Christianity - the real target of hate in gay issue

[MikeyC]

The Bible is only a collection of words, and is no more or less holy or inherently factually accurate than your own words on this website. To create the necessary 2nd portion of DNA Mary's egg would have needed, it would have needed to have been put in their some way. As a woman, Mary is not capable of creating this 2nd portion of DNA and it can't be proven that you can create something out of nothing. God would have needed to create something out of nothing to put this DNA into Mary.

You never responded to this.

I'm not letting you ignore this science. Please respond to this.
BTW, what makes your Bible more accurate than the Qu'ran, Vedas, or the Tipitaka etc.? They all claim to have the words of God as well.

 

[MikeyC]

Ignore the Tipitaka remark. Buddhism doesn't believe in God... :Oopsie

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I'm not letting you ignore this science. Please respond to this.
BTW, what makes your Bible more accurate than the Qu'ran, Vedas, or the Tipitaka etc.? They all claim to have the words of God as well.

Firstly, you are ignoring the possibility of miracles. Which is ridiculous if you are going to have faith that there is an active God in the universe to begin with. The acceptance of Mary's emmaculate conception comes long after accepting that there is a God, that He loves us and plays a role in our life, and that He is the ultimate creator. If you don't already believe all these things, then their is absolutely no point in arguing that the virgin birth happened, because it is an irrelevent fact. But, if you get to the point where you accept that God does have an active role in the lives of mankind, then a virgin birth is minor in comparison to the redirection of someone's entire life.

As far as more "accurate" than these other books, that's simple. First, how do you gauge accuracy in a "guide" book? You look at the finished, or onging construction of the focus of the book. Now, the Bible teaches of how to have a personal relationship with Christ and God, it teaches us to find eternal life, and it teaches us how to have life more abundantly. In short, it is a guide to fullfilment. I have searched many many different methods and paths to find fullfilment. And this was it. The Qu'ran, while much of it is very effective moral lessons, falls short of what the Bible fullfils. The Bible tells of personal relationship with God, and the workings of the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of Christ. It is simply more complete.

 

[MikeyC]

I understand it's based on faith and I respect people who accept the Bible on faith. Shamgar is trying to say that the Bible is 100% provable fact, which is different than faith. Instead of believing it is true, Shamgar says it's absolute truth just like a science textbook or something (Though I'll admit science textbooks have theories...)

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I understand it's based on faith and I respect people who accept the Bible on faith. Shamgar is trying to say that the Bible is 100% provable fact, which is different than faith. Instead of believing it is true, Shamgar says it's absolute truth just like a science textbook or something (Though I'll admit science textbooks have theories...)

That's where you have to find the difference between an infallible message and an infallible science book. The Bible wasn't ever meant to be a science book, though it contains science in it. But rather a message, and that message is infallible.

 

[shuamort]

That's where you have to find the difference between an infallible message and an infallible science book. The Bible wasn't ever meant to be a science book, though it contains science in it. But rather a message, and that message is infallible.

How could something be infallible when it's been edited, translated, retranslated, and there are so many editions whose words don't agree with each other? Which version are you claiming is infallible? Too much fantasy, no facts.

 

[MikeyC]

Well, I believe any text that proposes miracles can occur which defy the laws of science, then I immediately see it as having fallacies.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

How could something be infallible when it's been edited, translated, retranslated, and there are so many editions whose words don't agree with each other? Which version are you claiming is infallible? Too much fantasy, no facts.

Again I say, it is the message, not the book that is infallible. The Bible, in the sense of being a book, is at times conflicts with lineage, and sometimes has different perspectives or accounts of certain events. However, you highly exagerate the idea that it has been "edited" and retranslated (pointless fact as we have the Hebrew translation) and that the editions words don't agree with each other. In every case they are over very minute points in the stories. And all are open to study, and again, you don't take into account the existance of the Holy Spirit who, if we call upon it, will lead us towards better understanding God's will. The problem is, and will always be for you shuamort that you have no faith. Until you have faith in the power of God to keep His message infallible (God created the world, He loves us as His children, He sent Christ to die for our sins -- none of that ever is lost in translation), it is no surrprise that you cannot accept infallibility of the Word. Facts verses fantasy is all in your perception. You could believe all your life that the world is flat, regardless of all the evidence surrounding that supports that it is not, and yet, until you accept that fact, it is, to you, not a fact. God exists whether you choose to believe in Him or not.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Well, I believe any text that proposes miracles can occur which defy the laws of science, then I immediately see it as having fallacies.

