Bible contradictions...

[sub_zer0]

So post some contradictions that you can think of located in the Bible. I have already answered or tryed to answer the birds are bats and rabbit chewing cud.

Any others?

[Void Image]

Yes I have a contradiction. The bible tells us a boat 22.5 meters wide, 13.5 meters high, and 135 meters long, houses 2 pairs of every kind of land animal in the WORLD. It would also have to house enough food to feed these animals for 40 days. Do you know how much an elephant eats? Noah would have also had to locate and bring together animals from every different continent, not to mention provide those with special environmental needs the proper temperatures to ensure their suvival. (A polar bear would very quickly overheat in such cramped quarters, for instance). Also take into account the minimum space required for each animal (we can't stack them one on top of the other), the millions of insect species in the world, and the method by which these creatures survived and repopulated after their ecosystems had been utterly devistated by global flooding.

[Duo_Maxwell]

just consider the ocean.

Enough water to cover all but the highest moutain peaks would have resulted in a massive change in salinity and thus pressure. Few species can live mixed conditions and even fewer plants. A massive breakdown of virtually the entire ocean would have condemned the planet. As the vast majority of the air produced comes from ocean based plants, there shouldn't be any way we can live on this planet if the flood occured. And that's not even discussing the problem of salt producing infertile soil.

[sub_zer0]

Yes I have a contradiction. The bible tells us a boat 22.5 meters wide, 13.5 meters high, and 135 meters long, houses 2 pairs of every kind of land animal in the WORLD. It would also have to house enough food to feed these animals for 40 days. Do you know how much an elephant eats? Noah would have also had to locate and bring together animals from every different continent, not to mention provide those with special environmental needs the proper temperatures to ensure their suvival. (A polar bear would very quickly overheat in such cramped quarters, for instance). Also take into account the minimum space required for each animal (we can't stack them one on top of the other), the millions of insect species in the world, and the method by which these creatures survived and repopulated after their ecosystems had been utterly devistated by global flooding.

The boat you are referring to is Noahs Ark (Genesis 6:15). Noahs Ark was to be built 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. That is 1.5 times the length of a football field and had a height equal to that of a four-story building. Remember these animals could all be babies. Remember God had His hand specifically guiding them, so I have no doubt that it is possible as God wanted it to be.

[Duo_Maxwell]

The boat you are referring to is Noahs Ark (Genesis 6:15). Noahs Ark was to be built 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. That is 1.5 times the length of a football field and had a height equal to that of a four-story building. Remember these animals could all be babies. Remember God had His hand specifically guiding them, so I have no doubt that it is possible as God wanted it to be.

That makes even less sense. Storage alone would have been massive. not including the problem of getting the animals much less the babies from the parents is a feat greater then anything Hercules could have done. And the issue of moving feces as well as storing fresh water. Besides if there were babies, most would not have survived without special dietary needs as well as hunting training.

Your last part underlies your argument: If I can't explain it "GODDIDIT"

I gave you advice in PM, take it.

[sub_zer0]

That makes even less sense. Storage alone would have been massive. not including the problem of getting the animals much less the babies from the parents is a feat greater then anything Hercules could have done. And the issue of moving feces as well as storing fresh water. Besides if there were babies, most would not have survived without special dietary needs as well as hunting training.

Your last part underlies your argument: If I can't explain it "GODDIDIT"

I gave you advice in PM, take it.

If I cannot explain it, I'm not going to... It would then be God's responsibility to know it not mine. His hand was involved in the beginning as he told Noah of the flood, thus making the impossible possible.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Translation: GODDIDIT

That's a poor argument if you ask me, relying upon a debate form of Deux Ex Machinia to explain the unexplainable.

The flood doesn't make sense. Just leave it at that before we start poking real holes.

[sub_zer0]

Translation: GODDIDIT

That's a poor argument if you ask me, relying upon a debate form of Deux Ex Machinia to explain the unexplainable.

The flood doesn't make sense. Just leave it at that before we start poking real holes.

Your'e asking me to just throw out my whole belief system with a comment like that... come on now. Poke all the holes you want, it is my faith in God that fills them back up.

[Craig]

Your'e asking me to just throw out my whole belief system with a comment like that... come on now. Poke all the holes you want, it is my faith in God that fills them back up.

No, we're asking you to reconsider some beliefs which don't make much sense. It's possible to believe in God, or elements of the Christian God, and not accept every part of the Bible.

[sub_zer0]

No as the Bible is the word of God - so by just throwing out how the world was created or something about the flood just doesn't work.

[Duo_Maxwell]

No, we're asking you to reconsider some beliefs which don't make much sense. It's possible to believe in God, or elements of the Christian God, and not accept every part of the Bible.

Ah, but if he did that, he wouldn't be a Christian under his own model. To be a Christian, one must accept the bible as the 'authorative word of God,' to reject part of the bible that is ludacrious such as the flood would therefore not make you a Christian. He has backed himself in a corner.

But let us try this: The Giant Spagetti Monster declares that the flood was wrong and instead a flood of spagetti sauce caused the destruction of all that was evil.

The amusing thing about dieties is that you can make one up, have it declare something, and it has the same validity as every other diety.

[sub_zer0]

Dude, a Christian believes in the Bible as the word of God, point blank. But like I have said before, I don't like labels. I believe it is more a relationship with Christ the son of God and the Bible is the word of God.

[eugene40]

Ah, but if he did that, he wouldn't be a Christian under his own model. To be a Christian, one must accept the bible as the 'authorative word of God,' to reject part of the bible that is ludacrious such as the flood would therefore not make you a Christian. He has backed himself in a corner.

But let us try this: The Giant Spagetti Monster declares that the flood was wrong and instead a flood of spagetti sauce caused the destruction of all that was evil.

The amusing thing about dieties is that you can make one up, have it declare something, and it has the same validity as every other diety.


But the giant spagetti monster is real duo.... :D

[Duo_Maxwell]

But he is a servant of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and her army of invisible flying monkeys.

A christian is someone who accepted Christ as their savior. nothing more, nothing less

[sub_zer0]

Now Duo, if you have accepted Christ into your heart, then what? You cannot learn about Him, His teachings, His life?

[Craig]

No as the Bible is the word of God - so by just throwing out how the world was created or something about the flood just doesn't work.

In that case, why even bother discussing in the first place? Consider this- what would you have said to me had I known nothing about evolution and Talkorigins.org, but instead I simply believed it to be true, and stated "while your post may poke holes in evolution, my faith in evolution fills it up again"?
I expect you would think this is a rather absurd statement. Moreover, if my belief in evolution was based on faith, and that none of it could be wrong, wouldn't you wonder why I bothered posting and initiating a dialogue, since it was clear that I would only accept what I wanted to hear?

Besides providing ad hoc explanations for the bats and rabbits, and invoking Deus ex Machina as Duo noted for the Ark, how do you explain inconsistencies such as this one?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then why did He allow error to enter into it?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

[Duo_Maxwell]

Now Duo, if you have accepted Christ into your heart, then what? You cannot learn about Him, His teachings, His life?

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Diest Pagan.

That of course doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the religion.

One can be a believer in any faith yet study the history of other religions extensively.

[Craig]

Ah, but if he did that, he wouldn't be a Christian under his own model. To be a Christian, one must accept the bible as the 'authorative word of God,' to reject part of the bible that is ludacrious such as the flood would therefore not make you a Christian. He has backed himself in a corner.


