# Serious question,



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

Touchy subject and I mean no disrespect towards anyone's way of life. What is the Bible's/God's views of homosexuals? If their acts are considered a sin, why create them KNOWING that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

From what I learned in the first 20 years of my life it is wrong and a sin. 

I work with several people that have the lifestyle. I have worked with some that I detest for their daily actions. Several that I am around frequently still are perfectly moral people (other than that, if you consider it immoral). I don't mind socializing with them. I don't mind my daughter around them. They aren't best friends of mine, not for that reason.

A likely response might be that homosexuality is created by man's free will. God gave us all free will to create whatever sins we wanted. 

Might I extend this thread further? If he created free will and sins are because of free will, then why was man created perfectly to begin with and sin didn't occur until man ate from the wrong tree? Is there a disconnect there?


----------



## VisionCasting (Jun 23, 2011)

That's a good, and a common question, but you need to widen the audience a little. 

According to the Bible, God's view of all mankind, without regard to sexual preference, is that they are sinners, and therefore separated from a relationship with Him, the Holy God.  The Bible teaches that it's only through faith in Christ that any man is reconciled to God.

Gay or not, lifestyle decision or born that way, celibate from birth, whatever.  It's ultimately irrelevant without Christ.  

That's the Biblical take on God's disposition as I discern it.  

IMHO, Christians spend too much time majoring in the minors on this topic.  

Hope it helps.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

People have either mistranslated deliberately or misunderstood various injunctions about only being with a woman in a woman's bed, not being a male temple prostitute, etc. to mean that homosexuality as we understand it in the modern day to be wrong.

In fact, one of the biggest "bashing" verses uses two words - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITES - the former means "temple prostitute" and the latter is of unknown meaning. It's only known use is in two places - in the Bible in that verse, and also by a Greek Bishop some times later complaining that men committed that sin with their wives.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If their acts are considered a sin, why create them KNOWING that?



He didn't create people sinful.  He created people with free will.  Some people used that free will to choose the sin of homosexuality.  Others used it to choose other sins.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Centerpin, when did you choose to be straight?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> People have either mistranslated deliberately or misunderstood various injunctions about only being with a woman in a woman's bed, not being a male temple prostitute, etc. to mean that homosexuality as we understand it in the modern day to be wrong.
> 
> In fact, one of the biggest "bashing" verses uses two words - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITES - the former means "temple prostitute" and the latter is of unknown meaning. It's only known use is in two places - in the Bible in that verse, and also by a Greek Bishop some times later complaining that men committed that sin with their wives.



So specifically stated here, the bible has apparent mistranslations.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> So specifically stated here, the bible has apparent mistranslations.



Is it really a newsflash that people have been using the Bible to their own ends?

You're right that if the Bible is read the way some people read it, then God creates things a certain way just to destroy them.

Some have decided therefore that in the face of any and all empirical evidence to the contrary, that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", something people decide (note that they never consider choosing to be straight. Ever.) and therefore that it is a deliberately chosen sin.

OR

They read the Bible in its original language and realise "wait a second, not quite".

In the case of the word ARSENOKOITES, it's got no meaning outside of two people using it. And it isn't as if Greek didn't have tons of terms for gayness. People have shied away saying "well, Paul wasn't a Greek, he was searching for the word in question". The word itself means "SOFT BEDS". How that has anything to do with "man and other man" is beyond me.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 23, 2011)

So what do you think god's intent was for those kinds of things making it to the bible?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Might I extend this thread further? If he created free will and sins are because of free will, then why was man created perfectly to begin with and sin didn't occur until man ate from the wrong tree? Is there a disconnect there?



Along the same lines, if the reason people sin is because God gave them free will and there will be no sin in heaven what does that say about free will in heaven?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Centerpin, when did you choose to be straight?



I've never thought about it this way, but it does seem to be a good point. I definitely have the internal attraction to the opposite gender, but I do make the choice to pursue it. 

For me it's definitely not a choice at all for me not to pursue guys. So it may be better to argue that. It's kind of a choice to be straight, it's definitely not a choice that I'm not homosexual. I'm just not to begin with.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Centerpin, when did you choose to be straight?



Right after watching this:



Hat tip to pnome who came up with this first.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Touchy subject and I mean no disrespect towards anyone's way of life.
> 
> What is the Bible's/God's views of homosexuals?
> God says that man was created for the woman and the woman was created for man and if a man has sexual relations with another man it is an abomination.  People living in that sin cannot enter into God's kingdom.
> ...





I shouldn't lie; I shouldn't murder; I shouldn't sleep with my neighbor's wife; and I should not have sex with another man.

There are things involved in the subject that confuse me.  Things I don't quite understand.  Are homosexuals born that way?  Did they indeed not have a choice?
But ultimately, God's command and God's will trumps what anyone else thinks is right or wrong.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I've never thought about it this way, but it does seem to be a good point. I definitely have the internal attraction to the opposite gender, but I do make the choice to pursue it.
> 
> For me it's definitely not a choice at all for me not to pursue guys. So it may be better to argue that. It's kind of a choice to be straight, it's definitely not a choice that I'm not homosexual. I'm just not to begin with.



Right.
So let's look at what actions are prohibited in the Bible.