Are you unfamiliar with "medical miracles?" If you fist don't believe in a an active God, then why would you believe in miracles? If you do believe in an active God, how could you not?

 

[shuamort]

Again I say, it is the message, not the book that is infallible. The Bible, in the sense of being a book, is at times conflicts with lineage, and sometimes has different perspectives or accounts of certain events. However, you highly exagerate the idea that it has been "edited" and retranslated (pointless fact as we have the Hebrew translation) and that the editions words don't agree with each other. In every case they are over very minute points in the stories. And all are open to study, and again, you don't take into account the existance of the Holy Spirit who, if we call upon it, will lead us towards better understanding God's will. The problem is, and will always be for you shuamort that you have no faith. Until you have faith in the power of God to keep His message infallible (God created the world, He loves us as His children, He sent Christ to die for our sins -- none of that ever is lost in translation), it is no surrprise that you cannot accept infallibility of the Word. Facts verses fantasy is all in your perception. You could believe all your life that the world is flat, regardless of all the evidence surrounding that supports that it is not, and yet, until you accept that fact, it is, to you, not a fact. God exists whether you choose to believe in Him or not.

Yes, but you have to look at it this way... If there were an infallible message, which is it? Is it the one the catholics give, or the lutherans, or the mormons? Is it your opinion, fantasea's, or shamgar's? You're all purporting to be talking about the message from christianity and I'm seeing three different takes on it.

 

[JustineCredible]

Yes, but you have to look at it this way... If there were an infallible message, which is it? Is it the one the catholics give, or the lutherans, or the mormons? Is it your opinion, fantasea's, or shamgar's? You're all purporting to be talking about the message from christianity and I'm seeing three different takes on it.

Let us not forget the many translations which over the years have edited out certain words opting for others which simply do not have the same meaning.
With so many cooks...there's no doubt the pot has been spoiled.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Yes, but you have to look at it this way... If there were an infallible message, which is it? Is it the one the catholics give, or the lutherans, or the mormons? Is it your opinion, fantasea's, or shamgar's? You're all purporting to be talking about the message from christianity and I'm seeing three different takes on it.

Wait, didn't I just tell you?
Okay, let me put it this way

John 3:16 For God so LOVED the WORLD that HE GAVE His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that WHOSOEVER believeth shall not perish but have ever lasting life.

That's it. All the rest of the Bible simply continues that message. The Bible teaches us incredibly important lessons on how to appreciate life and each other. It teaches us how to "believe" both in faith and in our actions. It shows what God was and what God is. It shows different exchanges between God and His people. But, in the end, it all serves one infallible message: God is love, and He has given us a chance to join Him in heaven and serve Him on earth. Mormanism aside, you will find that though the seperate methods of the churches you listed are different, the message does not change. That Christ is the Son of God and that He died so that we have life, and He offers that life to everyone. I hope that answers your inquiry.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Let us not forget the many translations which over the years have edited out certain words opting for others which simply do not have the same meaning.
With so many cooks...there's no doubt the pot has been spoiled.

But, then there is always the Hebrew text that we can read from right? And there is also the Holy Spirit to guide us to find the true will of God.

 

[JustineCredible]

But, then there is always the Hebrew text that we can read from right? And there is also the Holy Spirit to guide us to find the true will of God.

The original texts of the Bible weren't only written in Hebrew, they were written in Latin, Greek and Arameic as well.

What The Bible Says About Homosexuality

In biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:

Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation.
Some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples that may have engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites.
It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.
Only the third type would have any similarity to today's gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.
Many versions of the Bible exist in the English language. Each reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work.
There is an additional complexity facing translators: today's society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that matches a Hebrew or Greek term.

