• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(W:#941)If Christianity were proven true...

It was spoken about by many people in that time, but the guards were bribed to tell a whole different story, and that was what most people probably heard instead of the truth.
Was it, and who would have bribed the guards and why if such an event proved Jesus to be, in reality a supernatural God being?
Many stories tend to grow in proportion over time, ask any fisherman.
Isn't there something in the Bible claiming that Jesus called his disciples "fishers of men"?
How do you catch fish? If not with a net, usually a more desirable bait results in greatest success, LAD.
 
Um, i thought that was obvious...they did...it's called the Bible...
Eventually, yes, but it seems to not have been so big a news story from the onset of the claimed occurrence.
A very big IF, indeed.
 
Baloney. Your pro-gay theology is a wasteland of nonsense.
"Na huh" isnt an argument...

To reiterate, which you have not refuted:

And they're (some scriptures) still wrong...misinterpretations, mistakes, etc. Doesnt matter 'how many,' the belief is wrong each time...in no way does being gay break God's Word.​
Yes, my consistent posting of God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace are EXACTLY in line with the desires of Satan. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: It's hysterical that you cannot see how ludicrous your post is.​
OTOH, your denial that that IS God's Word is definitely Satan working his black agenda thru you. 😆
 
To reiterate, which you have not refuted:

And they're (some scriptures) still wrong...misinterpretations, mistakes, etc.​
Funny how the ones about gay sex being a sin are the ones you claim are wrong, but the ones on "brotherly love" are right.

So why don't you document for us exactly what's 'wrong' with the scriptures about gay sex being a sin?? Let's see that bad boy.
 
So it is written, therefore must be true?
You haven't done your homework yet to find out? Here's a book by a former atheist who used to mock Christians and Christianity, until he did his homework. Recommend you read it.

Cold Case Christianity.webp
 
What is it about Christianity that would appeal to people to join it? Truly, I'm interested in the selling points, the reasons.

Is it the threat of Hell after death? Or is there something that would truly call to people (that they cant do without being Christian)?
Is the Hell lie used in all of Christianity or just Catholicism?
 
What's wrong with 'free love?' It doesnt break God's Word, so it's not a sin.

If you want to believe all the other crap invented by men of the time, with good intentions or their own agendas...that's up to you. Obviously you've bought into it.

I didnt misunderstand anything. God's Word is His Word. It's the misinterpretations of others, that dont respect or uphold that...that are wrong.

Again...what's wrong with loving others in any manner if they're not harmed? (Remember that minors cannot consent) God didnt make it complicated, His Word is clear. "Men" interpreting His Word often added more...but that's not His Word...it's theirs...whatever their mistakes or agenda.

Please answer my question. The bold, it's the same in both places.

I'm beginning to question if you're truly a Christian as you claim you are? You sound more like a trolling non-believer! :ROFLMAO:
Well - whatever you are - you now know the truth.


I'm busy with my game. Have a nice day, Lursa.
 
Funny how the ones about gay sex being a sin are the ones you claim are wrong, but the ones on "brotherly love" are right.

So why don't you document for us exactly what's 'wrong' with the scriptures about gay sex being a sin?? Let's see that bad boy.
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession about gay sex here. You do realize that a lot of those concepts are much more modern. In fact, if you look at some of the translations of the bible, the implication is 'boy' instread of man, indicating it's a man'boy love thingy, not two consenting adults.

For example, in the 1800's, the german bibles translated leveticus 18:22 is says '“Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.”. Levelituc 19:13 also sayd' young boys. , and Colrth 1 was translated as "“Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”. This was a ocmmon theme for several hundred years. In fact, the Martin Luther translation from 1534 used the word "knabenschander' which literally is 'molester of boys'

Translation is interpretation, and the modern Christian interpretation does not meet the translations that are older translations when it comes to gay sex.
 
You haven't done your homework yet to find out? Here's a book by a former atheist who used to mock Christians and Christianity, until he did his homework. Recommend you read it.

View attachment 67361250
Perhaps you would just present some of what you find in said book that is so convincing.
 
