Christian living and faith. The bible is a re telling of things which occurred years ago. Some if it is metaphoric; some of it is poetic;,some if it antiquated. Gimmie a break!
Ok, I'm cool 8-) shoot!!!
There are many Bible prophecies that have not come to fruition yet. That does not indicate they are incorrect. The end result remains to be seen.
Yes, but Nebuchadnezzar died several thousand years ago. He's not exactly able to conquer anything else, is he?
At the hand of him could very possibly mean his children's children's children's grandchildren.
You now are expert on what I believe??? I say what I mean; and mean what I say most often. This time included.
Someone has to be an expert on what you believe, hint, it's not you.
You can't be a real person, you've got to be someone just having fun?
I am having fun. So I guess it does mean I'm a real person. Fake people do not exist therefore cannot have fun.
I may not be expert on what I believe, but you certainly are not.
Only if you want to just make shit up with NO supporting evidence. No Bible schools (read intelligent, educated, Christians) agree with you. In fact, they say the opposite. Are you claiming to be better than them?
Sure she is. If you don't think so, you'll get something along the lines of nananana boo boo.
I'm beginning to think rad man is on to something. This poster can't be real. Someone has to be having a bit of fun at our expense. The alternative is too scary to imagine.
I cannot express how glad I am that you speak this way of me!!! I'm blessed biblically for this reason alone!!! Ilovethislifeofvictory!!!
"She cannot be real" is an ABSOLUTE COMPLIMENT. I gotta show my mom!!!
Emile, you are still my favorite. I kinda stay out of your face as to not shoo you. But I miss your intellect when I am separated from you. Hi Emile became a irritant, I know. So, I refrain.
Well, it is a compliment. Not the way you took it, I think. You are simply doing an incredible job of pretending to be a crazy Christian. No one, in real life, could think the way you do and be here on Hub Pages.
But, I like you too. When you aren't driving me crazy with the loop de loop reasoning.
Loop de loop reasoning is what I get too. So if I'm giving it, consider it reflection. I do not have to verify my identity as authentic (it is) to show that though your "reasoning" is ok, we match equally on opposite planes. Your "self" does not allow you to realize that your label of me is rather illustrative of how, "better" than I, you and your friends seem to think you are. I never claim to be better. But what was that you said about reflection again??? Sumn bout what u yoself b thinkin'...?
Hmm. I haven't noticed anyone offering you loop de loop reasoning. But, you have a point. I think most every one here thinks everyone else is making more sense than you. I suppose that could be misconstrued as a belief that they are better.
People suppose to "know" things because, "someone (we often don't know who) composed a test, and their result (more often than not) came to some conclusion that this or that is more likely to occur."
For me, trust in THAT is just silly. And there must be "loops" to make it all fit together. Now, is YOUR opinion "better" than mine; because the people (who say what you say) agree with you??? Are YOU supposed to be "more sensible" because you do not place YOUR faith where I place mine??? Please ponder before you answer. You are really starting to allow "self" to have the acting seat.
Well, I can't follow your first sentence, so I can't really comment.
As to your other question. I don't know what loops you were speaking of that others are jumping through. I do know that some things can be identified as facts and, with the exception of you, there appears to be consensus in the thread. But in fairness, you'd have to address something particular. I haven't read every post. I doubt if everyone agrees on everything.
I'm afraid self does have the acting seat, as you put it. You can certainly call self God if you like; unfortunately we all know it is self.
You really place much emphasis on "others' opinions" Im different in that manner. As for not understanding my first sentence... Hahaha!!! It amazes me that your knowledge could be inept. it depicts the voice of so-called sureties (or at least as close as we could get) of the world. It makes more sense to trust supposed evidence to you. You trust what THEY say. I trust something different. Does that make you better???
You misunderstood something. How odd. Or not. I don't trust the opinions of others, I trust my own.. As do you. You can claim you get your opinion from the Bible, but you are lying to yourself with that belief. You believe what you want and make the Bible fit it. I try to fit my opinion to reality. Many times I wish reality were different, but I have to accept it. Anything else would be a lie.