Perhaps then he should consider that being backed into a corner means that one ought to reconsider one's views. ;)

[sub_zer0]

In that case, why even bother discussing in the first place? Consider this- what would you have said to me had I known nothing about evolution and Talkorigins.org, but instead I simply believed it to be true, and stated "while your post may poke holes in evolution, my faith in evolution fills it up again"?
I expect you would think this is a rather absurd statement. Moreover, if my belief in evolution was based on faith, and that none of it could be wrong, wouldn't you wonder why I bothered posting and initiating a dialogue, since it was clear that I would only accept what I wanted to hear?

Besides providing ad hoc explanations for the bats and rabbits, and invoking Deus ex Machina as Duo noted for the Ark, how do you explain inconsistencies such as this one?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then why did He allow error to enter into it?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

Remember all these quotes are from the translated Bibles, go to its original text. These petty attempts to discredit the Bible they very well could by copyists errors.

[sub_zer0]

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Diest Pagan.

That of course doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the religion.

One can be a believer in any faith yet study the history of other religions extensively.

Didn't answer my questions. If a Christian is one who accepts Christ into their heart, then what? What are you supposed to do with Christ in your heart? How do you learn about Christ?

[Craig]

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Diest Pagan.

That of course doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the religion.

One can be a believer in any faith yet study the history of other religions extensively.

What exactly is a "Deist Pagan"?

[Duo_Maxwell]

You would think that would be the normal course of action, but I'm sure you've been here long enough to know that the normal, rational course of action is the path least travelled.

I have largely failed though. The entire mormon thread was a argument aganist his model of what a Christian is, yet he still accepts his model. Under his logic, most protestants and Catholics aren't Christian because they reject parts of the bible such as stoning for adulters and executing non-virgin brides as well as sunday workers. That would include such evanglists such as Graham and Robertson. Boy, the number of Christians has just dropped from a billion or so to just a few million if that.

A diest pagan is one who believes in a uncaring God who created the initial spark of whatever was required for the universe. Various other beliefs such as reincarnation, souls as shared pieces of a single entity and other forms of after death-before life exist but vary from person to person.

If a Christian is one who accepts Christ into their heart, then what? What are you supposed to do with Christ in your heart? How do you learn about Christ?

Then they are a Christian. It is simple as that. You learn about Christ through education.

[Craig]

Didn't answer my questions. If a Christian is one who accepts Christ into their heart, then what? What are you supposed to do with Christ in your heart? How do you learn about Christ?

You could learn about Him through mystical experiences. ;)

[Craig]

Remember all these quotes are from the translated Bibles, go to its original text. These petty attempts to discredit the Bible they very well could by copyists errors.

But why does God allow error to occur in His Holy Text? It is His revealed truth is it not? Then what business does truth have with error?

[Art of War]

OHHHH!! OHHH!!! OHHH!!! I GOT ONE. Except I want you to explain a condtradiction in found in the Bible's followers.

Why do Christians seek to block gay marriage but do not boycott Red Lobster?

Explain that one away.

[meloakey]

I do have some reasonable questions that I would like some answers to. I once was a devote christian so I have seen this religion on both sides. One of the questions I have, concerns the saving of the people. As a christian I understood no one is saved unless they know Jesus. If I remember correctly the bible says something like the following, no one comes to the father except through me. Christianity, along with the major world religions, started in the middle east. What about the people in South America, North America, Asia, Australia? They had no access to Jesus. Yet they did have a common theory on the source of the universe, that many Gods, not one, controlled the universe.

My next question, is how did the bible come together? I mean it was written over many years, by many people, who chose what went and what didn't?

Then what about the dinosaurs? We know that they existed but the only reference to anything of the such is monsters later in the bible. If God created man in the same week that he created animals, where are the dinosaurs mentioned in the beginning of time?

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

What were Jesus' last words?

How can you hold faith in something that has been changed throughout time? How do you know what is written is the truth when they are not the actual words when each book of the bible was written? Why do the people of the middle East, where Christianity was founded, NOT believe in it?

Why if the bible is so good, is there so much violence and terror in it? If God is so good, why does he allow so many to die at HIS hand?

[heel31ok]

No, we're asking you to reconsider some beliefs which don't make much sense. It's possible to believe in God, or elements of the Christian God, and not accept every part of the Bible.
I accept evry part of the bible and I know there are more particulars about it that will be explained later. When God does fill in the blanks we will all go" wow that is so cool." If it makes sense to God I can live with it for now. It certainly is not a lack of reason as much as it is a lack of all the information.

[heel31ok]

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Diest Pagan.

That of course doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the religion.

One can be a believer in any faith yet study the history of other religions extensively.
Is Diest Paganism your religion?

[::Major_Baker::]

Then they are a Christian. It is simple as that. You learn about Christ through education.
I would prefer the term indoctrination, seeing as how many do not have a choice.

[heel31ok]

OHHHH!! OHHH!!! OHHH!!! I GOT ONE. Except I want you to explain a condtradiction in found in the Bible's followers.

Why do Christians seek to block gay marriage but do not boycott Red Lobster?

Explain that one away.
I do not understand the question. I would assume you are referring to certain dietary Laws . Which do not apply to Christians unless they put themselves back under the tutelage of the Law as a Hebrew convert.

I hope this is what wwas meant by the question and not that Lobsters are engaging in gay animal marriage.

[::Major_Baker::]

because seafood is good, so the christians amended the bible to reflect this. simple.

[Craig]

I accept evry part of the bible and I know there are more particulars about it that will be explained later. When God does fill in the blanks we will all go" wow that is so cool." If it makes sense to God I can live with it for now. It certainly is not a lack of reason as much as it is a lack of all the information.

We've got this response covered too:

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

[::Major_Baker::]

That is my least favorite answer that religious people use--such a scapegoat it's not even funny.

Either that or the ubiquitous: "some things we just can't understand, so we trust in god" Another way of saying, "I do not want to face the points you have illustrated, because I am unsure how to respond"

All too typical.

[USA-1]

The boat you are referring to is Noahs Ark (Genesis 6:15). Noahs Ark was to be built 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. That is 1.5 times the length of a football field and had a height equal to that of a four-story building. Remember these animals could all be babies. Remember God had His hand specifically guiding them, so I have no doubt that it is possible as God wanted it to be.
A wooden boat that size and built with the technology of the time would have broken up under it's own weight.

[::Major_Baker::]

A wooden boat that size and built with the technology of the time would have broken up under it's own weight.
I'd wonder if that size boat could even hold all of the 900000 species of insects that exist on earth....

and what of the thousands of new insect species and other animals that are discovered and described each year? Did Noah account for those previously unknown species?

[Kong]

I find Exodus 20:13 and Exodus 32:27 to be in contradiction. Please re-think your belief system. An error/contradiction has been discovered.

Exodus 20:13

“Thou shalt not kill.”

Exodus 32:26-28

Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

[jamesrage]

I find Exodus 20:13 and Exodus 32:27 to be in contradiction. Please re-think your belief system. An error/contradiction has been discovered.

Exodus 20:13

“Thou shalt not kill.”

Exodus 32:26-28

Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Now some people would think that it would be obvious that
Exodus 20:13 is relating to murder.

[::Major_Baker::]

where does it say this James?
Who are you to assume the word of god and what it means? You measly human

[Strel]

OHHHH!! OHHH!!! OHHH!!! I GOT ONE. Except I want you to explain a condtradiction in found in the Bible's followers.

Why do Christians seek to block gay marriage but do not boycott Red Lobster?

Explain that one away.


Easy. This apparent hypocrisy in the interpretation of Leviticus has been well-explained by Christian apologists: Seafood taste good and gay people are strange.


So shrimp is on the menu, but no shrimping.

[jamesrage]

because seafood is good, so the christians amended the bible to reflect this. simple.


I Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

I Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer

[towski]

Now some people would think that it would be obvious that
Exodus 20:13 is relating to murder.

Are we supposed to interpret the bible now, or not? I'm so confused.

[::Major_Baker::]

I Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

I Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer
This tells me what? explain in laymans terms for all us heathens please.

[jamesrage]

Are we supposed to interpret the bible now, or not? I'm so confused.

You have to read the bible.

[jamesrage]

This tells me what? explain in laymans terms for all us heathens please.

Here I will try something more obvious.

Romans
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[a] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

[Kong]

Now some people would think that it would be obvious that
Exodus 20:13 is relating to murder.Are you “some people”? Is it your understanding killing in this verse relates to murder?

Exodus 32:27 - And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Is this killing, murder or both? What’s your point?

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by Kong
Are you “some people”? Is it your understanding killing in this verse relates to murder?



Yes it relates to murder.

Exodus 32:27 - And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

This relates to combat.

Is this killing, murder or both? What’s your point?

Not every translation say thou shalt not kill,other translations say thou shalt not murder.

Numbers 35:16 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
(NIV)
Numbers
16 " 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

17 Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.



Originally posted by towski
Are we supposed to interpret the bible now, or not? I'm so confused.

Apparently who ever translated the the King James was not paying attention


Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.

Matthew 19:18
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

[Art of War]

I Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

I Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer

Funny, I look at this chapter and I see perfect justification for the acceptance of homosexuality. For evey creature of God is good.

I Timothy 4:4
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

In this passage Timothy clearly states that Leviticus is a hypocritical liar that has strayed from the faith. Being as how Leviticus is the only literal condemnation of homossexuality in the bible you can then throw out the religious argument against homosexuality. Not to mention he does not say that they forbid man and woman to marry Timothy says they will forbid people to marry. While not clearly accepting homosexuality it clearly does not refute it and in the end is essentially the same justification as any citing against homosexuality. Nowhere other than Leviticus is homosexuality expressly forbidden.

[jamesrage]

Orignally post by Art of War
In this passage Timothy clearly states that Leviticus is a hypocritical liar that has strayed from the faith. Being as how Leviticus is the only literal condemnation of homossexuality in the bible you can then throw out the religious argument against homosexuality. Not to mention he does not say that they forbid man and woman to marry Timothy says they will forbid people to marry. While not clearly accepting homosexuality it clearly does not refute it and in the end is essentially the same justification as any citing against homosexuality. Nowhere other than Leviticus is homosexuality expressly forbidden.

Before you go around twisting bible verses you might want to actually read Leviticus.Instead of trying to waste people's time with nonsense you proably found on some liberal site.

This refers to the false preachers who are going around telling people that homosexuality is not sin,pornagraphy is okay,getting drunk off your *** is okay.
I Timothy 4
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

Here is something you should read a little of.
I Timothy 4
6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.



Funny, I look at this chapter and I see perfect justification for the acceptance of homosexuality. For evey creature of God is good.

That verse was talking about eating things.

[Art of War]

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

The spirit clearly says later times. Those later times are not defined. There is no timetable. Later times could mean later than the Genesis of man or later meaning just before the end of days. The passage remains unspecific.

I am not twisting a damn thing. These are all valid interpretations that I am making myself based solely on the verses quoted. There is no outside influence that has otherwise led me to these conclusions. I have read Leviticus already especially the part pertaining to certain 'unclean' acts.

2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods

This is exactly what Leviticus did. Exactly. He forbade homosexuals from marrying and he forbade people from eating certain things. He expressly did the exact things that Timothy was speaking of. Therefore by Timothy's own word Leviticus was a hypocritical liar.

which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

We are to recieve all with thanksgiving to God, all creatures. Whether we eat those creatures or live with those creatures. We should give thanks to God for everything including homosexuals who are creatures created by God.

This refers to the false preachers who are going around telling people that homosexuality is not sin,pornagraphy is okay,getting drunk off your *** is okay.

3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods

It is right there in black and white. Nothing about preaching that sin is ok he is speaking of the preachers who place sin where there is none.

[jamesrage]

The spirit clearly says later times. Those later times are not defined. There is no timetable. Later times could mean later than the Genesis of man or later meaning just before the end of days. The passage remains unspecific.

Apparently the passage was not refering to gay marriage since Jesus already defined what marriage is when he was talking the the pharasies about divorce.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I am not twisting a damn thing. These are all valid interpretations that I am making myself based solely on the verses quoted. There is no outside influence that has otherwise led me to these conclusions. I have read Leviticus already especially the part pertaining to certain 'unclean' acts.


Have you even read the other parts of leviticus.

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Is Diest Paganism your religion?

Define religion. It is more of a belief rather then a way of life.

[towski]

Apparently the passage was not refering to gay marriage since Jesus already defined what marriage is when he was talking the the pharasies about divorce.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."




Have you even read the other parts of leviticus.

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Good lord. What the hell was going on back then? It sounds like an old testament letter to penthouse.

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by towski
Good lord. What the hell was going on back then? It sounds like an old testament letter to penthouse.

God did not want his people behaving like the pagans did.

'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

[Void Image]

This is the problem with the bible. You can take a single passage and interperet a dozen different meanings. There is no consensus. However I see a lot of people who take their meaning to be THE only meaning, as if they and they alone are capable of decrypting the 'word of god'. The bible is full of holes, contradictions, and utter nonsense. I would go ahead and list passages that make no sense, but I would only be answered by someone's personal interperation, which of course coming from a christian must be 100% accurate, despite no clear evidence as to what a passage really means. So I see no point.

The bible was written by men, not god. Do you believe in divorce? There were many changes in different versions of the bible, like the King James version for instance. During the formation of the Church of England, King James made divorce OK so he could divorce his queen. Going back to the topic of gay marriage, I'm confused as to why many christians focus so much on the issue when divorce is still completely acceptable in the U.S.

I also notice my original question about Noah's Ark hasn't been answered. Because it CAN'T be answered. Even diehard christians can see the absurdity of this story, but they still blindly defend it to the death, setting aside all logic because it's been drilled into their brains since childhood. If one story of christianity is obviously false, what grounds do you have for believing any other story of the bible?

The only possible way the contradictions in the bible could be dismissed, and his own words clarified for good, is if God himself appeared in the clouds and cleared things up for us. He must not consider his own teachings worth the trouble.

[ultimate capita]

Does every man sin?

(a) Yes. “There is no man who does not sin” (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)

(b) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). “We should be called children of God; and so we are” (I John 3: 1). “He who loves is born of God” (I John 4:7). “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God” (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8)


Who killed Goliath?

(a) David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)

(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

Does God change his mind?

(a) Yes. “The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I repent that I have made Saul King...” (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)

(b) No. God “will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (I Samuel 15:29)

(c) Yes. “And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel” (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
i. “The Lord was sorry that he made man” (Genesis 6:6)
“I am sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7)
ii. “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people” (Exodus 32:14).
iii. (Lots of other such references).


ahh the good all days in bible "dogma" shcool thank god i came out sane ;)

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Void Image
There were many changes in different versions of the bible, like the King James version for instance. During the formation of the Church of England, King James made divorce OK so he could divorce his queen. Going back to the topic of gay marriage, I'm confused as to why many christians focus so much on the issue when divorce is still completely acceptable in the U.S.

The proablem is not necessarily about interpretation but instead it is a failure to read the bible.


Do you believe in divorce?
I do not beleave in divorce except in extream cases.


The bible was written by men, not god.

That is easy to beleave if you did not beleave in God.For if you beleaved and feared God the way the men who wrote the Bible did you would understand their devotion to keeping God's word accurate.