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession about gay sex here. You do realize that a lot of those concepts are much more modern. In fact, if you look at some of the translations of the bible, the implication is 'boy' instread of man, indicating it's a man'boy love thingy, not two consenting adults.

For example, in the 1800's, the german bibles translated leveticus 18:22 is says '“Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.”. Levelituc 19:13 also sayd' young boys. , and Colrth 1 was translated as "“Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”. This was a ocmmon theme for several hundred years. In fact, the Martin Luther translation from 1534 used the word "knabenschander' which literally is 'molester of boys'

Translation is interpretation, and the modern Christian interpretation does not meet the translations that are older translations when it comes to gay sex.
And they are wrong, too...

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

13 Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him; the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0319.htm
 
There seems to be an unhealthy obsession about gay sex here. You do realize that a lot of those concepts are much more modern. In fact, if you look at some of the translations of the bible, the implication is 'boy' instread of man, indicating it's a man'boy love thingy, not two consenting adults.

For example, in the 1800's, the german bibles translated leveticus 18:22 is says '“Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.”. Levelituc 19:13 also sayd' young boys. , and Colrth 1 was translated as "“Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”. This was a ocmmon theme for several hundred years. In fact, the Martin Luther translation from 1534 used the word "knabenschander' which literally is 'molester of boys'

Translation is interpretation, and the modern Christian interpretation does not meet the translations that are older translations when it comes to gay sex.
Ramoss' follies continue.

"Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 both use ' zakar' ( זָכָר ), which means "male". That term is used numerous time in the Hebrew bible - and it does not mean "young boy". See for proof Leviticus 27:3 "And thy estimation shall be of the male [zakar] from twenty years old even unto sixty years old". So Leviticus clearly forbids sleeping with males of any age. (Source - Strong's Concordance)

Similarly, "ἀρσενοκοίτης" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a compound word of "ἄρρην" (male) and "κοίτη" (sleeping place) according to the same source. Again, "ἄρρην"does not mean "young boy". The article's author also should have mentioned Romans 1:27: "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". All instance of 'men' in this sentence are "ἄρρην" in the original Greek."

You're busted.
Perhaps you would just present some of what you find in said book that is so convincing.

Perhaps you shouldn't be lazy and read it.
 
And they are wrong, too...

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

13 Thou shalt not oppress thy neighbour, nor rob him; the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0319.htm
Yes, that's the modern translation. That's the point now isn't it. over the decades, the translations changed. If you look at the original hebrew, it says 'A man shall not lie with a male (Two different words), and it was not the global term for mankind, but a specific for man.

From https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”

This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text.

So why is this particular word “male” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty?

This is not a stretch of the imagination. Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.

These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law.

It is even possible that the term “men with males” was a well understood phrase – perhaps even being idiomatic and axiomatic at the time.
 
Funny how the ones about gay sex being a sin are the ones you claim are wrong, but the ones on "brotherly love" are right.

So why don't you document for us exactly what's 'wrong' with the scriptures about gay sex being a sin?? Let's see that bad boy.
They (the bold) break God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace...that's how.

And as I wrote in other posts, brotherly love includes sexual, familial, friends, consideration towards others including strangers, etc.
 
What's wrong with 'free love?' It doesnt break God's Word, so it's not a sin.

If you want to believe all the other crap invented by men of the time, with good intentions or their own agendas...that's up to you. Obviously you've bought into it.

I didnt misunderstand anything. God's Word is His Word. It's the misinterpretations of others, that dont respect or uphold that...that are wrong.

Again...what's wrong with loving others in any manner if they're not harmed? (Remember that minors cannot consent) God didnt make it complicated, His Word is clear. "Men" interpreting His Word often added more...but that's not His Word...it's theirs...whatever their mistakes or agenda.

Please answer my question.

Above I asked you specifically to answer my question and you ran away AND accused me of not being a Christian (again.)

Look at the question you are afraid to answer and examine inside yourself WHY you cant answer it? Or wont answer it. Why?

I'm beginning to question if you're truly a Christian as you claim you are? You sound more like a trolling non-believer! :ROFLMAO:
Well - whatever you are - you now know the truth.