1) Don't lie in the bed of a woman with another man (Leviticus). Sometimes translated as "as with a woman". 
Look at the rest of Leviticus - only plant grapes with grapes, wheat with wheat, etc. Don't put an ox and another animal in the same yoke, etc. No two dissimilar theads in the same cloth.

2) Don't be a temple prostitute. In the OT this is explicit for women and men - in the NT for men.


Doesn't sound to me like there's anything else there.

Now, some people might pull up Romans, but you need to read the context there. People started worshipping a pagan fertility worship, not God - that whole "temple prostitution" again. So God CORRUPTS their ritual by turning them on themselves not the opposite gender.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Right after watching this:
> 
> 
> 
> Hat tip to pnome who came up with this first.



Oh, so if you'd seen an attractive man in a similar scene first, you'd have been gay?

Or was it that you're straight, so when you saw that you reacted to it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Now, some people might pull up Romans, but you need to read the context there. People started worshipping a pagan fertility worship, not God - that whole "temple prostitution" again. So God CORRUPTS their ritual by turning them on themselves not the opposite gender.



There is nothing in the context of Romans 1 that even remotely suggests that.  This is just another example of people trying to explain away a completely unambiguous passage of scripture.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I shouldn't lie; I shouldn't murder; I shouldn't sleep with my neighbor's wife; and I should have sex with another man.
> 
> There are things involved in the subject that confuse me.  Things I don't quite understand.  Are homosexuals born that way?  Did they indeed not have a choice?
> But ultimately, God's command and God's will trumps what anyone else thinks is right or wrong.



Now that's a funny typo! It _is_ a typo isn't it Ronnie???


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Oh, so if you'd seen an attractive man in a similar scene first, you'd have been gay?
> 
> Or was it that you're straight, so when you saw that you reacted to it.



No, that's one sin I'm not tempted by at all.  

What about you?  Are you defending homosexuality because you are a homosexual?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There is nothing in the context of Romans 1 that even remotely suggests that.  This is just another example of people trying to explain away a completely unambiguous passage of scripture.



You're absolutely correct, it IS unambiguous.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

This is a reference to pagan fertility worship.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Now that's a funny typo! It _is_ a typo isn't it Ronnie???



Very similar to the first edition of the King James Bible where it said, "thou shalt commit adultery".


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, that's one sin I'm not tempted by at all.
> 
> What about you?  Are you defending homosexuality because you are a homosexual?



Ah yes, the old "if you don't hate these people like I do you must be a queer" routine. Was wondering when someone would bring that up.

"God hates gays" is not in the Bible.  No matter how much people wish it was there, put it there, think it's there.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You're absolutely correct, it IS unambiguous.
> 
> For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
> 
> This is a reference to pagan fertility worship.



No, this is eisegesis:  reading your interpretation into the passage.  

Why don't you post the rest of the chapter?  Also, why don't you list all the verses in the Bible that portray homosexuality in a positive light?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Ah yes, the old "if you don't hate these people like I do you must be a queer" routine. Was wondering when someone would bring that up.
> 
> "God hates gays" is not in the Bible.  No matter how much people wish it was there, put it there, think it's there.



Your defensiveness tells me you are gay which explains your opinion on scripture like Romans 1.  BTW, I don't hate gays, and neither does God.  That's a common slander thrown against Christians:  attack the messenger rather than the message.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> "God hates gays" is not in the Bible.  No matter how much people wish it was there, put it there, think it's there.



... but God does hate sin, and homosexuality is condemned repeatedly as sin.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, this is eisegesis:  reading your interpretation into the passage.
> 
> Why don't you post the rest of the chapter?  Also, why don't you list all the verses in the Bible that portray homosexuality in a positive light?



The question was asked "what does the Bible say about this". And I answered it.

As for "eisegesis" I'm pointing out there is a context. God corrupted these people because of their turning away from him - and exacted a penalty causing them to "corrupt" each other.  There's no mention of what these acts resulting from this corruption actually were. Though I am a man, it is entirely possible for me to "corrupt" myself with a woman, but that is no blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.

There are no verses in the Bible condemning someone for being gay.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but God does hate sin, and homosexuality is condemned repeatedly as sin.



No it isn't.

Your translation says that, sure.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> The question was asked "what does the Bible say about this". And I answered it.
> 
> As for "eisegesis" I'm pointing out there is a context. God corrupted these people because of their turning away from him - and exacted a penalty causing them to "corrupt" each other.  There's no mention of what these acts resulting from this corruption actually were. Though I am a man, it is entirely possible for me to "corrupt" myself with a woman, but that is no blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.
> 
> There are no verses in the Bible condemning someone for being gay.



This is pure sophistry.

I noticed in a "Christianity & Judaism" thread that you joined a church in NYC (and I guess you're going to a similar church here in GA.)  What is that churches stand on homosexuality?  What's the denomination?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> Your translation says that, sure.



OK, you pick the translation and show me the verses that portray homosexuality in a positive light?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, you pick the translation and show me the verses that portray homosexuality in a positive light?



No, sir. You made an assertion that the Bible claims blanketly that being gay is a sin.

please source that. And be aware that I reserve the right to back to the original language and point out that that's NOT what the original language says - which is something different from a "different interpretation".

Just because a King James translator had no idea what "soft beds" means and chose "homosexual" as a translation doesn't mean that's what was intended.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> This is pure sophistry.
> 
> I noticed in a "Christianity & Judaism" thread that you joined a church in NYC (and I guess you're going to a similar church here in GA.)  What is that churches stand on homosexuality?  What's the denomination?