Many words have been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts as "homosexual", "sodomite", "homosexuality". However, most (perhaps all) of the references bear no similarity to today's lesbian and gay partnerships. By carefully reading the original texts and considering the societies in which they were written, one comes to surprising conclusions:

The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution. It talks about being kind to strangers in a way that has been incorrectly interpreted as referring to homosexual acts
It says almost nothing about homosexual feelings;
It says nothing about sexual orientation.
The writers of the Bible assumed that everyone was heterosexual (or "straight"); the concept of sexual orientation was not developed until the late 19th century.

 

[Shamgar]

I'm not letting you ignore this science. Please respond to this.

Sure as soon as you acknowledge I was correct and you were wrong about the historical proof of the Scriptures.

You have a lot of nerve calling others a hate group when all of your reprisals are disrespectful at best, insulting at worst. One thing is obvious , if we are a hate group it's not a one sided issue.

Oh if you knew anything about the SCriptures . . . which you don't . . . .Christ and other righteous men hurled insults at the wicked. . . that would be you the hate groups.

Oh and let me head off your spout about me being a God hater. I'm an atheist which by definition is "without theism." as such it would be silly for me to hate something that doesn't exist. That emotion is reserved for those who who treat others as less simple because views, heritage, or convictions differ.

Oh but according to the definition of the Scriptures you area fool and fools do many foolish things . . .like not believe in God and Hate the beleivers of God.

Psalms 14: 1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Oh if you knew anything about the SCriptures . . . which you don't . . . .Christ and other righteous men hurled insults at the wicked. . . that would be you the hate groups.

When did CHRIST(JESUS) ever hurl insults at the wicked? I want to know this. Give me that verse or a cartoon or something.

 

[shuamort]

It shows different exchanges between God and His people. But, in the end, it all serves one infallible message: God is love

You go and explain that to Shamgar who tends to have a different message.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

The original texts of the Bible weren't only written in Hebrew, they were written in Latin, Greek and Arameic as well.

What The Bible Says About Homosexuality

Yeah, that's right. And those texts in Latin, Greek, and forms of Aramaic are also readily available for anyone who wishes to dig deeper. So, what's your point?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You go and explain that to Shamgar who tends to have a different message.

Look, there will always be the oens, you know, like the homosexuals you spoke of who fought for animal sexual freedom? The message of the Bible and of Christ is as clear as it can be. It is simply some of the people who just don't get it.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

And then shuamort, there are these:

...It seems to me that the concept of one correct faith as crazy. God loves us all, why would he lead some to the right faith, and not even introduce the concept to others? I believe God shows us the faith that we need to get through our earthly lives, and the only basic action neccisary would be to be a good person and treat people, as much as you can, with love and respect, and then on that final day when you stand before God, just don't reject him/her. I think that's just about it.

who despite the obvious infallible message of the Bible, ignore that message and make it into something else.

 

[MikeyC]

Are you unfamiliar with "medical miracles?" If you fist don't believe in a an active God, then why would you believe in miracles? If you do believe in an active God, how could you not?

Why would miracles have to be done because of God? I feel miracles are great things that occur because we just don't have enough science to understand the event. I suppose this goes with my "faith" (Deism if you're wondering). If we somehow learn ALL the laws of science and still can't explain miracles, then maybe I'll believe God interferes in our lives. I like to hold out there there is some science to understand why great things like this occur. I won't pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics, but I heard that there is a very very very small chance that you could randomly be transported to any other point in the universe, that would be a "miracle" though not a very good one since you'd probably die.

Sure as soon as you acknowledge I was correct and you were wrong about the historical proof of the Scriptures.

The Smithsonian Institute declares that the Bible is not historical. That bill you showed doens't back up that the Bible is historical with evidence, and it seemed more as something to pay tribute to the Bible. It says the Bible was important in shaping our own history and guiding our nation which is true since most of our country is Christian and uses it as a moral and spiritual guide. I think the Bible has been great at teaching most people good morals (Though some extreme views like the ones you have are not shared by most Christians). The choice of words, in this bill "The Bible, The Word of God" was poor because it seems like we are a Christian nation, which goes against the first Amendment, but I think the wording of the bill was trying to just honor the Bible, not prove the Bible. This article shows how we are not a Christian nation, and therefore cannot recognize the Bible as a historical document, because we cease to be a secular society. I'll admit the Bible has some historical accuracy, like Jesus really did exist.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Why would miracles have to be done because of God? I feel miracles are great things that occur because we just don't have enough science to understand the event. I suppose this goes with my "faith" (Deism if you're wondering). If we somehow learn ALL the laws of science and still can't explain miracles, then maybe I'll believe God interferes in our lives. I like to hold out there there is some science to understand why great things like this occur. I won't pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics, but I heard that there is a very very very small chance that you could randomly be transported to any other point in the universe, that would be a "miracle" though not a very good one since you'd probably die.