Again Ma'am, I believe the bible to be reality. I base my opinions on that. I feel that your reality is more lie than my own. Now you may tell yourself whatever you wish. I remember having a conversation with you about what MOST people AGREE to (opinions of others). Again, again, reality is relative. You cannot tell me that whatever you believe to be your reality is anymore real than what I consider to be my reality. To do so is a bit arrogant. The thing we must do here is explain ourselves. And agree to disagree. Yes???
there are not different realities for each individual person. There is reality - and then there are the mental gymnastics that people like you try to go through to make reality something different than what it is. That is not reality. That is delusion.
This is not a fight to be right on my end. I am what I am. I have not asked for permission nor the much less asked for, your approval. What I consider delusion ( since you chose a "better" word) is opposite from what you consider delusion. You want mental gymnastics; try a college statistics course!!!
I've had a college statistics course. And several college theology courses. And several courses in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I've taken a lot of college courses directly related to biblical studies and biblical literature. How about you?
Your "byline" is fantastic!!! You actually did all that? (Praise! there satisfied with yourself? )
I cannot believe that a rational thinking, highly knowledgable, scholar with a possible unmatched IQ would spend SO MUCH time educating herself on "basically nothing"; it would seem unheard of. Egad!!!
your sarcasm is much appreciated. By that, I mean not at all.
you don't seem to understand that I was a believer at the time. It was my study that led me to believe that it was all a bunch of crap and I couldn't believe it anymore.
What I was saying was not fishing for praise or acceptance. It was pointing out that you inventing things, making things up and pulling them out of who-knows-where seems silly, immature and arrogant to someone who's actually spent years studying it. You have no basis for your claims. You have no background knowledge of them (a fact that you've actually admitted on multiple occasions). You're just inventing them out of thin air to try to justify what you believe - when no justification is even possible.
You don't know what you're talking about. Sure, you can sit in church and pick up a few bible verses, and listen to a pastor TELL you what they mean. You don't examine it for yourself. You don't form knowledgeable or intelligent conclusions. You just make it up as you go along. And THAT'S what makes you seem like a Poe to us. I've encountered plenty of arrogance and ignorance in my day, but the only people I've seen behaving the way YOU do are faking it.
I know for a fact that MY imagination, though vivid, is not this good. Please point out one made-up statement. I will wait. You will be searching a REALLY LONG time.
Knowledge without faith is NO GOOD. I JUST read that on a site less than an hour ago!!! The Lord knew that I needed that for you early that statement knowledge without faith is no good is biblically based. Did you read that scripture in class???
one false statement? It's not going to take that long at all.
Alexander the great was somehow related to Nebuchadnezzar. You pulled it right out of your rear with no studying of history, no studying of the bible in context in the original language and with complete disregard to the opinions and learned studies of real, actual biblical scholars.
I don't see a question mark. I don't see anything more than a blatantly false statement that completely goes against what the text (and consequentially biblical scholars) think. you know, the people who have actually studied this.
You also asserted that Tyre had been completely destroyed and never rebuilt - despite the fact that it's still standing to this DAY. I can show it to you on a map. You can visit it. It's still there - despite what the bible says about it. This is what led up to your assertion about Alexander the Great in the first place.
So either you're unaware of what a question is - or your blatantly telling a bold-faced lie instead of admitting that you were wrong.
Which is it?
What part of could very possibly, do you not understand??? So God was wrong about who would scatter the dust of Tyre in the sea??? Is that what's upsetting you? Or maybe that has much more to do with me... However, KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT FAITH IS NO GOOD. The people who actually study it and came up with a debunker are not of the house of God. I stated yesterday that the biblical Tyre is no more. That new thing is a namesake. Relic schmelic.
You think God was "wrong"?
That blows my mind.
1) could very possibly is an assertion. A hypothesis (based on nothing, incidentally). Not a question. Ergo, you lied.