[Void Image]

The proablem is not necessarily about interpretation but instead it is a failure to read the bible.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

Alright. Read these two passages until you're blue in the face, and tell me the problem doesn't lie in interpretation.

[ultimate capita]

You now I was reading this thing that says the bible has been changed over 4000 times. I am trying to find the source but can’t seem to.

Also interestingly enough when I was was buying a book the other dayI passed the religion section and it was quite big…..i go back just to see and well…having nothing better to do I counted almost 60 different bibles and than I just got bored. Now this were all different books written differently as when I picked 2 bibles randomly and decided to compare what one said another did not. Which made me think if someone has not interpreted the bible in a way that does not suit me: than I thought I can write my own one and no one will even object?

However the thing that caught my eye the most was the street bible it was hilarious!!!

[::Major_Baker::]

I think that each time it was re-written, some new disciples or whatever added a bunch of PORK to it, based on what was popular at the time....

[Duo_Maxwell]

Anyone with a decent knowledge of the Catholic Church should know that the bible was edited several times over to grant legitmacy to the agenda of the Church at the time. Hell, even the very first bible was nothing more then a giant edit leaving out many scrolls deemed 'unacceptable'

[Art of War]

Apparently the passage was not refering to gay marriage since Jesus already defined what marriage is when he was talking the the pharasies about divorce.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It looks as if he is defining marriage when you take this section out of context. In fact here he is speaking on the issue of divorce not the issue of marriage. Refering to marriage as between a man and a woman does not condem homosexuality as a whole. This in fact brings up another issue. Why do christians accept remarried couples over homosexual couples? The word of the Lord specifically prohibits divorce and remairrage while never expressly prohibiting homosexual relations. Those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery and just as destestable in the eyes of God. Christians accept divorce and remarriage even though it is EXPRESSLY referred to as a sin. According to the religious argument against homosexual marriages remarriage after a divorce is just as detestable.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Have you even read the other parts of leviticus.

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Yes, I have read all of those and I'm not twisting any of it. Under my same argument no person would have a basis to stand against these acts from a religious stand point. I will not shy away from the little trap you're trying to set up here. Of course there may be other places within the bible where these things are forbidden but comming from Leviticus they are as illegittmate as the rest of his teachings. One would hve to look elsewhere for justifying the condemnation of these acts from a religious stand point. Many of them can simply be considered adultery.

[meloakey]

Somehow people didn't glance at the questions I wrote. I would really appreciate someone taking a look at them and answer for me.

I do have some reasonable questions that I would like some answers to. I once was a devote christian so I have seen this religion on both sides. One of the questions I have, concerns the saving of the people. As a christian I understood no one is saved unless they know Jesus. If I remember correctly the bible says something like the following, no one comes to the father except through me. Christianity, along with the major world religions, started in the middle east. What about the people in South America, North America, Asia, Australia? They had no access to Jesus. Yet they did have a common theory on the source of the universe, that many Gods, not one, controlled the universe.

My next question, is how did the bible come together? I mean it was written over many years, by many people, who chose what went and what didn't?

Then what about the dinosaurs? We know that they existed but the only reference to anything of the such is monsters later in the bible. If God created man in the same week that he created animals, where are the dinosaurs mentioned in the beginning of time?

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

What were Jesus' last words?

How can you hold faith in something that has been changed throughout time? How do you know what is written is the truth when they are not the actual words when each book of the bible was written? Why do the people of the middle East, where Christianity was founded, NOT believe in it?

Why if the bible is so good, is there so much violence and terror in it? If God is so good, why does he allow so many to die at HIS hand?

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Void Image
Alright. Read these two passages until you're blue in the face, and tell me the problem doesn't lie in interpretation.



This has to do with God testing Abraham's loyalty/obediance.Nothing evil about that,you would know that if you bothered to read the rest of the chapter. instead the first verse some fake christian liberal website handed you.

1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

This part is saying that God does not temp you with evil.


James 1
12Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Let's try this. It seems every time I use a corallaries and postulates, the opposition runs away

Postulate 1: God is perfect is all ways
Corollary 1: God's will is therefore perfect
Corollary 1b: Perfect is the exclusion of wrongness or imperfection
Postulate 2: God created everything
Corollary 2: Everything includes homosexuals

Conclusion: Gays are not imperfect or wrong due to their creation by God.

[Void Image]

This has to do with God testing Abraham's loyalty/obediance.Nothing evil about that,you would know that if you bothered to read the rest of the chapter. instead the first verse some fake christian liberal website handed you.

1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

This part is saying that God does not temp you with evil.


James 1
12Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


No James, you misunderstand. Read that passage again.

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Here God is asking Abraham to offer up his son, in other words, sacrifice him by flame, on top of a mountain. Temptation is when you have 2(or more) choices, one 'righteous', the other not so righteous, but tempting. Abraham is given two choices, disobey God and keep his son, or sacrifice his son and 'save him' (since obeying god is not a sin) God tempted Abraham, the 'evil' choice being disobey God and refrain from killing your only son.

Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

Tell me, what is the purpose of creating a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then telling Adam, "See this tree I made? You can eat from any tree, except this one. Don't eat the fruit on this tree."

The bible also states that God cannot be tempted by evil. Jesus is God.

Matthew 4:11 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

[Russikan]

Like the King James version for instance. During the formation of the Church of England, King James made divorce OK so he could divorce his queen.

Henry.

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Art of War
It looks as if he is defining marriage when you take this section out of context. In fact here he is speaking on the issue of divorce not the issue of marriage. Refering to marriage as between a man and a woman does not condem homosexuality as a whole. This in fact brings up another issue. Why do christians accept remarried couples over homosexual couples? The word of the Lord specifically prohibits divorce and remairrage while never expressly prohibiting homosexual relations. Those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery and just as destestable in the eyes of God. Christians accept divorce and remarriage even though it is [B]EXPRESSLY referred to as a sin. According to the religious argument against homosexual marriages remarriage after a divorce is just as detestable.

Jesus explained the reason for marriage which is I used those verses.

Jesus also explain legitamite reasons for divorce.
Mathew 19
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If homosexual acts were forbiden then why would gay marriage be accepted?
That would be like running a casino after the state told you not to.


As for why christian proably accept remarried couples.
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Here is a few verses on repenting and forgiveness.They go hand in hand.
Forgiveness is not the "I can sin all I want" card as some fake christians would lead others to beleave.

Luke 13:3
tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Luke 15:7 n
tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 17:3
So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness

Yes, I have read all of those and I'm not twisting any of it. Under my same argument no person would have a basis to stand against these acts from a religious stand point. I will not shy away from the little trap you're trying to set up here. Of course there may be other places within the bible where these things are forbidden but comming from Leviticus they are as illegittmate as the rest of his teachings. One would hve to look elsewhere for justifying the condemnation of these acts from a religious stand point. Many of them can simply be considered adultery.

Is the teaching from leviticus invalid to you because it bans homosexual acts?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Russikan]

Is the teaching from leviticus invalid to you because it bans homosexual acts?

No it's because John said so.

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by Void Image
No James, you misunderstand. Read that passage again.

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Here God is asking Abraham to offer up his son, in other words, sacrifice him by flame, on top of a mountain. Temptation is when you have 2(or more) choices, one 'righteous', the other not so righteous, but tempting. Abraham is given two choices, disobey God and keep his son, or sacrifice his son and 'save him' (since obeying god is not a sin) God tempted Abraham, the 'evil' choice being disobey God and refrain from killing your only son.


God did not entice Abrham to sin against him.

temptation

n 1: something that seduces or has the quality to seduce [syn: enticement] 2: the desire to have or do something that you know you should avoid;


Tell me, what is the purpose of creating a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then telling Adam, "See this tree I made? You can eat from any tree, except this one. Don't eat the fruit on this tree."

