PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     God Discrimnates against gays
       No gays in the kingdom of heaven

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God Discriminates against Gays - No Gays in the Kingdom of heaven,




-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 10:37 AM on May 7, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:

9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.



New International Version

9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.



Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."



Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.



Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."B-7



One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."B-8



So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.
http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 11:39 AM on May 7, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is not surprising that a natural man (unsaved/worldly/flesh) would come up with that conclusion . . .  since you are trying to push an agenda of deception.

1 Cor 2: 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

However taken in the context with the rest of the Scriptures, you are incorrect.

Romans 1:  18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Your deception may work on the worldly and the dumb sheep but not on the smart sheep.


(Edited by unworthy servant 5/18/2005 at 2:06 PM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 07:48 AM on May 8, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cut stuff, but you cannot use the bible to justify the bible.  Doesn't work that way.  It appears you are one of those born again people.   Meaning in my eyes you are brainwashed...There is a very distict process people go through when they become born again.   Sad to say, you are taking scripture out of tect, although trying to say in is in context with the rest of the scripture that you also took out of context.  Clever, but it doesn't work.

In short, you are just a bigot.   Why?  No because you disagree with homosexuals, but becuase you are taking from the bible what you want to hear to justify your own problems with gays.

Please continue to read more about gays and the bible.

www.godmademegay.com




-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 12:17 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't need to "justify" the Holy Scriptures as they are the word of God.  If the Holy Scripture were not the word of God, then you would have to prove that "fact" . . which you can not.  Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures are the best authority on the Holy Scriptures.

You, however, are a natural man and not an expert on the Holy Scriptures.  So you are nothing but wind, since God has no intention of letting a single homosexual into the kingdom, as they are tares.

Oh BTW I am not afraid to be called a bigot or whatever other name you want to call me. . . .thanks for the blessing!

Matt 5:  10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 2:22 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is the Bible Really the Inerrant Word of God?
It is my sincere hope that no one reading this will ever refuse to explore new areas of information and knowledge because of unfounded fears that new ideas may re-shape their thinking and beliefs. We are all "captains of our own ship" and therefore free to accept or reject any or all new information and concepts.

Born again Christians argue that the bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God. Let's take a close look.

When a born again fundamentalist Christian speaks of salvation or matters regarding his spiritual beliefs, he usually backs up his statements by quoting the bible to prove his authority. He quotes biblical verses taken from various areas of the bible in a certain sequence. The quotes and the sequence serve as the authority to prove that the statements are true.

Nearly any religious doctrine can be "proven" by quoting scriptures in the alleged proper sequence, claiming they are all in context with each other.

Christians use scripture to prove they are correct. Interestingly, there are hundreds of differing Christian factions - all using scripture to prove that only they have the truth.

Using Scripture to prove Scripture is factual and true is called "begging the question". Proof must come from extra-biblical, non biased, provedn documentation.

Lets go right to the core of belief that the bible is the word of God. How valid is the claim that the bible is inerrant (without error) and that it contains no contradictions?

It is a fact that not a single original manuscript of any book of the bible exists today. We cannot, therefore, say that, in the present tense, "they are inerrant". Furthermore, by the time the latest book of the bible was written, all of the original manuscripts had long since been worn out and replaced by copies. There were no firsthand copies. They were copies of copies of copies....and on and on. This means that nobody ever saw the entire bible as it was originally written.

Even if the original manuscripts were inerrant - and there is no evidence that they were - there is presently no way to determine which parts of the bible were originally "true" and which parts are now "false" or errant.

So if the claim is made the scriptures were inerrant in their original manuscripts, it is an empty, meaningless claim today since there is no way to compare the copies of copies of copies to the original manuscripts to verify their accuracy. There never was an "inerrant" bible and there never will be. Fundamentalist Christians will certainly dispute what I have written. Some will say they don't care what I say and that the bible is the inspired word of God and they choose to believe it - not me. That's because the bible says it is the word of god. That's really a "Catch 22". A favorite quote by born-again Christians is, "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!". No reason, logic, thinking or knowledge is required.

If the bible says it, its true. The bible is a self-perpetuating book. It makes claims and then warns and threatens us not to dispute those claims under pain of being cast into a "lake of fire". If you choose to believe the entire bible literally, you are left absolutely no room or right to questions its validity or authority.