2) God wasn't wrong. I have no reason to believe that your god exists. Whoever wrote the BIBLE without god's help got a prophecy wrong. This is why most of the prophecies in the bible are non-specific, like horoscopes, that can be fit into a million different scenarios based on interpretation and what you want overall. The prophecies that ARE specific, like Tyre, are flat out wrong. Just wrong. They got it wrong. The sooner you come to terms with that reality, the better off you (and the rest of the world) will be.
2) You can have knowledge AND faith. Knowledge is NOT the antithesis of faith. Faith, according to the bible is "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1 In atheist terms, faith is believing that something is true WITHOUT any evidence whatsoever.
3) The bible says that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon and that it will NEVER be rebuilt again. IT NEVER HAPPENED. Never. Nebuchadnezzar tried to destroy Tyre, and he failed in epic proportions. Tyre was partially destroyed by Alexander the Great - but it WAS rebuilt, and the ruins of Tyre are included in the modern city that exists to this day. It was rebuilt right on top of itself. You can argue semantics all day, but the fact of the matter is that the bible is wrong about this - and it's wrong about many, many more things. Anyone who opens their eyes can see that. A lot of Christians can see that, but that doesn't mean that they're totally without faith. They can accept that the bible was written by fallible human beings that got things wrong sometimes. They still believe in god. I don't get your stubborn refusal to admit that you may be wrong about a subject that you admittedly have not studied, examined or learned for yourself.
I just said that I studied it remember??? Sorry Im stubborn. But you are stubborn as well. Could very possibly is an assertion of a POSSIBILITY. Ergo, the word possibly. Wow, you really want to break me. You are angry that I don't admit that the bible is "wrong sometimes"? Sorry. It is ok for you to have studied it to the point where you have no more faith. Though you know that faith and knowledge may coexist. I wonder what happened in YOUR situation though.
Lastly, I firmly believe without question that if God said that Tyre is no more, that Tyre is no more. Irregardless of how YOU feel about it. How can I be sorry for that??? I BELIEVE what I believe. And you with your ranting and raving and what you consider to be evidence to sway me.
I remember reading something about Tyre being destroyed but can't remember what chapter and verse a lot of things are written though I remember the story.
Seems like it has been a hundred years since I read this story. Could Ya please where it was?
I'd like to read it again.
Thank you in advance IF you could help me out.
I don't know what conversation you are speaking of, but your track record for remembering things I said is too shaky to trust.
Belief in God is part of reality. We have to accept it as belief. Now, although I allow the possibility that God exists, he doesn't exist within the parameters of your definition. That, too, is reality. If I were to accept that the only way God could exist was within that framework, I'd be an atheist. I see belief such as the one you display as borderline atheism because some day you'll have to stop lying to yourself. What will happen then? From my observation, it results in bitter and aggressive atheism.
Is that what happened to you???
I need not mention my memory as I have already displayed the ability of it to you just yesterday. You may deny it but the record is still there.
My reality is based from biblical study. I believe the pages. I believe the pages... You, borderline, what was that again???
The irritating thing about posting to you is that you either garble what I say into a hodge podge of crap I didn't say; or I have no idea what you said. What is the question about? I'm not an atheist. I'm not bitter. I suppose I can be viewed as aggressive, but that is simply who I am. And you have proven, repeatedly, that you either don't know what I said or flat out make things up. As you said, the record is there.
I ask you, and be honest. Do you make this up as you go? Have you read the Bible without having some crazy preacher guiding you along? What sect do you belong to?
Ok, you said something about God exists but not within the parameters of MY definition??? Now that is lukewarm. You have provided no parameter to combat the bible (my parameter) I go with what the bible says. You go with you.
And I still have NO example of the thing I made up.
I don't need to provide anything. All you have to do is open your eyes. Look around. Life refutes your interpretation.
And I'm not wasting time with another she said, she said back and forth. The last time, you were running around in circles hoping I'd get too dizzy to follow, but you couldn't move fast enough to distance yourself from the obvious fact that you can't back up anything you say.
Ok, the delusional mindset has switched hosts.
Me running in circles??? Please read the records, you are making an assumer of yourself. You finally admitted after much ado, that I had not misspoke on the issue at hand. You never admitted that you were wrong though. Which is probably the cause of your lapse in memory. No problem. I overlook the trivial, though I remember.