I happen to be Episcopalian, which is notorious for generally being accepting of and ministering to all people. That whole WWJD thing.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

So let's see, you've tried suggesting that I might be homosexual myself (an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy)

then you suggested I'm putting my own interpretation into things

now you're trying to see what denomination I am, so you can probably argue some other strawman thing.

How about this? If you're going to say a statement like "the Bible says XYZ" go find the relevant quote, rather than saying "no, I can't so go find where God says it's OK"


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> No, sir. You made an assertion that the Bible claims blanketly that being gay is a sin.



That's OK.  I wasn't expecting you to actually answer that.




Greaserbilly said:


> please source that. And be aware that I reserve the right to back to the original language and point out that that's NOT what the original language says - which is something different from a "different interpretation".
> 
> Just because a King James translator had no idea what "soft beds" means and chose "homosexual" as a translation doesn't mean that's what was intended.



First, I don't use the KJV.  Second, if the original languages say what you say they mean, it should be easy to find a modern translation with loads of pro-homosexuality verses.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> So let's see, you've tried suggesting that I might be homosexual myself (an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy)



No, I just asked the question that you still won't answer ... directly.




Greaserbilly said:


> then you suggested I'm putting my own interpretation into things



Yep.




Greaserbilly said:


> now you're trying to see what denomination I am, so you can probably argue some other strawman thing.



Just wanted to see if they agreed with your interpretation.




Greaserbilly said:


> How about this? If you're going to say a statement like "the Bible says XYZ" go find the relevant quote, rather than saying "no, I can't so go find where God says it's OK"



You can't find where God says it's OK because it's not in there.  When I mentioned specific passages like Romans 1, you use sophistry (I chose that word carefully) to explain away the clear meaning.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's OK.  I wasn't expecting you to actually answer that.



Nor was I expecting you to source and reference your blanket statement. I get it. You hate gays. That's your right and go to it.



> First, I don't use the KJV.  Second, if the original languages say what you say they mean, it should be easy to find a modern translation with loads of pro-homosexuality verses.



There are no verses that tell you to go be gay, no. But there are no verses saying that it's a sin to be so.

Now, there are some stories which suggest pro-homosexuality.

That one where David and Jonathon take all their clothes off and kiss and hug until one of them "exceeded".

The one where a Centurion approaches Jesus asking him to heal his slave. The word used is "pais", from which we get the word "pederasty". No prizes for guessing what a pais was. Not only did Jesus not condemn the Centurion, he healed the man's "servant".

And then there was the eunuch who was African who was baptized... some people have read more into this story than is there, but it's interesting to note that the early Church still had its opinions about people who were dark skinned and those who were eunuchs... and Philip baptized him anyway. I include this because it's noteworthy that the Apostles were inclusive.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I happen to be Episcopalian, which is notorious for generally being accepting of and ministering to all people. That whole WWJD thing.



After telling the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you",  Jesus told her to "Go and sin no more."  You should find a church who will do the same for you.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, I just asked the question that you still won't answer ... directly.



Not that it matters, but no, I am not a homosexual.



> You can't find where God says it's OK because it's not in there.  When I mentioned specific passages like Romans 1, you use sophistry (I chose that word carefully) to explain away the clear meaning.



You're refusing to see the context. You're hung up on the same gender thing. But that's okay.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> When on becoming straight?? How bout it just is not natural to be with a man??



Au contraire, same-sex behaviour is seen in many species. It is, in fact, natural.



> Gods intention for man and woman was to multiply. Two men, or two women cant do that, even in a lab..........



So people who can't have kids shouldn't have sex?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You hate gays.



Nope, not in the least.  Their sin is no worse than any of mine.  But there's not a small industry devoted to telling me my sin is not sin, as there is with homosexuality.




Greaserbilly said:


> There are no verses that tell you to go be gay, no. But there are no verses saying that it's a sin to be so.



There are but you ignore them, like Romans 1.




Greaserbilly said:


> Now, there are some stories which suggest pro-homosexuality.
> 
> That one where David and Jonathon take all their clothes off and kiss and hug until one of them "exceeded".
> 
> ...



Oh, please.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Its ok to minister to all people. Thats what Jesus would do. But you cant have the "if you cant beat em join em" attitude..........................
> 
> Are you preaching to them to go and sin no more..................or patting them on the back and say keep it up?



I don't want anyone to sin.
That includes judging others.

That being said, I have never found one verse commanding one not to be gay. I've found some translated that way, and I've found people take things out of context to make it look that way.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> So people who can't have kids shouldn't have sex?



Better not use contraception either...


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Oh, please.



You STILL haven't found a verse saying it's a sin to be gay.

So until you do, stop pretending you have the moral high ground and can just "roll your eyes".

The original poster asked me what the Bible said. I answered.

You've done nothing but suggest I'm gay myself and insult my church, for the record.

Tell you what, why don't you write a similar answer to the OT's question, if you disagree with mine?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You're refusing to see the context. You're hung up on the same gender thing. But that's okay.



Stand on a street corner and pass out Bibles to the first hundred people that walk by.  I guarantee that none of them will come of with the interpretation of Romans 1 that you have.

If that's too much trouble, just read church history and try to find anyone who agrees with your interpretation.  I'll save you some time:  you won't find anybody.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Spend some time reading. Leave the internet out if it. Pick up a Bible



Read mine cover to cover, multiple times. Have a Greek and Hebrew concordance. 