An interesting note - the entire content of the Bible was chosen by men. The writings which were excluded were excluded by men. Be assured these men all had an agenda which was to propagate and preserve what THEY believed. Some scholars chose to include books contained in the "Apocrypha" and these books appear in the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. Other men chose to omit the Apocrypha, so it is not included in the King James version. The concept of the Trinity of the Godhead was a political issue and was voted upon by religious factions in the early days of Christianity. Whether you accept the Trinity as a part of your beliefs or not, the Trinity is generally incorporated into Chrisitan doctrine because men voted upon the concept and the pro-Trinity faction won. Divine inspiration of what to include and preclude in the Bible then, often depended upon the whims and agenda of a man or a few men who made the decision.





-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 3:29 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I "love" you joe, you make all the comments I would make if I had a greater knowledge and understanding of the bible.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 6:38 PM on May 8, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from joebrummer at 3:29 PM on May 8, 2005 :
Is the Bible Really the Inerrant Word of God?


The Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sorry but the UNINSPIRED are not experts on the Holy Scriputres as previously posted. . . that is you.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 09:14 AM on May 10, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You cannot back up scripture with scripture. That is on similair lines as saying I'm right, and my proof for this is that I'm always right.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 11:40 AM on May 10, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 11:40 AM on May 10, 2005 :
You cannot back up scripture with scripture. That is on similair lines as saying I'm right, and my proof for this is that I'm always right.


Sure I can. . . it says so right here.

2 Cor 13: 1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Acts 17:  11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I would be happy for you to show me where I am to follow your "rules" on how or what I should speak.

1 Cor 3:  18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.





-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 1:07 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Logic my friend simple basic logic.
You say I belive this becuase it says so in the scriptures.
We ask for proof that the scriptures are right.
You say he look in the scriptures it says that they are right
now I say you can't do that
Again you turn to your scriptures and say look it says here I can do this.

Logic tells you you can't do this.
however using a similair argumentative technique I could say.
I think you are wrong, and I'm right becuase I think I am and this is totaly valid becuase I think it is.

So iether you agree that I'm right or that you can't use up scriptures to back up scriptures.

Scriptures are not law they are written by men 2000+ years ago and are out dated and if you take it word for word, you would do nothing but eat bread and water and worship god. And don't come back by saying its not libral and then argue a seperate passage as litral. Who are you to say which passages are litral and which are not.

You continuiously use your sheep cartoons I say to you that it is the christians who are the sheep that blindly follow whithout question.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 4:26 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
joebrummer

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(3) Nothing should ever be taken out of its whole context. Dr. Dana says, "No single sentence or verse should ever be interpreted independent of its logical connections. Interpretation should deal with whole sections, each section being considered from two angles: its connection with... and its contribution to the general progress of thought."A-2 If we ignore the context, for example, then couples would not marry unless one of them "burned with lust," then it would be OK to marry so the lust could be satisfied in a legal way (I Cor. 7:9)! And that is as ridiculous and repulsive as many of the ways "proof-texts" have had cults built around them. Paul thought Christ would return very shortly, so he was saying that since marriage would last for such a brief period, it was just better, if you were single, to stay as you were. When the time came that it was no longer so certain that couples would have only a brief time for marriage, Paul's (scriptural) admonition was no longer considered applicable. It was not an eternal rule; it was for the conditions described in the context.



(4) A single passage should be interpreted in the light of the Bible as a whole. Peter said that if we believe and are baptized for the remission of our sins, we shall be saved (Acts 2:38). This says rather clearly that faith and baptism are the way to salvation. Baptists don't believe he meant literally what the words say, for we know from the whole New Testament that baptism in itself has nothing to do with salvation. So now we know what he really meant and didn't mean.



(5) The Bible is not a rule book. Grievous errors are made by those who believe it is. The Bible is a record that gives us a revelation of God by the writers' having recorded their experiences with God, things that happened in the first and preceding centuries. I regret it now, but I'm sure I have said it a thousand times--you've heard me--"Jesus commanded us to do" so and so. Louise, I lied--well, it was at least misleading and careless of me. Jesus didn't command my hearers or me to do anything; We weren't there. But I contributed to the mistaken idea that any statement found in the Bible is a rule for us to follow today. What we need to do is find the eternal, central truth behind the "rules" and apply that truth to our 21st century circumstances. Many rules are eternal, but that is because of the eternal truth in them, and it is that truth we follow, not the rule that contained it. For example, Jesus didn't command me to go into all the world; I wasn't in the group that heard him that day. But when I read the record of that event, I understand God's plan and that if I want to do God's will in my age, I must do all I can to go into all the world, not because that is a rule to follow as a child follows a parent's rule, but because it is my mature understanding of God's plan and my place in it. We follow the fundamental truth, not a first century rule. If the Bible is a rule book, we should stone to death anyone who eats a cheeseburger (see below)!