The problem for you was that I did not get dizzy and relent. My position is firm. None of us can back up much of anything. I have no 2000 year old grandma at home. Maybe nobody does. All we have is, "yo god aint shit cuz people starving and dying" or "such and so had said that they found a relic that had to be a billion years ago, and it had to been cuz I did a calculation based on the "very reliable" testin thingy that I had made. And boy is it accurate!!!" On my end, a book about things that happened 2000 years ago and stories handed down from people who were actually there. I'm not delusional. I'm safe.
curiously - who wrote down the stories that were actually eye-witnesses of them? You can't be referring to the gospels, can you? Cause if you are, you've been GROSSLY misinformed.
Listen, somebody (don't really give a darn who) who wrote in the bible was actually present during the time that some of this occurred. Now Im curious... Do you really believe that point to be expedient???
somebody - and you don't care who - wrote it down who was actually there?
have you actually READ the bible at all? Do you know any of its origin? Do you know who wrote it or who compiled it or how it came to exist at all? I hate to break it to you, but it wasn't faxed down from heaven. How can we listen to anything that you actually say when you have demonstrated time and time again (but never more succinctly than this post) that you don't actually know what you're talking about - and you ADMIT that you've never studied it for yourself.
Scripture I know quite well, I have studied it. My teacher was the spirit of God and you can tell me no more about scripture verse with your umpteen years of study. Now the origins of it I have tapped into but that was just not as important to me. I found enough to satisfy. We are spiritually attacked by men who wish to cloud the issues of the matter. But God wins everytime. That point is never up for debate. Believe or don't that is the bottom line actually.
So you are too good to learn *anything* about men that God Himself took time to speak to. Ooookay.
she knows it so well that she can't quote it specifically - or even tell you where a passage is from. She goes based solely on her "spirit" and the things that she has been taught. When you ask her something specific, she has no idea where it is or who said it or the context surrounding it. She says "it's there somewhere" but doesn't even TRY to narrow it down - because if she gets specific she's on shaky, indefensible ground - and she knows it. She's just not honest enough to admit it.
so you're claiming that the holy spirit of your god himself sat down with you and taught you scripture?
Are you serious?
Um, that's just flat out not the case. None of the known bible authors was alive at the same time as Jesus.
We're they around while people who actually walked with Jesus, or heard him speak were???
Which writers were present and during which events?
That's my specialty? You mentioned that the writers of the bible were there and witnessed these events so wouldn't that make you the expert? God calls us to spread the news and also to teach those that may not know about the bible. I asked you a question. Why would you withhold biblical knowledge that you possess from one who would seek it?
No..Not going to make any presumptions or assumptions. It would pain me as a believer that another believer would refuse to discuss the bible or withhold biblical information that I may have missed
Never me Biblical information is pertinent. Who wrote said info is JUST NOT IMPORTANT TO ME. I believe what it says. The powers of this world need to cloud biblical issues. If they can "stump" you at, "well who wrote it" the job is well done. Simply because NO ONE from THIS day can tell. SPECULATION is NECESSARY on all fronts. No one knows Paul of Tarsus.
Sorry, a 24 hr ban was in place for some reason. I really don't know why, can anyone tell me???
However, Hi Deepes Mind, I know that we are called to tell others about the words in the bible. That is what my capabilities are. I do not look for ways to debunk scripture. I would not have information that points to biblical "fallacies" there are none on my opinion. To state, "well these people did not actually know what they were talking about because they totally missed the life of Jesus" does not sit well with me. To be perfectly honest, it really does not matter who actually put pen to paper. No one can actually tell us that for certain. The books were written a long time ago before ANY of us got here. It totally relies on faith. I myself can never be POSITIVE that even Paul wrote many parts of the NT though that is the info being passed around. What report do you believe???
I'm not asking about anything that may point to any fallacies. I was asking you a specific question in response to a comment that you made. You stated that some of the writers of the Bible were witnesses to the events. I asked which writers and which events. That has nothing to do with any fallacies.