And of course you are entitled to you opinion. But, I personally can testify that there is an active God, because He is active towards and through me. But, I don't understand why if you don't believe in a personal God you chose to point out that it is impossiblity for Mary to have had a virgin birth, when, from your point of view, the Bible lies about practically everything in the world. It would be one thing if you chose to believe the Bible the rest of the way, and yet still had trouble accepting the virgin brith (althouth, lets face it, there are much greater mysterious and miracles than that in the Bible), but to you, the Bible is chock full of lies anyhow, why wouldn't you assume this to be any different?

In response the the Bible having "some" historical accuracy, it will never cease to amaze me how the Bible is treated differently than any other text in the history of the world. If there was any other document in history that had so many manuscripts to back it up (which there is none) there would be no question as to the legitimacy of the document. However, because the Bible contains a loaded message, it is treated differntly than any other historical book. You make it sound as though the only historical evidence we can get from the Bible is that Jesus lived? But yet, it is full of historical events, places, kingdoms, peoples. Do you just assume all of them are wrong because of a few innacuracies throughout the book? Futhermore, find me one other historical documentation that we commonly accept that has absolutely no flaws in its story? Why do you treat the Bible in a take it or leave it fashion?

 

[MikeyC]

I'm just using virgin birth as one example. I have no problem with people who accept the Bible on faith. Shamgar has been saying that it's impossible to refute the Bible and thinks it ridiculous that people have other views. You at least understand why I doubt the Bible, right? You realize that you accept the Bible on faith. I don't feel the Bible "lies" about everything. I know there is more history in the Bible, but I'm not going to go through the entire Bible right now just to find out exactly which historical references in the Bible are accurate and post it. I do have other things to do. The Bible has so many manuscripts to back it up because so many people believe in it. The Bible is the only really firsthand collection of accounts of all the events that took place in it (I believe). I'm sure you could find many papers to back up that there were witches in Salem, Mass. as well. Okay, other books have inaccuracies as well, people aren't perfect and a lot of people lie. I just don't believe the Bible to be true account of history. The miracles seem unreasonable to me, as do the crazy nature events (Like Moses' plagues and Noah's Ark), which is my main problem with the Bible. There are probably more papers to back up aliens exist, but those are equally ridiculous to me. I think overrall, the Bible contains a positive message for people. Though some messages, like prejudice against gays and Shamgar's interpretation of intolerance also proves there is a negative message to be had. I bet if I were to actually go through the Bible, I'd be surprised how many facts there are, but I'd rather turn to history books, which approach history from a purely scientific approach of analyzing evidence (Though not always analyzing correctly).

 

[sebastiansdreams]

So what's your obvious infallible message of the bible? Hate everyone that differs from you, because I've learned it's "love thy neighbor as thyself."

That is a wonderful message that the Bible gives us. You should love your neighbor. But why should you love your neighbor? Because God loves you?

I'm not saying that there is ONLY one message in the Bible. There are thousands. However, the thesis, the bottom line message, the INFALLIBLE message is that God loves all of us so much that He sent His son to die for us, so that if we accept Jesus Christ as our savior, we can join God in heaven. That is the message. All the rest is how to to be more like our savior, or showing the love of God, or the power and majesty of God, or how we are to lead others to find the grace of salvation. But it all feeds towards the one message, and that message is for all intensive purposes found in John 3:16 and 17

 

[Shamgar]

The Smithsonian Institute declares that the Bible is not historical.

Unsubstantiated opinions are your only weapons . . . . The congressional record is a historical document which stated the Bible IS the word of God. . . you lose.

I'll admit the Bible has some historical accuracy, like Jesus really did exist.

Oh but the historical document called the Holy Scriptures say Jesus is the son of God. . . .you lose.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;