Jesus and Paul made it clear that the rule of law was in the past and now we live by grace and the spirit, not the letter of the law. The Christian Jews stopped observing the Sabbath and worshipped on Sunday; one of the Ten Commandments was no longer a commandment for them! God himself told Peter that the laws regarding what food is clean and the law about not associating with Gentiles were no longer in effect (Acts 10:13-15). One reason the Jewish leaders hated Christ so much was his constant violation of the Sabbath laws. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following the letter of the law in tithing every little thing but having "neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith" (Matt. 23:23). Paul has lengthy discussions about the laws of circumcision being useless to the Christian. This is his strong word about trying to obey law: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." (Gal: 5:1) Instead, he says, we live by "faith working through love" (v. 6). Rom. 6:4 tells us we are "not under the law but under grace," and Rom. 1:14 that "Christ is the end of the law," and II Cor. 3:6 that "The letter kills, the spirit gives life," and Gal. 5:14 that "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Legalism has no place in Christian living today, but much of it is already in our churches and it should be rooted out. Actually, the "law" of the spirit is the broader law. Consider how Jesus so greatly broadened the law against adultery. Now we see it is not only a lustful act but also a matter of a man's thinking of a woman as a sex object rather than as a person (Matt. 5:28). Our wonderful Bible is a revelation of God through records of God's experience with people of some centuries ago. It is not a book of rules for our lives today to be imposed on us from the outside; it is a book of spiritual principles from which we build our lives from the inside out. It is not a rule book.[b]


-------
www.joebrummer.com
 


Posts: 29 | Posted: 8:07 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
objober

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Call me uneducated, which I am, but you, my 'unworthy servant' friend express a great deal of discrimination for someone who claims to adhere to the scriptures so well. I think the ten commandments are a little more worth concidering than these vague, cryptic and archaic, scriptures "inspired" by god, and revised all too often to shape the will of reglious leaders or "coordinators"
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:13 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from objober at 12:13 PM on May 11, 2005 :
Call me uneducated, which I am, but you, my 'unworthy servant' friend express a great deal of discrimination for someone who claims to adhere to the scriptures so well. I think the ten commandments are a little more worth concidering than these vague, cryptic and archaic, scriptures "inspired" by god, and revised all too often to shape the will of reglious leaders or "coordinators"


Well since you admit to not being knowledgable then I will help you out.



(Edited by unworthy servant 5/18/2005 at 2:09 PM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 12:47 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unworthy, I noticed that you have begun to ignore a variety of informing posts. Did you not read Joe's most recent post? Its quite fascinating.

---

Furthermore, I would ask you of this: I do not understand all of the quotes from the Scripture that you keep referring to. If you wish to use another quote, could you explain, exactly, what that quote means?

"Therefore come out from their midst and be seperate says the Lord." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

What does that mean? What does that have to do with objober's post? Is it true that the world says "Unite!"? What context did this quote come from? What was it talking about both before and after this quote? (I mean, what other paragraphs and information was expressed from verses 6:1-25?)...

And if you do choose to answer my post, could you not use quotes to explain your point? I'm not completely sure that I would be able to understand them.

----

In addition to this post, I wonder: Does one need to be an expert of the Holy Scriptures, or be inspired by them, in order to interpret them? I am not inspired by these Scriptures, and so therefore I am not able to interpret them the way God would want me to? Or is it not true that the uninspired reader can make more of an objective opinion when they can avoid being biased (implying that when you are inspired, you are inevitably biased)?

Do you know the meanings of the words "objective" or "biased?" If you do, do they matter to you?

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/11/2005 at 8:06 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:59 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 7:59 PM on May 11, 2005 :
Unworthy, I noticed that you have begun to ignore a variety of informing posts. Did you not read Joe's most recent post? Its quite fascinating.


I have no doubt you would consider it fascinating.  However, the "expert" has no clue what he is talking about since he is a "natural man" (1 Cor 2: 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.) and understands nothing about the Scriptures. And since it is foolishness then it is a waste of time to explain it to a person who enjoys being a fool.