Telling someone not to do something is not the same as tempting them.Besised God did not temp adam or Eve.

The bible also states that God cannot be tempted by evil. Jesus is God.

Matthew 4:11 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.



Jesus is the literal son of God,He is not GOd.

1 Timothy 2:5

5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

1 John 2

1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Luke 11

1One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."

2He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.

[JoeR]

Jesus is the literal son of God,He is not GOd.

So you don't believe in the trinity?

[jamesrage]

Let's try this. It seems every time I use a corallaries and postulates, the opposition runs away

Postulate 1: God is perfect is all ways
Corollary 1: God's will is therefore perfect
Corollary 1b: Perfect is the exclusion of wrongness or imperfection
Postulate 2: God created everything
Corollary 2: Everything includes homosexuals

Conclusion: Gays are not imperfect or wrong due to their creation by God.

Man was pefect before he sinned.Sin currupted man.When man engages in sexual acts that God not intend him to do he is imperfect.

[jamesrage]

So you don't believe in the trinity?

No I do not.

[Russikan]

Man was pefect before he sinned.Sin currupted man.When man engages in sexual acts that God not intend him to do he is imperfect.

Wouldn't the act of original sin be an imperfect act? Made before they were imperfect?

[jamesrage]

Wouldn't the act of original sin be an imperfect act? Made before they were imperfect?

If I made a wooden out of pine that was perfect and then you decided to drop that box from a fifty story building.Would that wooden box still be perfect after you dropped it? Would it's imperfection be my fault for making the box or would it be your fault for dropping the box off a fifty story building?

[Void Image]

God did not entice Abrham to sin against him.

temptation

n 1: something that seduces or has the quality to seduce [syn: enticement] 2: the desire to have or do something that you know you should avoid;


Telling someone not to do something is not the same as tempting them.Besised God did not temp adam or Eve.





You are only proving my point, james, this is all personal interpretation. You just repeated my casual definition of temptation in dictionary terms. Abraham was given two choices.
1. Kill his only son because God commanded it
2. Do not kill his only son, and consequently disobey god, which would be a sin. Sin is evil, right?

Now pretend God materialized beside you and told you to take your only child up to a mountain, and burn him to death. You are telling me you would do this without any problems or second thoughts? By asking Abraham to do something so horrible, he was TEMPTING Abraham to disobey, (sin = evil) just like it says HERE
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

Let's return to your definition of temptation for my point about Adam.
"2: the desire to have or do something that you know you should avoid;"

By placing a tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, and telling Adam he was not to eat the fruit of this tree, Adam was presented with something he knew he should avoid. God told him it was the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. To a man who hadn't yet had 'a taste of the fruit of knowledge', this is the equivalent of placing a very tasty looking cookie in a jar and telling your child 'Don't eat this one, it's bad for you'

You can argue all you want james, but the fact remains that God is the one who created this tree, which served no purpose other than to sit there and make Adam curious. There is no logical reason for that tree to be there other than 'God put it there.' Had God not have put it there, there would have been no reason for expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Therefore God knowingly tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, simply because HE PUT IT THERE.

As for King Henry, sorry, honest mistake :)

[jamesrage]

Now pretend God materialized beside you and told you to take your only child up to a mountain, and burn him to death. You are telling me you would do this without any problems or second thoughts?

You are honestly telling me that if God materialized beside you and commanded you sacrifice your only child, you would refuse?That would be like a death wish telling God no.





You can argue all you want james, but the fact remains that God is the one who created this tree, which served no purpose other than to sit there and make Adam curious. There is no logical reason for that tree to be there other than 'God put it there.' Had God not have put it there, there would have been no reason for expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Therefore God knowingly tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, simply because HE PUT IT THERE.

Adam and eve would not have been tempted if it was not for Lucifer tempting Eve.So your logic that God tempted Adam and Eve is flawed.

There is a difference between God physically telling you to do something and a large breasted woman in a school girl outfit suddenly appearing to see if you can remain faithful to your wife.

[Soc.Dem.]

You are honestly telling me that if God materialized beside you and commanded you sacrifice your only child, you would refuse?That would be like a death wish telling God no.

So it's better to murder an innocent child in a brtual and barbaric way rather than being killed yourself?



Adam and eve would not have been tempted if it was not for Lucifer tempting Eve.So your logic that God tempted Adam and Eve is flawed.

Who created Luficer?

[lawman]

I'll top that "who created Lucifer" question:

Hey, jamesrage, Mr. "just read the Bible" -- where in the Eden story (or anywhere in Genesis) is Lucifer mentioned? Go on, find me a quote, even one.

Lots of references to the "serpent," aren't there?

But no Lucifer. (Nor even any "Satan," or any other variation, either.) Guess that identification of Lucifer with the serpent was just a later act of... interpretation that you're repeating, hmm?

[jamesrage]

So it's better to murder an innocent child in a brtual and barbaric way rather than being killed yourself?

Disobeying God just does not get yourself in trouble but others as well.
If you actually read th Bible you would know that generations get punished for the deeds of their ancestor.
If God is standing there telling you to do something it is really hard to deny his existance or what he wants.

[Soc.Dem.]

Disobeying God just does not get yourself in trouble but others as well.

Disobeying Hitler would also get both yourself and others in trouble as well.

And still, most of us consider the people who disobeyed Hitler morally superior to those who obeyed him.

If you actually read th Bible you would know that generations get punished for the deeds of their ancestor.

That god of yours sure sounds like a nice, fair and compassionate being, doesn't he? :rolleyes:

(And by the way, I have read the Bible, and I do know that according to the Bible god punishes generations for the deeds of their ancestor, and that is one of the many reasons I reject it.)

[jamesrage]

Lots of references to the "serpent," aren't there?

But no Lucifer. (Nor even any "Satan," or any other variation, either.) Guess that identification of Lucifer with the serpent was just a later act of... interpretation that you're repeating, hmm?
Lucifer,devil serpent.He has more than one name.


Revelation 12
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

[Russikan]

If I made a wooden out of pine that was perfect and then you decided to drop that box from a fifty story building.Would that wooden box still be perfect after you dropped it? Would it's imperfection be my fault for making the box or would it be your fault for dropping the box off a fifty story building?

What I am saying is a perfect box couldn't drop itself. It's not the boxes fault.

[Russikan]

You are honestly telling me that if God materialized beside you and commanded you sacrifice your only child, you would refuse?That would be like a death wish telling God no.

Are you telling me you would? I know I wouldn't.

[USA-1]

You are honestly telling me that if God materialized beside you and commanded you sacrifice your only child, you would refuse?That would be like a death wish telling God no.



.
I would tell God to go f*** himself.

[Void Image]

You are honestly telling me that if God materialized beside you and commanded you sacrifice your only child, you would refuse?That would be like a death wish telling God no.


Adam and eve would not have been tempted if it was not for Lucifer tempting Eve.So your logic that God tempted Adam and Eve is flawed.

There is a difference between God physically telling you to do something and a large breasted woman in a school girl outfit suddenly appearing to see if you can remain faithful to your wife.

No it isn't my logic that's flawed. You just keep dodging. Sure Lucifer tempted Eve. However, like I said before, it wasn't Lucifer that put the tree there. A tree that serves absolutely no purpose other than to 'tempt'. As for your schoolgirl argument..apply it to the story. The large breasted school girl doesn't just appear, God creates her, then tells Adam that by no means is he to touch her. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this isn't temptation. Sure it takes the serpent and Eve's curiousity (women are a lesser species, you know) to actually bring about the expulsion from the garden...but this was all set into play the moment your ALL-KNOWING God put the tree there in the first place.