I know what I believe, thanks. And you know what you believe. There is a relevance in who put pen to paper because there is also an understanding to be gained as to the culture as well as the mindset of the writer.
You just stated that you aren't positive that Paul wrote parts of the NT, but you are positive of the words. The issue that people have right now (though I'm pretty sure that you don't care) is that throughout this thread, you have made several comments (or assertions, however people look at it) of what you know for sure (believe). When people (including me) have asked you to back up your statements (or in my case provide information that I didn't have), you have either changed the subject, backtracked on your statement, or dismissed (as evidenced in your responses here) as totally irrelevant, the subject and the poster's comments. This makes it difficult for some to converse with you and take you seriously because it does lead to a dishonesty on your part in this conversation. Not all of us (at least I'm not) are accusing you of lying specifically, but it doesn't make discussion easy when you refuse to back up your statements, especially with people who know the bible as well enough to dispute what you are stating.
Now as an example, the Gospels were written after Christ's ascension and there are four different accounts of the events. The only thing in common is Christ dies. Which Gospel report do you believe?
I believe them all. The four accounts are not contradictory. They have different points of view. So, different points of view are acceptable. But the information that you seek is just NOT important. We (all including you) have no idea who ACTUALLY wrote what. None if us were there. Understanding the time, culture, and sway of public opinion at the time is also irrelevant. The bible is applicable to all generations. I believe that the "Genaea upset" is simply due to the fact that I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT change my view or say, "well yeah, you got a point, the bible MAY be wrong in some areas." To deny some is to deny all.
Jesus too responded to some biblical information as "just not needed" as well as the assertion that "that is not the most important thing" I am following a GREAT example. people wish to confound the matter of salvation with "petty talk" the bible is BIGGER than that.
The bible "backs" ITSELF. Believe or don't.
But all four accounts were written long after Christ's death and ascension by people who weren't there at the time.
She doesn't believe that. Her understanding of the bible is perfect because the Holy Spirt is guiding her. Using logic is a useless defence. She sits on holy ground judging others while sining herself. Interesting how the mind works isn't it.
the first gospel was written in AD 70-ish. So, 40+ years after Jesus died and ascended into heaven. The last gospel (John) was written after AD 100 - so 70+ years after the fact. None were written by eyewitnesses, and since you pointed to the epistles of Paul, first of all - not all the letters attributed to him were actually written by him, but he never met/saw/spoke to Jesus either while he was on earth. He only had visions of him - that COMPLETELY contradict the gospel accounts, by the way.
not to mention the fact that you can only carry the "different points of view for different accounts of the same story" so far.
The gospels have jesus being born in two different years. They have him dying on two different years. Three of him state that his ministry was 3 years long, one states that it was only one year.
Difference of opinion is one thing, but these are COMPLETELY OPPOSING accounts that cannot all be reconciled into one, central story. They oppose each other on almost every topic.
Aside from all that, we actually have proof that several passages were added hundreds of years later (like the woman caught in adultery) that were never a part of the original manuscripts. They were invented and inserted by scribes hundreds of years after the fact, which further demonstrates the fact that what we DO have is completely unreliable in the realm of evidence. We have no originals of any of the bible. We have copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of copies of copies. The earliest fragment we have is called P52. It's from the gospel of John, and it dates into the second or third century. It only has one complete word on it - and it's the word for "and". These fragments are all that we have for literally hundreds of years. The bottom line is that we (and by we, I mean the field of actual biblical scholarship) have no idea what the original gospels said. The only reason that we're able to date them is because they were referenced in other writings by the early church.
I find it interesting, also that some of the earliest christians never believed that Jesus came to earth and died and was resurrected at all. They believed in Docetism. "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality."  Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm."
But apparently the details are unimportant in the face of the major points (death, burial, resurrection)
I beg to differ. I find the details to be EXTREMELY important - when none of them agree. Unless someone is saying that Jesus was born in two different years, died on two different days and no one happened to notice a horde of Jewish Zombies walking around Jerusalem, the earthquakes, the darkness, etc - except for someone who wasn't there to witness any of it in the first place.