Prov 26:  4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (conceit: Heb. eyes)

Furthermore, I would ask you of this: I do not understand all of the quotes from the Scripture that you keep referring to. If you wish to use another quote, could you explain, exactly, what that quote means?

"Therefore come out from their midst and be seperate says the Lord." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

What does that mean? What does that have to do with objober's post? Is it true that the world says "Unite!"? What context did this quote come from? What was it talking about both before and after this quote? (I mean, what other paragraphs and information was expressed from verses 6:1-25?)...

And if you do choose to answer my post, could you not use quotes to explain your point? I'm not completely sure that I would be able to understand them.


Here this will help make it crystal clear.




(Edited by unworthy servant 5/18/2005 at 2:11 PM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 08:52 AM on May 12, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from unworthy servant at 08:52 AM on May 12, 2005 :
Quote from Box of Fox at 7:59 PM on May 11, 2005 :
Unworthy, I noticed that you have begun to ignore a variety of informing posts. Did you not read Joe's most recent post? Its quite fascinating.


I have no doubt you would consider it fascinating.  However, the "expert" has no clue what he is talking about since he is a "natural man" (1 Cor 2: 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.) and understands nothing about the Scriptures. And since it is foolishness then it is a waste of time to explain it to a person who enjoys being a fool.

Prov 26:  4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (conceit: Heb. eyes)


So you assume that all "natural" men, or those who do not pertain to the Scripture for their rationalizations, are fools, and therefore do not have the right to be considered?

Do you know what it means to be a skeptic? Skeptics are able to question their religion, question their owns beliefs, question others' beliefs, and even be skeptical of what they consider to be reasonable. Why don't you try? Have you ever been asked to think critically about the Scriptures? Even in the face of opposing evidence, whether it be conceptual or scholastic (religious evidence) or empirical (scientific), do you still have faith?

What would happen if God gave you his word that taking the Bible literally is foolish? Would you listen?

And so therefore, because you cannot question your claims or rationalizations, the "natural" man is by far more "intellectual" than the "non-natural" man. Having "faith" is nothing to the intellectual being, especially a scientist. In fact, your last post has forced me, as tolerant as I am, to sympathize for you. I realize the only way to play your "Scripture" game is to condescend to your radicalism.

Box of Fox

P.S. I do not need to quote from a ancient text in order to prove my point. I am enough of a skeptic to note that ancient texts are too contradictory, too hypocricital, too scholastic, too pedantic, and have to many ways of interpreting it to be considered valid whatsoever.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 8:47 PM on May 12, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this guy with the pictures is driving me nuts.

i personally believe the bible, i hold it to be true.... but this guy (unworthy servant) is way in left field as far as i'm concerned. this post is for those people who may wrongly start painting all "bible believers" with the same brush. We're not all accusatory and egotistical as this one is.

(to box of fox) my skepticism brought me to christ, and it keeps me here, so don't assume simply possessing skepticism will drive one away from religious beliefs. evidence is impartial, interpretation is biased. skepticim in and of it self will not produce any given interpretation, it is just a disposition to be held. you can't be skeptical of evidence, just claims of interpretation, because evidence isn't given to skepticism, unless it's integrity is what is in question.




-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 9:10 PM on May 12, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this guy with the pictures is driving me nuts.

i personally believe the bible, i hold it to be true.... but this guy (unworthy servant) is way in left field as far as i'm concerned. this post is for those people who may wrongly start painting all "bible believers" with the same brush. We're not all accusatory and egotistical as this one is.

(to box of fox) my skepticism brought me to christ, and it keeps me here, so don't assume simply possessing skepticism will drive one away from religious beliefs. evidence is impartial, interpretation is biased. skepticim in and of it self will not produce any given interpretation, it is just a disposition to be held. you can't be skeptical of evidence, just claims of interpretation, because evidence isn't given to skepticism, unless it's integrity is what is in question.


That is so cool. I understand your post, and at least someone understands the skepticism to which I pertain to. I am glad to see that skepticism has led you to a belief that can be backed up with skeptical reasoning. Good. I feel happy.

I also don't consider all Christians or those who hold the Bible as true to be like Unworthy. I understand that Unworthy is included in a small minority of extremists.

But, I ask you, Carns: Has skepticism led you to conclude that radicalism is not sensible? (I am implying that radicalism is not sensible, and that those who are moderate in their assertions can provided more objective evidence (or in some cases, interpretations).)