And yes, I would never worship a God that asked me to burn my son to death. Seriously, I would rather spend the rest of eternity in hell, as far away from that vengeful bastard as I could possibly get.

[Art of War]

Jesus explained the reason for marriage which is I used those verses.

Jesus also explain legitamite reasons for divorce.
Mathew 19
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If homosexual acts were forbiden then why would gay marriage be accepted?
That would be like running a casino after the state told you not to.


As for why christian proably accept remarried couples.
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Here is a few verses on repenting and forgiveness.They go hand in hand.
Forgiveness is not the "I can sin all I want" card as some fake christians would lead others to beleave.

Luke 13:3
tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Luke 15:7 n
tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Luke 17:3
So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness



Is the teaching from leviticus invalid to you because it bans homosexual acts?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

First off, have you been reading my posts? *Sigh* Ok here we go point by point.

Yes, Jesus gives one legitimate reason for divorce, marital infidelity. That is the only reason. Any person who remarries after divorcing their spouse due to 'irreconcible differences' is committing adultry.

The point I was making has nothing to do with homosexual acts being banned outright thus negating the need to describe it when speaking of marriage. Simply because the bible speaks ill of homosexuality in one section does not mean it is forbidden. In fact one of the hereos of the bible, King David, is said to have joined as one soul with a man. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. In fact it is hardly implicitely forbidden and when it is implicite it is a stretch.

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

5 Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully [a] that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well.

As for Christians accepting remarried couples. It doesn't matter what Luke said simply because in the eyes of homosexuals are no different those who have remarried. If what Luke said applies to second marriages then what he said should apply to homosexuals as well. (When you are assuming that the bible forbids homosexual unions)

And no. Leviticus is completely invalid because of Timothy's writings. According to Timothy Leviticus is a hypocritical liar taught by demons to mislead man. Not solely based on the fact that he expressly forbids homosexuality.

[lawman]

If God appeared next to me, then I would alter my beliefs as follows: I would acknowledge that he/she/it exists. I would also certainly have some serious questions to ask. I would not, however, automatically agree to obey any orders from (much less worship) him/her/it. To do so would be to submit to the moral fallacy that might makes right. The sort of respect that engenders trust and loyalty must be earned, by God as much as anyone else; merely existing doesn't cut it.

As for Lucifer, let's look at the history underlying what you blithely call "more than one name." Originally, Judaism didn't have any concept of the devil or of Hell at all. (They did believe in demons, though -- Beelzebub, for example -- as did many other faiths back then; when explaining the "gods" worshipped by a competing people, it was always easiest to dismiss them as demons.) "Satan" in Ancient Hebrew merely means "adversary"... and it wasn't until after the period when the Jews were held in exile in Babylon (5th and 6th centuries BCE) that it began to be used to refer to a supernatural adversary. This was probably due to the influence of Persian thought, which was very influential in and after the Babylonian period; the Persians believed in Zoroastrianism, a religion that posited independent principles of Good and Evil in constant warfare over the earth. The Jews didn't adopt this wholesale, however; they came to think of Satan not as independent and equal, but as a creation of their God, sent by him to tempt and test humanity. Satan in this sense isn't even mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament until 1 Chronicles. And it wasn't until New Testament times that Jews developed the full story of Satan as the rebellious leader of the fallen angels (probably influenced again by outside sources, in this case most likely Greek beliefs about the fall of the Titans).

As for "Lucifer," that name was first (and erroneously) equated with Satan by a misreading (originally by St. Jerome) of Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning!" (The literal Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" was "helel," which scholars think was a reference to Venus, known then and now as "the morning star," used here as a metaphorical reference to the fall of the prideful Babylonian king.) Most of what we think of as part of the story of Lucifer's fall (equating him with Satan) actually comes from John Milton's Paradise Lost, not from anywhere in the Bible.

(BTW, all this semantic hairsplitting and formal apologia aside, please reassure us that you don't actually take the Eden/Adam and Eve story literally? Because, y'know, even being a sincere and devout Christian really doesn't require you to believe twelve impossible things before breakfast...)

[heel31ok]

This is the problem with the bible. You can take a single passage and interperet a dozen different meanings. There is no consensus. However I see a lot of people who take their meaning to be THE only meaning, as if they and they alone are capable of decrypting the 'word of god'. The bible is full of holes, contradictions, and utter nonsense. I would go ahead and list passages that make no sense, but I would only be answered by someone's personal interperation, which of course coming from a christian must be 100% accurate, despite no clear evidence as to what a passage really means. So I see no point.

The bible was written by men, not god. Do you believe in divorce? There were many changes in different versions of the bible, like the King James version for instance. During the formation of the Church of England, King James made divorce OK so he could divorce his queen. Going back to the topic of gay marriage, I'm confused as to why many christians focus so much on the issue when divorce is still completely acceptable in the U.S.

I also notice my original question about Noah's Ark hasn't been answered. Because it CAN'T be answered. Even diehard christians can see the absurdity of this story, but they still blindly defend it to the death, setting aside all logic because it's been drilled into their brains since childhood. If one story of christianity is obviously false, what grounds do you have for believing any other story of the bible?

The only possible way the contradictions in the bible could be dismissed, and his own words clarified for good, is if God himself appeared in the clouds and cleared things up for us. He must not consider his own teachings worth the trouble.
remind me of your original (?) I do know that the ark's size is the model for modern battleships and is the perfect size for a sea worthy vessel.someone said it'sown weight would sink it, then modern steel ships would sink also if that were the case. Every creature we have today was represented on the Ark in it's ancestor just as every person alive today was represented in the people on board.This is not to say every creature ever was taken on board. One would have to wonder how many creature groups did not survive.I do not see the flood as obviously false and it is not a blind following of a story.
The King James version does say Divorce is ok. King James himself may have said it .I think most Christians have a proper view of divorce , God hates divorce but it is not an unpardonable sin.I would not call it completely acceptable at all.
As for your last statement that is what will happen God will appear in the clouds as the bible declares. As far as His feelings about the word it is not a matter of being worth the trouble it is a matter of man deciding if it is worth the trouble or not.Some think is and some think it is not. It is up to us and God is not interfereing unless we invite him to.

[sub_zer0]

By placing a tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, and telling Adam he was not to eat the fruit of this tree, Adam was presented with something he knew he should avoid. God told him it was the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'. To a man who hadn't yet had 'a taste of the fruit of knowledge', this is the equivalent of placing a very tasty looking cookie in a jar and telling your child 'Don't eat this one, it's bad for you'

You can argue all you want james, but the fact remains that God is the one who created this tree, which served no purpose other than to sit there and make Adam curious. There is no logical reason for that tree to be there other than 'God put it there.' Had God not have put it there, there would have been no reason for expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Therefore God knowingly tempted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, simply because HE PUT IT THERE.

Adam was living in COMPLETE bliss. Remember that. He had everything he ever wanted, including a wife. There was no disease, no corruptness, etc. The Garden of Eden was Heaven on earth to put it bluntly, so why on earth would Eve take from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and eat it? Because the serpent, yes Satan, tempted her. God never tempted him, afterall God simply said do not eat from it, that is not temptation that is a direct order to NOT do something. Not to mention God cannot sin as the Bible clearly states. It was never spoken of again until, Satan or the serpent came along. And did what? Tempted Eve. Let's compare to what God said about the tree and what Satan/serpent said to Eve about it.

What God said:
KJV Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

- That is not temptation, it was never spoken of again. Adam and Eve didn't think twice about it, they never had to, they were living in BLISS.