Ever read yours?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Stand on a street corner and pass out Bibles to the first hundred people that walk by.  I guarantee that none of them will come of with the interpretation of Romans 1 that you have.
> 
> If that's too much trouble, just read church history and try to find anyone who agrees with your interpretation.  I'll save you some time:  you won't find anybody.



Stand on a street corner and talk about two guys being buck nekked and hugging and kissing each other, with a "love that surpasses all women", and see if they don't suggest the two were gay. Just sayin'.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You STILL haven't found a verse saying it's a sin to be gay.



I once read that if a man is absolutely convinced he's Napoleon, there's really nothing you can possible say to dissuade him.  I think we've reached that point, monsieur.  Watch out for that Wellington guy.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I once read that if a man is absolutely convinced he's Napoleon, there's really nothing you can possible say to dissuade him.  I think we've reached that point, monsieur.  Watch out for that Wellington guy.



TRANSLATION: "I can't find a verse that says that, so I'll just insult you".

It's all good. Used to it. When you do find a verse that says don't be gay, come find me.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 23, 2011)

http://carm.org/homosexuality


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> http://carm.org/homosexuality



Lev. 18:22 - The original Hebrew says "in the bed of a", not "as with a". Guess you didn't read the earlier part of the thread. Ditto the rest of Leviticus.

By the way, eating shrimp, cutting your beard etc. are not permissible in the same book. Never seen anyone beaten up for going to Red Lobster.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, - MALAKOI refers to a temple prostitute, and ARSENOKOITAI is a word whose meaning we don't know. The first is a mistranslation, the second is conjecture.

As for Romans, that's a longer topic.

As I've said, believe what you wish.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Well ask for understanding of what you read then.



Right because anyone who doesn't share your view of scripture obviously lacks understanding. Just a bit condescending aren't we?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> TRANSLATION: "I can't find a verse that says that, so I'll just insult you".



No, I just used an analogy to show that your mind is made up.




Greaserbilly said:


> When you do find a verse that says don't be gay, come find me.



I can find plenty, but scripture bounces off you like bullets off Superman.  You're welcome to explain away 1 Cor. 6:9-11 or Gal. 5:19-20.  Both passages condemn all forms of sexual sins.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Did you skip over 1st Corinthians 6: 8-10 ...



He'll be explaining that away momentarily.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

I realise that my views, readings and interpretations differ from others. This has been true since the dawn of time.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I realise that my views, readings and interpretations differ from others. This has been true since the dawn of time.



I actually agree with that.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Did you skip over 1st Corinthians 6: 8-10 when you read your translations from cover to cover? Or is this one of those that is later injected or mistranslated into the Bible?



I have referred to this three times, if I remember.
Those verses say don't be a temple prostitute (MALAKOI) or commit some unspecified sin that a later bishop complained men committed with their wives (ARSENOKOITAI) - a word of unknown origin and unknown meaning but whose roots mean "soft beds" in Greek.

Those two words have been translated any of a number of ways, but MALAKOI has a clear meaning.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> You just realized you havnt read 1st Corinthians have you



Not only in English but in the original Greek


Anyway, we now have the liberal intepretation and the conservative one, anything else is flogging a dead horse.

Unless you wish to continue insulting me personally or my church.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Really?? Are you sure??



Um, YES.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Those verses say don't be a temple prostitute (MALAKOI) ...



Then why isn't there an English translation that translates the word as "temple prostitute"?  Whenever I hear, "What the passage really says is ... ", I say "Fine.  Show me a translation that agrees with you."


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaser,

In Genesis, chapter 2, will you please tell me the story?  I don't think anyone has addressed this yet.  If so, please forgive me.

The ONLY thing in creation that was found to be "not good" was that Adam was alone.

He created a helper fit for him.  Who was that and what gender was that person?

Then please read to me and give me your interpretation of this passage.

_	[23] Then the man said,
 	“This at last is bone of my bones
		and flesh of my flesh;
	she shall be called Woman,
		because she was taken out of Man.”
 	[24] Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

(Genesis 2:23-24 ESV)_


I'm curious how you view this (particularly the last part...vs 24) in the context of "God is ok with homosexuality".


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Then why isn't there an English translation that translates the word as "temple prostitute"?  Whenever I hear, "What the passage really says is ... ", I say "Fine.  Show me a translation that agrees with you."



That's a very good and very valid question.
I'll ask about that one.

I actually don't have an answer for that. All I can tell you is what MALAKOI means. I'd suggest that given the entrenched homophobia in various churches, it'd be a difficult thing to try and sell. But I don't know for sure.

Like as what I said, I'm not challenging what you understand or don't in the Bible. I don't happen to agree with you, is all.

How about this: in the King James and other translations of the Bible, there are verses that having been translated that way lead most to believe that being gay is a sin.

That's something I can 100% agree on.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Greaser,
> 
> In Genesis, chapter 2, will you please tell me the story?
> 
> ...



It refers to how heterosexuals are to live. It's why I'm married and don't cheat.

I don't see it as saying anything about being gay either way.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> That one you will have to prove
> 
> Im sorry you and your church are so insecure about a subject you so strongly approve of




Not insecure about anything. I'm just saying if your response is "well find a real church" then I'll take the comment as how it was meant.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> It refers to how heterosexuals are to live. It's why I'm married and don't cheat.
> 
> I don't see it as saying anything about being gay either way.