To Unworthy: It might surprise you that I am an agnostic. I am not sure whether or not a higher authority exists. But if one does, he certainly cannot be described as the God to which you pertain to. If anything, I consider the one you describe to  be evil, self-serving, and sadistic compared to the God that Carns hold trust in.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:47 PM on May 12, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Carns, your one of the good christians *Thumbs up*. I'm agnostic as well and I can see carns's view point and I acept that, I mean my girl friend is catholic so I do have alot of religious tolerance. But its people like unworthy that are tainting how us agnostics and athiests see your religion. I was actualy waiting to see how you would reply to his posts, and you didn't disapoint.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:50 AM on May 13, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Carns at 9:10 PM on May 12, 2005


i personally believe the bible, i hold it to be true.... but this guy (unworthy servant) is way in left field as far as i'm concerned. this post is for those people who may wrongly start painting all "bible believers" with the same brush. We're not all accusatory and egotistical as this one is.


Anyone can claim to be a "believer" . . . and  many "so-called brothers" do.



However, the "so-called brothers" do not APPLY the word of God unlike the true borthers of Christ.




(Edited by unworthy servant 5/18/2005 at 2:14 PM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 2:21 PM on May 13, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are implying that Carns is not a true Christian, or brother for that matter, purely because he disagrees with you? Can you even define a "true Christian?" My definition of what you consider to be a "true Christian" is a Bible literalist. Bible literalists can't be taken seriously-- even uneducated Bible literalists know that the Bible hasn't remained consistent throughout the time to which it was assumed to be created.

Compare a King James version-- its words are beautiful, its sentence perfected. It was translated by King James. Do you think that he changed nothing? Do you think he and his translators were not biased or prejudice?

Observe one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Directly translated from Aramaic, its sentences do not have complex sentence structures, or spectacular detail.

What's important to people like Carns is the message God was trying to get across to people-- strive (NOT OBEY- strive) to follow what the ten commandment say, observe the Bible (or Torah, in some cases), and follow Jesus's teachings (if you are a Christian). Not "If you don't follow what I say or what Jesus says, you will burn in hell." What about Asia, or Africa, where Chrisitanity is predominantly absent? Will all the non-Christians and Asia die and never know there was a hell? Some of them didn't even have a chance, or know that Christianity exist. If you assume that they go to hell, than the God to which you pertain to is sadistic.

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/13/2005 at 5:49 PM).

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/13/2005 at 5:50 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 5:45 PM on May 13, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 5:45 PM on May 13, 2005 :
So you are implying that Carns is not a true Christian, or brother for that matter, purely because he disagrees with you? Can you even define a "true Christian?" My definition of what you consider to be a "true Christian" is a Bible literalist. Bible literalists can't be taken seriously-- even uneducated Bible literalists know that the Bible hasn't remained consistent throughout the time to which it was assumed to be created.


Well see there you go.  You both spout "friendship to the world."

And as for God being "unjust" as your are implying . . He saves who comply with HIs laws/morality, not your "laws/morals".



(Edited by unworthy servant 5/18/2005 at 2:17 PM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then your deity is evil. Now go away. Sure, you can say that this "God" discriminates against gays, but I can say that he doesn't exist. And he doesn't. Looks like all of your life worshiping him has been a waste of time and energy. Now go hide in your hole of ignorance and stop bothering the people who know what it is truly like to live.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:41 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 2:41 PM on May 14, 2005 :
Then your deity is evil. Now go away. Sure, you can say that this "God" discriminates against gays, but I can say that he doesn't exist. And he doesn't. Looks like all of your life worshiping him has been a waste of time and energy. Now go hide in your hole of ignorance and stop bothering the people who know what it is truly like to live.


Or you'll huff and you'll puff  . . .  and blow more hot air?

Dumb Sheep's Homosexual Message



(Edited by unworthy servant 5/15/2005 at 06:38 AM).


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 5:09 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from unworthy servant at 5:09 PM on May 14, 2005 :
Quote from Box of Fox at 2:41 PM on May 14, 2005 :
Then your deity is evil. Now go away. Sure, you can say that this "God" discriminates against gays, but I can say that he doesn't exist. And he doesn't. Looks like all of your life worshiping him has been a waste of time and energy. Now go hide in your hole of ignorance and stop bothering the people who know what it is truly like to live.