How Satan got Eve to eat it:
KJV 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Now that is textbook temptation by Satan in my eyes. Satan from that point crept into humanity simply because Adam and Eve or humanity cannot obey God always. If you could do that, it would be Heaven, as Heaven or the Garden of Eden would be free from sin. Sin is rebellion against God as Satan tried to rebel against God. All Satan does is parody God. Therfore we can equate all sin to Satan. Just like we can equate all good with God.

But do you see how the serpent worked? He tempted Eve into thinking that she would become like God. Why did Satan get sent to earth? Because he wanted to be like God. See the parody? Animals didn't talk, so that is why it must of been Satan who spoke through the serpent.

If God didn't put the tree of good and evil in the Garden than it wouldn't give people free will. I mean obviously with the tree named as it is you can assume there is absolute good and truth and absolute lies and evil. God is good and so was the Garden of Eden. Why would man want to sin? By temptation from Satan. The tree was put there so man had free will or really, the ability to sin and not be perfect like God. After all we are just human. We were very close to God's image when Adam and Eve were created, God walked with them in the Garden of Eden. They were almost equal. But sin is the difference. Sin is what free will is. We are not ALWAYS bound to be with God. God gave us that choice to see the darkside or be forever in the light of God. Again God's intention was for them to be in the Garden of Eden forever. But mans free will got the better of him.

[sub_zer0]

I'll top that "who created Lucifer" question:

Hey, jamesrage, Mr. "just read the Bible" -- where in the Eden story (or anywhere in Genesis) is Lucifer mentioned? Go on, find me a quote, even one.

Lots of references to the "serpent," aren't there?

But no Lucifer. (Nor even any "Satan," or any other variation, either.) Guess that identification of Lucifer with the serpent was just a later act of... interpretation that you're repeating, hmm?

Couldn't the "serpent" be another variation as well?

Anyway Revelation says that Satan was the serpent... "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev 12:9

Satan was the serpent because animals were created to do what it took to survive, you know. I mean God didn't create animals to tempt man. God didn't create Lucifer to tempt man.

But Lucifer fell from heaven as iniquity was found in him and he tried to overthrow the throne of God. God created Lucifer as a guardian cherub. Not Satan. Lucifer created Satan.

[sub_zer0]

This tells me what? explain in laymans terms for all us heathens please.

It tells you that both marriage and food are from God and to be gratefully used.

[Void Image]

Adam was living in COMPLETE bliss. Remember that. He had everything he ever wanted, including a wife. There was no disease, no corruptness..yadda yadda yadda...personal interpretation, another interpretation..complete assumption presented as if it were concrete fact...bible reference..etc

You still haven't explained why God put it there in the first place.

[Strel]

It tells you that both marriage and food are from God and to be gratefully used.


Prove it.

[sub_zer0]

read the passage for petes sake.

[::Major_Baker::]

It tells you that both marriage and food are from God and to be gratefully used.
Would you like to supersize that? :rolleyes:
Or should we just go to old country buffet?
How do explain the mentality of waste in the USA, (God's kingdom)?
Nevermind the 50% divorce rate that we boast.


Why am I still here, this is going nowhere....

[sub_zer0]

You still haven't explained why God put it there in the first place.

Yes I did, it was to give man free will. The tree that God planted in Eden was the key to the door that led to the darkside - all things not God, meaning sin or Satan. Which makes sense as Satan was the one to use that tree for the very purpose of opening that door. God could just as easily not put it there. But then it wouldn't give man choice would it? God wants us to either choose eternal life with Him or without Him. He doesn't just want drones to worship Him constantly.

[sub_zer0]

Would you like to supersize that? :rolleyes:
Or should we just go to old country buffet?
How do explain the mentality of waste in the USA, (God's kingdom)?
Nevermind the 50% divorce rate that we boast.


Why am I still here, this is going nowhere....

No Israel is God's kingdom, so to speak. More His people.

But doesn't it make sense that Satan would work hardest against those who believe in God, his direct opposite? I mean I am not trying to excuse those who do it, but it makes sense to me.

[sub_zer0]

We've got this response covered too:

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

I know its hard to comprehend how one can leave all the answers to God, huh?

It's called faith - life is much easier for me when I leave answeres that I can't answer to one that is perfect rather than a man.

[JoeR]

Sounds more like mental lazyness to me.

[sub_zer0]

I find Exodus 20:13 and Exodus 32:27 to be in contradiction. Please re-think your belief system. An error/contradiction has been discovered.

Exodus 20:13

“Thou shalt not kill.”

Exodus 32:26-28

Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Indeed but these same people were worshiping false idols (Exodus 32:4-7), and have become corrupt in the Lord's eyes (Exodus 32:7-9). The same people that Moses brought out of Egypt.

God cannot take such detestable acts. God knows how corrupt they are and the best way to deal with them for the benefit of the entire world. Besides it is one thing to obey a commandment, it is another to not obey it explicitly because God told you not to.

The Lord also relented "and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." (Exodus 32:14).

[rjamortega]

So Sub, do you believe all of these stories are factual occurances? Or do you think any of them can be divinely inspired but mythical tales that profess certain truths of life?

[Dangerrmouse]

Someone mentioned Polar bears overheating earlier. How did Noah find Polar bears and Penguins in Palestine?

[towski]

Someone mentioned Polar bears overheating earlier. How did Noah find Polar bears and Penguins in Palestine?

You must have missed this verse:

"And lo, upon the arrival of the holy refrigeration trucks, the driver brought forth the penguins, and polar bears, and arctic foxes, and other creatures that liveth in the cold places. And Noah smiled upon the driver, and gaveth him the male DoDo as a pet..."





I know, I'm a blasphemer. Sue me.

[sub_zer0]

So Sub, do you believe all of these stories are factual occurances? Or do you think any of them can be divinely inspired but mythical tales that profess certain truths of life?

Nothing has told me that they aren't factual.... prove to me they aren't.. hehe.

[sub_zer0]

Funny, I look at this chapter and I see perfect justification for the acceptance of homosexuality. For evey creature of God is good.



In this passage Timothy clearly states that Leviticus is a hypocritical liar that has strayed from the faith. Being as how Leviticus is the only literal condemnation of homossexuality in the bible you can then throw out the religious argument against homosexuality. Not to mention he does not say that they forbid man and woman to marry Timothy says they will forbid people to marry. While not clearly accepting homosexuality it clearly does not refute it and in the end is essentially the same justification as any citing against homosexuality. Nowhere other than Leviticus is homosexuality expressly forbidden.

If the Bible, and in turn God, accepts homosexuality as no big deal, why did Jesus, who is God, preach for marriage between a man and a woman? Not to mention the Bible never says anything in support of homosexuality. It's always about a daughter being married to a man, or something, never was it man with man.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I know its hard to comprehend how one can leave all the answers to God, huh?

And why do you think that is a valid argument?

Would you like it when you're winning a argument for your opponent to declare that his reasoning is true because of the Grace of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

No, relying on Goddidit arguments is a BAD habit.

[lawman]

SubbZero-
Nothing has told me that they aren't factual.... prove to me they aren't.. hehe.

"HeHe?" You announce your ignorance of the last three hundred years of scholarship, both theological and scientific, with a chuckle? How very cavalier. Have you ever heard of the logical maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" You're the one asserting the truth of stories that defy natural law and historical plausibility; the burden of proof therefore falls upon you.

BTW, did you ever notice that in the Eden story as written (and as you present it), God was lying, while the Serpent spoke the truth? Specifically, on the day A&E ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, they did not die (as had been threatened), but did gain knowledge (and thus self-consciousness, e.g., about their nakedness). What do you make of this?