Would you agree that God made Adam and Eve and all of creation at that point....before the fall?

Would you agree that there was no homosexuality before the fall?

Would you agree that creation before the fall was "good" when it was finished?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> How about this: in the King James and other translations of the Bible, there are verses that having been translated that way lead most to believe that being gay is a sin.
> 
> That's something I can 100% agree on.



I would also agree with that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Touchy subject and I mean no disrespect towards anyone's way of life. What is the Bible's/God's views of homosexuals? If their acts are considered a sin, why create them KNOWING that?



To get to the OP's question.

See my post above.  There was no homosexuality in creation.  It did not appear until after the fall.  God created man and saw that it was "not good" that he should be alone.  So he created woman and the two shall become one flesh.

By definition, homosexuality is a product of the fall.  It did not exist until after.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> To get to the OP's question.
> 
> See my post above.  There was no homosexuality in creation.  It did not appear until after the fall.  God created man and saw that it was "not good" that he should be alone.  So he created woman and the two shall become one flesh.
> 
> By definition, homosexuality is a product of the fall.  It did not exist until after.



An interesting theory. I wonder how the other animals reproduced until the idea of females were brought about.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> "IF" is a big word. Dont jump the creek until the bridge is out.I have made no such response.



Wasn't referring to a statement you made.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> An interesting theory. I wonder how the other animals reproduced until the idea of females were brought about.



You're so dismissive of mainstream theology, yet you bristle when others do the same to you.  Why is that?

Address my three questions from above please.



> Would you agree that God made Adam and Eve and all of creation at that point....before the fall?
> 
> Would you agree that there was no homosexuality before the fall?
> 
> Would you agree that creation before the fall was "good" when it was finished?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You're so dismissive of mainstream theology, yet you bristle when others do the same to you.  Why is that?
> 
> Address my three questions from above please.



I happen to believe that Genesis, containing the same story repeated twice but with different orders - to be an illustrative folk tale and not fact.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> An interesting theory. I wonder how the other animals reproduced until the idea of females were brought about.



God created the birds of the air, the beasts of the field and fish of the sea.  Please note the plural nature of those descriptions.

He created ONE male human.  Adam...and it was not good that he should be alone.  So he created ONE female human for him.

Excellent dodge though.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I happen to believe that Genesis, containing the same story repeated twice but with different orders - to be an illustrative folk tale and not fact.



A convenient belief when you can't get it to line up with how you interpret other passages, don't you think?

So then, you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrent Word of God, correct?

Which parts, exactly do you believe to be fact?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

> Would you agree that God made Adam and Eve and all of creation at that point....before the fall?



Yes.



> Would you agree that there was no homosexuality before the fall?



That's conjecture, so no I can't agree on that.



> Would you agree that creation before the fall was "good" when it was finished?



Not entirely good. Keep in mind there was an "enemy" working in the garden, one that ended up making a snake, etc.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> God created the birds of the air, the beasts of the field and fish of the sea.  Please note the plural nature of those descriptions.
> 
> He created ONE male human.  Adam...and it was not good that he should be alone.  So he created ONE female human for him.
> 
> Excellent dodge though.



Just wondering why the creation of a female human had to be from the male human, with all the drama and such, when the rest of the animal kingdom had that happen male/female ex nihilo.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> A convenient belief when you can't get it to line up with how you interpret other passages, don't you think?
> 
> So then, you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrent Word of God, correct?
> 
> Which parts, exactly do you believe to be fact?



No, I don't believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. I believe that it is God-inspired, and good for people to learn from, and study. I believe it contains all that is needed for salvation.

I agree with what this gentleman says. I realise that I am not in the majority with this view. 

http://goodfaithandthecommongood.blogspot.com/2010/10/inspiration-how-does-bible-interpret.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I agree with what this gentleman says. I realise that I am not in the majority with this view.
> 
> http://goodfaithandthecommongood.blogspot.com/2010/10/inspiration-how-does-bible-interpret.html



Side issue:  that guy's name is Candler.  Does he have any ties to the Candler School of Theology or is that just a coincidence?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Side issue:  that guy's name is Candler.  Does he have any ties to the Candler School of Theology or is that just a coincidence?



I have no idea. I shall ask him.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

See where I'm going with this though?

The Bible doesn't actually say being gay is bad or sinful.
It says certain acts in certain contexts are.

And other people are trying heroic and herculean arguments about the Garden of Eden and the man and the woman and therefore because it never says anything about Adam and Steve, that omission is basically a glaring "and therefore being homosexual is sinful".

Now, that being said, centerpin, I have no idea why the mistranslation persists. I do know that priest candidates in many denominations are required to read the Bible in the original languages because simply reading the KJV isn't enough, and that there are things that have double meanings, multiple meanings, or meanings that aren't quite what we've done with it in English.


----------



## CAL (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You STILL haven't found a verse saying it's a sin to be gay.
> 
> So until you do, stop pretending you have the moral high ground and can just "roll your eyes".
> 
> ...



! Timothy1 9-11
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Now, that being said, centerpin, I have no idea why the mistranslation persists. I do know that priest candidates in many denominations are required to read the Bible in the original languages because simply reading the KJV isn't enough, and that there are things that have double meanings, multiple meanings, or meanings that aren't quite what we've done with it in English.