Or you'll huff and you'll puff  . . .  and blow more hot air?

http://img187.echo.cx/my.php?image=dumbsheepsocietymessage007ii.jpg




What does it matter if I get angry or not? The God you speak of does not exist. Stop lying to yourself-- just deal with it.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 8:29 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course you have evidence that God does not exist?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  It appears the "intellectual" is going into "IS NOT!" MODE



When the pilgrims, professing Christians, arrived they considered America the New Cannan.  Not surprising that they did not enact "equal rights" to pagans, heretics nor homosexuals.  In fact, Christianity was the only allowed religion practiced.  Since their descendants (fellow professing Christans) still were the driving force in the country at the time of the American Revolution, the intent was for Christianity would be the driving force into the future.  However, they were not smart enough to recognize pseudochristians such as Thomas Jefferson (freethinker) who "sold them a bill of goods" with the constitution.
The Bill of Goods

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

. . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.

So it is clear from history that the INTENT of the people of the land was for Christianity to be the SOLE religion of America at the signing of the constitution.  Which now the kangaroo courts TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS LATER mysteriously say the people of the land' s  INTENT was to supposedly "guarantee rights" for homosexuals, heretics, pagans.  So clearly since the "founding fathers" were represenatives  of the the people of the land then the INTENT WAS NOT to give pagans, heretics, nor homosexuals "equal rights" but to discriminate against them.


in·tent   Audio pronunciation of "intent" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tnt)
n.

  1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
  2. Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
  3. Meaning; purport.


adj.

  1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
  2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
  3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 06:33 AM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't say Christianity was not the religion of America. I said that the God you pertain to does not exist.

And after all, its not that I cannot refute Luke, it is that you cannot refute Luke. I have the ability to make decision for myself. You do not.

And as for proof for the fact that your God does not exist, we humans call it Evolution. The reason you still follow the older Scriptures is because you are not educated in it. At all. You don't know a thing about it. Of course, you'll probably give me a passage saying from the Bible that evolution is a lie, but denial is normal.

Furthermore, you can go on with your Bible passages here and there, your definition of words, and your blind pride, but I am not swayed.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:56 AM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unworthy, you are clinging to a sinking ship, You are wrong but refuse to admit it. So, just let go and float back to your 17th century Puritan commune where you can beat up gays and Jews, churn butter, and read the bible.

I have a great website for you.

Box of Fox remembers this site from another thread.
When I saw it I knew it was perfect for you.

http://www.heritagelost.org

P.S. your little pictures are queer


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 1:28 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course you have evidence that God does not exist?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

Unworthy, does this message mean that you have EVIDENCE that god DOES exist?

I am not talking about the bible or faith, those are not hard cold facts and of course there is no evidence that god does not exist but neither is there any evidence that he  does.

Rob


-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 3:34 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also there isn't any evidence that faries don't exist, therefore using your logic they must also exist, becuase we cannot prove otherwise.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 4:10 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

it's obvious that your views of religion are limited to serving a distant god with whom we have no contact with, no relationship with, no interaction with etc. if somebody claims they've spoken with a fairy, then you would have some evidence... perhaps false, perhaps true, but something to go on nonetheless. God is very alive and active in the lives of his believers, and probably unbeleivers as well, but since they aren't looking for it, they don't see it. God is subtle, he upholds free will, and will not drop a proof of his existence into anybodies lap, becuase that would ultimately force people into accepting him. The way he's orchestrated things allows people to decide for themselves what they will decide, leaving enough evidence to support both sides. People who choose not to believe have themselves convinced just as believers do. Both are fully convinced in their own minds that they are correct. obviously these two kinds of people will naturally have confrontations arising from our beliefs. Athiests usually feel that they decide for themselves what they can and can't do, and Thiests (any religion) usually adhere to a set of beleifs given to them from who they view as God.
The problem with adhering to a higher power's beleifs over your own is that others view you as weak minded or a "blind sheep" or whatever. They dont stop to think or inquire as to why you choose to believe what you do simply because they feel you should decide for yourself.
The problem with adhering to your own beliefs over a higher power (which doesn't exist to them) is that others view you as egotistical, prideful, arrogant, humanist etc.. They don't stop to think that since you dont acknowledge a god, you dont have any "standard" to go by but your own, so you're left to make your own rules up as you go along.