(And what, exactly, would be Heavenly (as you describe Eden) about an existence of eternal ignorance and obedience, anyway?...)

[sub_zer0]

SubbZero-


"HeHe?" You announce your ignorance of the last three hundred years of scholarship, both theological and scientific, with a chuckle? How very cavalier. Have you ever heard of the logical maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" You're the one asserting the truth of stories that defy natural law and historical plausibility; the burden of proof therefore falls upon you.

BTW, did you ever notice that in the Eden story as written (and as you present it), God was lying, while the Serpent spoke the truth? Specifically, on the day A&E ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, they did not die (as had been threatened), but did gain knowledge (and thus self-consciousness, e.g., about their nakedness). What do you make of this?

(And what, exactly, would be Heavenly (as you describe Eden) about an existence of eternal ignorance and obedience, anyway?...)


God never lied. God said don't eat of it or you will surely die. Could God of meant spiritually? Of course, as they physically didn't die. Or perhaps God meant overtime humanity would die a very slow death as sin crept into the world more and more. The serpent spoke the truth? Wow, exactly the objective of Satan was to convince Eve that he was telling the truth, now you are believing the serpent as well, scary. In case you didn't notice it didn't make Eve like God as the serpent promised. It gave the serpent, or Satan, god-like abilities amongst man as he was then able to control mankind through temptation. It made mankind doomed to fail because of sin. From that point it made Satan the Prince of this world, as the Bible states. As far as Adam and Eve gaining knowledge. They gained nothing but they destroyed their own innocence, nothing good came out of the tree. Nothing, they were already living in Heaven on earth.

What existence of eternal ignorance or obedience? There was none. But in the Garden of Eden it was Heavenly because there was no sin. The fact that there was no sin made them VERY close to God. So yes that is very Heavenly to me.

[sub_zer0]

And why do you think that is a valid argument?

Would you like it when you're winning a argument for your opponent to declare that his reasoning is true because of the Grace of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

No, relying on Goddidit arguments is a BAD habit.

No relying on God in the midst of this troubling, sinful world is a wise habit.

[Craig]

I know its hard to comprehend how one can leave all the answers to God, huh?

It's called faith - life is much easier for me when I leave answeres that I can't answer to one that is perfect rather than a man.

No, it's called not answering the question. Essentially, it's no different than a politician who hears a question and deliberately misanswers it, hoping to make it go away. In any other instance, if there was a problem with a text, people would be willing to say, "Maybe the text was wrong". This wouldn't be followed with "Oh, well humans screwed up the text; it's actually right, but people just happened to mess it up." Once religious belief enters the equation, we suddenly see people doing everything, including standing on their head, in the hope of convincing others that there's either no contradictions or no problem with a perfect, truth-speaking, all knowing and all powerful God have contradictory passages in His Holy Word.

[sub_zer0]

No, it's called not answering the question. Essentially, it's no different than a politician who hears a question and deliberately misanswers it, hoping to make it go away. In any other instance, if there was a problem with a text, people would be willing to say, "Maybe the text was wrong". This wouldn't be followed with "Oh, well humans screwed up the text; it's actually right, but people just happened to mess it up." Once religious belief enters the equation, we suddenly see people doing everything, including standing on their head, in the hope of convincing others that there's either no contradictions or no problem with a perfect, truth-speaking, all knowing and all powerful God have contradictory passages in His Holy Word.

Your right, man screwed it up, they have sin in them. God doesn't, so He didn't mess it up.

[rjamortega]

Nothing has told me that they aren't factual.... prove to me they aren't.. hehe.
You're right, I can't. That's the great thing about this. No one can prove them fact or fiction. I just wanted to know the extent of your belief. You're fine with me. ...although you gotta know you "absolutists" scare the heck out of some of these folks 'round here. And that's a real big 'he-he'. :lol:

[sub_zer0]

You're right, I can't. That's the great thing about this. No one can prove them fact or fiction. I just wanted to know the extent of your belief. You're fine with me. ...although you gotta know you "absolutists" scare the heck out of some of these folks 'round here. And that's a real big 'he-he'. :lol:

Good... :P

[rjamortega]

Sub,

Gotta say, you're hangin' in there real well. How do ya like these guys? They're tenatious aren't they? Where are we now, eight pages? They've got a lot of pride in their educations and intellectual prowess so they're going to go to great lengths to try to discredit a person of faith.

Kind of a needless, silly undertaking if you ask me. :devil: :angel: :Peace:

[sub_zer0]

Sub,

Gotta say, you're hangin' in there real well. How do ya like these guys? They're tenatious aren't they? Where are we now, eight pages? They've got a lot of pride in their educations and intellectual prowess so they're going to go to great lengths to try to discredit a person of faith.

Kind of a needless, silly undertaking if you ask me. :devil: :angel: :Peace:

Your words make me inspired to continue on my path. But trust me, I know what you are saying. thanks bro... I look forward to debating and winning, I mean.... debating you later... lol ;p

[Craig]

Your right, man, if anything screwed it up, they have sin in them. God doesn't, so He didn't mess it up.

This really does not reflect too well on a God who is both supposed to be truthful and all knowing and all powerful. I know that if humans screwed up my Bible, I'd make every effort to see that it was rectified, so that my holy word, to which I want nothing added or modified (even inadvertently) remains true and constant in every passage. Moreover, because I'd be loving, I wouldn't want to just leave the errors there and let people who have a difficult time because of blatantly human errors, (which certainly can be explained with positing the existence as a divine being; ie, humans wrote the book and humans screwed it up), go to hell over something like this.

This does lead us to wonder why God allows such errors- free will, you say- but it also implies that He's okay with people going to hell over such things. I cannot see God as a supremely rational being not understanding why humans have trouble with such errors in a divine book, and simply expect them to ignore anything that might seem irrational or cause doubt to the divine origin of the text. God is not a God of confusion- so why are people confused about the divine origins of the Bible? And before you give me the pat answer of Satan, just keep in mind that Satan cannot do anything if God does not allow him to do it, so even Satan is an inadvertent instrument of God's will.

[sub_zer0]

This really does not reflect too well on a God who is both supposed to be truthful and all knowing and all powerful. I know that if humans screwed up my Bible, I'd make every effort to see that it was rectified, so that my holy word, to which I want nothing added or modified (even inadvertently) remains true and constant in every passage. Moreover, because I'd be loving, I wouldn't want to just leave the errors there and let people who have a difficult time because of blatantly human errors, (which certainly can be explained with positing the existence as a divine being; ie, humans wrote the book and humans screwed it up), go to hell over something like this.

This does lead us to wonder why God allows such errors- free will, you say- but it also implies that He's okay with people going to hell over such things. I cannot see God as a supremely rational being not understanding why humans have trouble with such errors in a divine book, and simply expect them to ignore anything that might seem irrational or cause doubt to the divine origin of the text. God is not a God of confusion- so why are people confused about the divine origins of the Bible? And before you give me the pat answer of Satan, just keep in mind that Satan cannot do anything if God does not allow him to do it, so even Satan is an inadvertent instrument of God's will.

Satan is controlled by God because if he wasn't we would all be posessed.

Anyway, to your original point. The thing is these errors that everybody talks about are trivial and meaningless to what the main points are and what God is trying to get across in the Bbile.

What are the Bible's main points? Jesus is God and the Son of God. Because He died for your sins you are able to be forgiven for them. If you accept Jesus Christ into your heart truthfully, you are saved and bound for Heaven. Jesus rose the third day to conquer death. The trinity - Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Those points are clearly stated thorughout the Bible. You see those er