I think the question is, "Is it a mistranslation?".  I took a quick look at several popular English translations, and it seems like MALAKOI is generally translated as "effeminate" while ARSENOKOITAI is usually translated as "homosexual" or "sodomite".

Here are the versions I looked at:

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. NIV

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. NKJV

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. NASB

 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 
 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. KJV

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous* will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ESV

9Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 
10Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. DR (Douay-Rheims)

 9have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither *****mongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, 
 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. YLT (Young's Literal Translation)*


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Malakoi does mean "effeminate" in some senses, but not in the way you'd understand it, meaning acting girly or stereotypically "fairy". It meant to be not brave, or cowardly, and had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

This is from Wikipedia, and not me.

"Bible

The only instance of the word in the gospels is in Matthew and Luke, who use malakos to refer to expensive clothing, in contrast to the attire of John the Baptist. "No, those who wear fine ("malakos") clothes are in kings' palaces." Matthew 11:8, Luke 7:25 NIV
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians uses malakos in the plural: the King James version has it as "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor sodomities, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) Newer versions, like the New International version and the even more recent International Standard, however, replace "effeminate" with the more specific "male prostitute", reflecting a different understanding of how the term was used by Paul."

So whereas some people think the term refers to some kind of "nelly queen", that's not really what was meant by it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Malakoi does mean "effeminate" in some senses, but not in the way you'd understand it, meaning acting girly or stereotypically "fairy". It meant to be not brave, or cowardly, and had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
> 
> This is from Wikipedia, and not me.
> 
> ...



The context makes it clear that it's a sexual sin but, for the sake of argument, let's say you're correct about MALAKOI, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality.  I don't think you can say the same thing about ARSENOKOITAI.  There's almost no variation in the different translations:  homosexual, sodomite, and even "men who have sex with men".  That's pretty plain.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There's almost no variation in the different translations:  homosexual, sodomite, and even "men who have sex with men".  That's pretty plain.



There's only one problem with that, though.
The Bible is only ONE of TWO places that word is used.
That word is NEVER used anywhere else. We have no contemporaneous extant translation in any other language.

It's not as if Greek doesn't have the word to describe homosexuality - it was widely practiced. 

The only other use, and I'll have to look at my notes tonight, was by a Greek bishop a few years later, referencing that verse and warning that men were committing ARSENOKOITES with their wives. 

The word itself derives from "soft beds".  Before you decide for sure what that means, the Greek had MANY kinds of words for any of the kind of acts you might be thinking of.

The translation of that word is absolute, utter and pure CONJECTURE.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> The word itself derives from "soft beds".



I think you're confusing MALAKOI with ARSENOKOITAI.  Look at this Greek interlinear.  MALAKOI is literally translated as "soft ones" and ARSENOKOITAI is literally translated as "sodomites".

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co6.pdf




Greaserbilly said:


> The translation of that word is absolute, utter and pure CONJECTURE.



If true, then the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc. all "conjectured" exactly the same.  Do you really want to say that none of those translation teams got it right?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I think you're confusing MALAKOI with ARSENOKOITAI.  Look at this Greek interlinear.  MALAKOI is literally translated as "soft ones" and ARSENOKOITAI is literally translated as "sodomites".
> 
> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co6.pdf



Very possibly. However, the principle works out to be the same.



> If true, then the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc. all "conjectured" exactly the same.  Do you really want to say that none of those translation teams got it right?



No, I'm saying they all guessed the same way, based on the tradition of how it had been previously been translated.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Now that's a funny typo! It _is_ a typo isn't it Ronnie???



Oops! yes it was.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Very possibly. However, the principle works out to be the same.



I don't want to belabor the point, but you take issue with the Greek interlinear as well?  You think it incorrectly uses the word "sodomite"?




Greaserbilly said:


> No, I'm saying they all guessed the same way, based on the tradition of how it had been previously been translated.



Two points here:

1)  I'm saying they didn't "guess".  If I did the translation, it would be a guess.  The translators, however, are all experts in the Greek language.  They read koine Greek like you and I read the sports page.  They used "sodomite" or "homosexual" because they all believed that was the correct translation.

2)  "... based on the tradition of how it had been previously been translated"?  Wait a minute.  You just said there is no tradition for that word:



Greaserbilly said:


> The Bible is only ONE of TWO places that word is used.
> That word is NEVER used anywhere else. We have no contemporaneous extant translation in any other language.



How could they base their translation on tradition that doesn't exist?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't want to belabor the point, but you take issue with the Greek interlinear as well?  You think it incorrectly uses the word "sodomite"?"



Yes. Absolutely. This is what I am trying to say. The decision to translate that word that way is not backed, linguistically or otherwise, by anything other than the tradition of having translated that many years ago.

It's "soft beds". How do you get "sodomite" from that? The Greeks had MANY words for that concept. Why didn't Paul use ANY of them?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> It's "soft beds". How do you get "sodomite" from that? The Greeks had MANY words for that concept. Why didn't Paul use ANY of them?



It's not "soft beds".  Did you look at the interlinear?  "Soft ones" is shown directly underneath MALAKOI and "sodomites" is shown directly underneath ARSENOKOITAI.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Yes. Absolutely. This is what I am trying to say. The decision to translate that word that way is not backed, linguistically or otherwise, by anything other than the tradition of having translated that many years ago.