These two main beliefs are, and will remain, at odds. There is no combining or permuting them. At best, we can tolerate eachother, recognizing eachother's basic assumptions of the world and move on since there is very little common ground.

that said, the reason i (i'm christian) am so fascinated with discussing things with people of different faiths is that it is always interesting to know what convinced people to go one way or the other. Everybody has reasons to believe what they do, whether it's gay rights, religion, creation, abortion, politics, human rights, whatever... nobody holds a belief without reason, and the sooner we acknowledge that others DO have reasons (however crazy they seem to the opposing view) the sooner we will understand eachother - not the sooner we will be converted.

for the people who aren't as stubborn, they may watch us discuss our reasons to hold our respective beliefs, and will ultimately decide for themselfs.

hopefully this message is viewed as unbiased as it was intended to be, there just seems to be too much misunderstanding going on here, pushing your own assumptions on others will never work.




-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 4:40 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from rob74696 at 3:34 PM on May 15, 2005 :
Of course you have evidence that God does not exist?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

Unworthy, does this message mean that you have EVIDENCE that god DOES exist?

I am not talking about the bible or faith, those are not hard cold facts and of course there is no evidence that god does not exist but neither is there any evidence that he  does.

Rob



Of course that is your UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION.
The facts from the Scriptures clearly states that there is clear evidence of God in the world.  However, since your "know" there is no such evidence I will not waste my time explaining it . . .as they are pearls.  I will state that scientists/doctors/teachers clearly indicate the presence of God in their writings.

Roman 1: 18 For God's wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, holding the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because the thing known of God is clearly known within them, for God revealed it to them. 20 for the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. 21 Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became foolish 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. 24 Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves, 25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 6:33 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 4:40 PM on May 15, 2005 :
it's obvious that your views of religion are limited to serving a distant god with whom we have no contact with, no relationship with, no interaction with etc. if somebody claims they've spoken with a fairy, then you would have some evidence... perhaps false, perhaps true, but something to go on nonetheless. God is very alive and active in the lives of his believers, and probably unbeleivers as well, but since they aren't looking for it, they don't see it. God is subtle, he upholds free will, and will not drop a proof of his existence into anybodies lap, becuase that would ultimately force people into accepting him. The way he's orchestrated things allows people to decide for themselves what they will decide, leaving enough evidence to support both sides. People who choose not to believe have themselves convinced just as believers do. Both are fully convinced in their own minds that they are correct. obviously these two kinds of people will naturally have confrontations arising from our beliefs. Athiests usually feel that they decide for themselves what they can and can't do, and Thiests (any religion) usually adhere to a set of beleifs given to them from who they view as God.
The problem with adhering to a higher power's beleifs over your own is that others view you as weak minded or a "blind sheep" or whatever. They dont stop to think or inquire as to why you choose to believe what you do simply because they feel you should decide for yourself.
The problem with adhering to your own beliefs over a higher power (which doesn't exist to them) is that others view you as egotistical, prideful, arrogant, humanist etc.. They don't stop to think that since you dont acknowledge a god, you dont have any "standard" to go by but your own, so you're left to make your own rules up as you go along.

These two main beliefs are, and will remain, at odds. There is no combining or permuting them. At best, we can tolerate eachother, recognizing eachother's basic assumptions of the world and move on since there is very little common ground.

that said, the reason i (i'm christian) am so fascinated with discussing things with people of different faiths is that it is always interesting to know what convinced people to go one way or the other. Everybody has reasons to believe what they do, whether it's gay rights, religion, creation, abortion, politics, human rights, whatever... nobody holds a belief without reason, and the sooner we acknowledge that others DO have reasons (however crazy they seem to the opposing view) the sooner we will understand eachother - not the sooner we will be converted.

for the people who aren't as stubborn, they may watch us discuss our reasons to hold our respective beliefs, and will ultimately decide for themselfs.

hopefully this message is viewed as unbiased as it was intended to be, there just seems to be too much misunderstanding going on here, pushing your own assumptions on others will never work.





Wow... I definitely understand the point you're trying to make and I'm fascinated by it


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 8:34 PM on May 15, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow... I definitely understand the point you're trying to make and I'm fascinated by it


Quite understandable since you preach the same humaminstic garbage as she preaches.  The only difference is on occassion she says "Jesus."

2 Cor 11: 4 For if, indeed, the one coming proclaims another Jesus, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive another spirit which you have not received, or another gospel which you never accepted, you might well endure these .