I'm busy with my game. Have a nice day, Lursa.
I consistently post God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, peace, and forgiveness...and you continually accuse me of not being a Christian. That makes no sense.

Not only that...you deny that that IS God's Word...again...you need to reflect on the falsity in your faith...it's awful and negative...the direct opposite of God's Word.
 
What's wrong with 'free love?' It doesnt break God's Word, so it's not a sin.

If you want to believe all the other crap invented by men of the time, with good intentions or their own agendas...that's up to you. Obviously you've bought into it.

I didnt misunderstand anything. God's Word is His Word. It's the misinterpretations of others, that dont respect or uphold that...that are wrong.

Again...what's wrong with loving others in any manner if they're not harmed? (Remember that minors cannot consent) God didnt make it complicated, His Word is clear. "Men" interpreting His Word often added more...but that's not His Word...it's theirs...whatever their mistakes or agenda.

Please answer my question. The bold, it's the same in both places.
 
They (the bold) break God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace...that's how.
No, you distort God's Word to prop up illicit gay sex sin.

For the record,

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity" - 1 Corinthians 13

And,

"Love does no harm to a neighbor" - Romans 13:10 (Love does no harm to a neighbor, like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful relationship for which there are negative temporal and eternal consequences)

So, nice try but no cigar.
 
They (the bold) break God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace...that's how.

And as I wrote in other posts, brotherly love includes sexual, familial, friends, consideration towards others including strangers, etc.
Satan needs no advocates with "Christians" like you around...
 
Yes, that's the modern translation. That's the point now isn't it. over the decades, the translations changed. If you look at the original hebrew, it says 'A man shall not lie with a male (Two different words), and it was not the global term for mankind, but a specific for man.

From https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/

Listen, sport, ancient historians and others identified homosexual sin as a sin ages before that.

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom." - Professor Thomas Schmidt's
 
Listen, sport, ancient historians and others identified homosexual sin as a sin ages before that.

"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom." - Professor Thomas Schmidt's

Probably, but the evidence shows that homosexuality is not the direct biblical prohibition. And there is a difference between 'sexually promiscuous' and homosexuality. as for 'the order of nature', well, that is also an be pointed to as man/boy relations, as well as Jubilee.

One point, the Statement of twelve patriarchs is second century CE, not BC, and they are pseudo graphical.
 
Funny how the ones about gay sex being a sin are the ones you claim are wrong, but the ones on "brotherly love" are right.

So why don't you document for us exactly what's 'wrong' with the scriptures about gay sex being a sin?? Let's see that bad boy.

You're repeating yourself, and that means you're still wrong. I'll just cut and paste the answer you've seen many times. And you continue to deny that I'm posting God's Word. You are so blinded by dogma that you dont realize this is a complete answer to your request above:

Anything that does not break God's Word of compassion, peace, forgiveness, and brotherly love is not a sin.​
Any scriptures that go against that Word are misinterpretations of fallible men of the times. Some well-intentioned, some with their own agendas, some just mistaken.​

Is the blue text God's Word or not? A real Christian would know. And a good Christian wouldnt lie, deny God, and pretend it's not just to 'win' on the Internet.
 
Satan needs no advocates with "Christians" like you around...
So are you saying that when I post God's Word that I am actually posting Satan's Word?

You must think so, since you deny it when I post God's Word...it seems you're knowledge of Christianity is more lacking than I realized. Most Christians recognize His Word.
 
Probably, but the evidence shows that homosexuality is not the direct biblical prohibition. And there is a difference between 'sexually promiscuous' and homosexuality. as for 'the order of nature', well, that is also an be pointed to as man/boy relations, as well as Jubilee.

One point, the Statement of twelve patriarchs is second century CE, not BC, and they are pseudo graphical.
The Lake of Fire awaits the sexually immoral (Revelation 21:8). And that includes illicit gay sex (see scriptures previously provided).
 
The Lake of Fire awaits the sexually immoral (Revelation 21:8). And that includes illicit gay sex (see scriptures previously provided).
Revelation is of course pure fiction, and you have to make assumptions about 'sexually immoral', saying that it include homosexuality in reading into the text, not from the text.
 
Back
Top Bottom