Here is how the Greek lexicon defines it:

"one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual" 

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=733

So, on one side of the argument, we have the Greek lexicon, the Greek interlinear, and Greek translators of every major translation.

On the other side, there is you and various gay Christian sites who obviously have an agenda.  Do you really feel comfortable coming down on that side of the argument?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Thats like being just a little bit pregnant right?? It cant be in the middle, either it is or it isnt...........
> 
> 
> For the record, the Bible doesnt actually say the word "Rapture" either, buts its meaning is there......................



Being heterosexual is an orientation.
Sleeping with someone else's spouse is a specific act in specific circumstances.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Here is how the Greek lexicon defines it:
> 
> "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual"
> 
> ...



Of course both sides of the coin have an agenda.
I'll never deny that.

What I am saying is that you have a word that's been coined by someone. Not one with an understood meaning.

Gah. I gotta get my lexicography references back - I realise that the first few searches come back with some activist sites, but there is some scholarship that's independent behind this as well.

I'll get back to you.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 23, 2011)

1 Corinthians 6:9
 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

"Homosexual" in the above verse, from the Greek.......

<< 732 733. arsenokoites 733a >> 
--------
a sodomite
Original Word: á¼€Ï�ÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿ÎºÎ¿Î¯Ï„Î·Ï‚, Î¿Ï…, á½�
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: arsenokoites
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace)
Short Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.

 733 arsenokoítÄ“s (from 730 /árrhÄ“n, "a male" and 2845 /koítÄ“, "a mat, bed") â€“ properly, a man in bed with another man; a homosexual.

homosexual
From arrhen and koite; a sodomite -- abuser of (that defile) self with mankind. 
see GREEK arrhen 
see GREEK koite 
á¼€Ï�ÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿ÎºÎ¿á¿–Ï„Î±Î¹ (arsenokoitai) âˆ’ 1 Occurrence
á¼€Ï�ÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿ÎºÎ¿Î¯Ï„Î±Î¹Ï‚ (arsenokoitais) âˆ’ 1 Occurrence
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Lexicon:

homosexuals, á¼€Ï�ÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿ÎºÎ¿á¿–Ï„Î±Î¹ arsenokoitai 733a a sodomite from arsén and koité 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Biblically, homosexuality is a man having sexual relations with another man.  Plain and simple.  Plain and simple.

To do it once is a sin that needs to be forgiven.
To accept that sin, and be comfortable in that sin, with no intent to repent of that sin, according to God's word, will cause a person not to inherit the kingdom of God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Right.
> So let's look at what actions are prohibited in the Bible.
> 
> 1) Don't lie in the bed of a woman with another man (Leviticus). Sometimes translated as "as with a woman".
> ...



Deuteronomy 23:17
No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.

I find several things interesting about this verse;  

The majority of the other verses surrounding this verse make blanket statements for everyone but this one specifies Israelite man or woman and does not condemn all people for being temple prostitutes.  

It does not condemn to act of an Israelite "utilizing" the services of a temple prostitute.

It does not condemn Israelites for the act of providing temple prostitutes in Israelite temples. 

It could easily be inferred that homosexual acts inside the temple were permitted as long as the temple prostitute was not an Israelite.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 23, 2011)

> Quote:
> Would you agree that God made Adam and Eve and all of creation at that point....before the fall?
> 
> Yes.
> ...



There were two people in the Garden.  You believe there were more?  Otherwise, it's most certainly not conjecture.

So, let me get this straight....God SAID it was good in Genesis.  Yet you are so bold as to tell me that it was, in fact, NOT entirely good?  As you continue to post, you continue to reveal flaws in theology and doctrine my friend.

You're all over the map.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> There were two people in the Garden.  You believe there were more?  Otherwise, it's most certainly not conjecture.
> 
> So, let me get this straight....God SAID it was good in Genesis.  Yet you are so bold as to tell me that it was, in fact, NOT entirely good?  As you continue to post, you continue to reveal flaws in theology and doctrine my friend.
> 
> You're all over the map.



So wait, was the snake NOT in the Garden?

Maybe you can help me with this then, and I'm genuine about this:

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?"

WHEN did the 'enemy' sow tares amongst the wheat? I was thinking the serpent?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Being heterosexual is an orientation.
> Sleeping with someone else's spouse is a specific act in specific circumstances.



"Biblically" speaking, sleeping with someone elses wife is adultry, not homosexual, heterosexual etc.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> "Biblically" speaking, sleeping with someone elses wife is adultry, not homosexual, heterosexual etc.



That's correct. 

And saying "don't lie down with a man in the bed of a woman" is a condemnation of a specific act, not a blanket condemnation of men liking other men a certain way.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> That's a good, and a common question, but you need to widen the audience a little.
> 
> According to the Bible, God's view of all mankind, without regard to sexual preference, is that they are sinners, and therefore separated from a relationship with Him, the Holy God.  The Bible teaches that it's only through faith in Christ that any man is reconciled to God.
> 
> ...



Well put. Thanks


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well put. Thanks



However, the view of many that gays are a "special case" that deserve to be kicked around and such keep many of them from the inside of a church.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> He didn't create people sinful.  He created people with free will.  Some people used that free will to choose the sin of homosexuality.  Others used it to choose other sins.