-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 10:48 AM on May 17, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, i'm not preaching.

second, the Jesus i mention (i dont believe i mentioned Jesus..but anyways) would be the Jesus of the Bible, so i'd love to know why you wrongly decide to pass judgment. you also wrongly categorize me as a humanist, which i most definately am not.

third, correction is obviously grevious to you, as you condemn everybody in disagreeance a fool. i recommend you be more careful in your dealings with people, as your approach is obviously ineffective.

fourth, know your audience. when paul spoke to jews, he quoted lots of scripture since they were well studied in it and it was effective. When paul spoke to the romans, he NEVER USED ONE SCRIPTURE. instead, he used intellectual appeals to "preach" to them, and it was effective. Clearly care must be taken when addressing an audience, and its clear that you have a blanket approach, treating everybody as though we are stupid and unschooled, when for the most part, we are familiar with both scripture and can be considered intellectual. I suggest you revamp your approach lest you hinder someone's faith.

Truthfully, you should be ashamed of the way you speak to people, with such little care and respect. the internet is a great place for cowards, who in person to person contact wouldn't dare treat people in the way you've demonstrated.


-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 6:51 PM on May 17, 2005 | IP
unworthy servant

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 6:51 PM on May 17, 2005 :first of all, i'm not preaching.


Well, Since you quack/preach like a humanist and your walk with your humanists friends then you are a humanist.

And when Chrsit came upon Pharisees He was able to recognize them and was overtly rude to them . . if you have never read Matt 23.



So don't complain when you get the lash.





-------
WE MUST OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN - ACTS 5:29
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 1:37 PM on May 18, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

carns I wouldn't bother, he is too much of a litralist, you'll never make in inpact on him.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:59 PM on May 18, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 2:59 PM on May 18, 2005 :
carns I wouldn't bother, he is too much of a litralist, you'll never make in inpact on him.


He also ignores the posts of people when he knows he has been beaten. Or proven wrong. Or scolded.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:08 PM on May 18, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think that there were any cowboys in Israel during the times of the Bible.

Also, what I read in that article about the whip was the most insensitive statement I read in a while. I see that you DO believe in killing nonbelievers in the name of God.

Not to mention, the only person I could imagine yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be you Unworthy. That is because you are a sadistic madman.

But I will give you credit that you actually 'tried' to 'interpret' the bible. You failed, but you get somewhat of a C+ for effort. At least you didn't actually think that Jesus would clean an entire temple with a whip. How inefficient would that be?

On a closing note I'd like to get back to the actual debate. Because looking at unworthy's last post, it seems he likes to whip "homos". Hey I'm just saying what what you said Unworthy.

Oh yeah, humanism is what drives this thing you abuse called free speech.

P.S. don't call me a hypocrite, I never said you can't say what you're saying; I just say you abuse it and there's nothing i can do...unfortunately...


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 10:11 PM on May 18, 2005 | IP
Aino-Ailill

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from unworthy servant at 06:33 AM on May 15, 2005 :
Of course you have evidence that God does not exist?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  It appears the "intellectual" is going into "IS NOT!" MODE



When the pilgrims, professing Christians, arrived they considered America the New Cannan.  Not surprising that they did not enact "equal rights" to pagans, heretics nor homosexuals.  In fact, Christianity was the only allowed religion practiced.  Since their descendants (fellow professing Christans) still were the driving force in the country at the time of the American Revolution, the intent was for Christianity would be the driving force into the future.  However, they were not smart enough to recognize pseudochristians such as Thomas Jefferson (freethinker) who "sold them a bill of goods" with the constitution.
The Bill of Goods

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

. . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.

So it is clear from history that the INTENT of the people of the land was for Christianity to be the SOLE religion of America at the signing of the constitution.  Which now the kangaroo courts TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS LATER mysteriously say the people of the land' s  INTENT was to supposedly "guarantee rights" for homosexuals, heretics, pagans.  So clearly since the "founding fathers" were represenatives  of the the people of the land then the INTENT WAS NOT to give pagans, heretics, nor homosexuals "equal rights" but to discriminate against them.


in·tent   Audio pronunciation of "intent" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tnt)
n.

  1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
  2. Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
  3. Meaning; purport.


adj.

  1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
  2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
  3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.



1 - Many of the founding fathers were Deists.
2 - Jefferson was the one to set down and clarify the separation of Church and State.
3 - Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,"


-------
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 11:35 PM on February 8, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.