I don't think homosexuality is a choice. I think people are born with those feelings and do not exercise free will for feelings already inside of them. Kind of like saying it is a sin because you like girls. I doubt you thought about liking guys but chose girls because you wanted to please god.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I don't think homosexuality is a choice.



That's where we disagree.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's where we disagree.



So, center, when did you choose to be straight?
You didn't. You were wired that way.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> God created the birds of the air, the beasts of the field and fish of the sea.  Please note the plural nature of those descriptions.
> 
> He created ONE male human.  Adam...and it was not good that he should be alone.  So he created ONE female human for him.
> 
> Excellent dodge though.



Mmmmmm, and they had kids and their kids had kids, but with who if there are only one man and one woman and they had boys?

But I guess if it was after the "fall" it is all good, no problem hooking up with mom then.

Possibly another subject for another post....


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> So, center, when did you choose to be straight?
> You didn't. You were wired that way.



Everybody is wired that way, but some choose another way.  As it says in Romans 1, they "exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones".


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly,
Would you at least acknowledge reading comment number 103 above?????????????

.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's where we disagree.



Until I had a very in depth talk with a woman who was gay, I used to think like you did. I am fully convinced that a person is born with feelings towards the male or female type and it is not a matter of choice. This woman dated boys all through school and in her 20's was married and had children and fought those feelings towards women all her life. Now in her 40's I have never known her to be happier. While I do not agree with it, she is the same great person she always was yet even happier now. The way she described the inner gut feelings that she had to suppress convinced me that it is not a choice.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Malakoi does mean "effeminate" in some senses, but not in the way you'd understand it, meaning acting girly or stereotypically "fairy". It meant to be not brave, or cowardly, and had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
> 
> This is from Wikipedia, and not me.
> 
> ...



I just noticed this in the Greek interlinear.  The English word used for Malakoi is "catamite" (as opposed to "sodomite" for arsenokoites.)

The definition of catamite is "a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...spread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.livescience.com/2534-sex-couples-common-wild.html

I am wondering if it is a choice for the animals?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.livescience.com/2534-sex-couples-common-wild.html
> 
> I am wondering if it is a choice for the animals?



We are above the animals.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> We are above the animals.



LOLOLOL, OK? In our own minds brother, in our own minds.

But who created the animals and did the animals have a choice and can animals sin....yada yada yada....


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 23, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Greaserbilly,
> Would you at least acknowledge reading comment number 103 above?????????????
> 
> .



Read it, have discussed it already, beaten it to death.

"But my book says, blah blah blah" and that's the point. There are different linguists arguing different sides. There's any a number of possibilities - the point is that the two words used are not, in and of themselves, definitively talking about people who are gay. Period. Full stop. Some translate "effeminate", others "boy in relationship with guys", some "people with soft morals".

Uh huh - I'm aware of what various concordances have said about it before. Read tons of people pointing to what their translation says.

The point is, it isn't cut and dried. We're not talking about a situation in which you're translating a word with an unambiguous meaning, like "apple". We're talking about one where there's in one case any of a number of ideas and a second we've a neologism that has never been used outside the Bible except ONCE, and our understanding of what it means is a guess. Is a guess. A guess. A GUESS. GUESS. GUESS. 

And the OTHER use of that word outside the Bible complains that this act, whatever it was, committed by a man had a woman involved.  How man + woman = homosexual is beyond me.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

greaserbilly, the ONLY thing that counts with some believers is the source and interpretation that makes the point they WANT made. As has been shown here, if there was not a non-believer left on the planet  there is a million years worth of future in fighting and disagreement between the believers.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 23, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> However, the view of many that gays are a "special case" that deserve to be kicked around and such keep many of them from the inside of a church.



Exactly. Lot of lard butts sitting in those pews. Yet they'll throw another pot luck and gorge themselves without a second thought of their failure to turn away from gluttony.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> However, the view of many that gays are a "special case" that deserve to be kicked around and such keep many of them from the inside of a church.



We are all a "special cases". To bad most Church's dont look at it that way.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Deuteronomy 23:17
> No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.
> 
> I find several things interesting about this verse;
> ...



WHO, specifically, utilized the services of male prostitutes in the Israelite's temples?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> So wait, was the snake NOT in the Garden?
> 
> Maybe you can help me with this then, and I'm genuine about this:
> 
> ...



You're under the impression that the parable is about the Garden pre-fall?

Let me ask you this.  Did your church teach you that creation was not good?  Did they teach you that the story of the Garden is figurative and that there were likely more than two people created outside of childbirth (i.e. Adam created from dust and breathed into life and Eve created directly from Adam)? 

Or are you getting these beliefs from outside the denominational beliefs that the episcopal church holds?  I ask just so I can understand where you're coming from.

Surely the episcopal church does not teach that God originally and uniquely created more than two in the garden.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Or are you getting these beliefs from outside the denominational beliefs that the episcopal church holds?  I ask just so I can understand where you're coming from.



This is correct. And no, I am not suggesting God created more than two HUMANS in the Garden at the beginning.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> This is correct. And no, I am not suggesting God created more than two HUMANS in the Garden at the beginning.



You said this in response to my question...



> Would you agree that there was no homosexuality before the fall?
> 
> That's conjecture, so no I can't agree on that.



Adam and Eve were definitely not homosexual.  So, if it's conjecture to say that there was not homosexual behavior prior to the fall, then there, as a requirement, MUST have been more than two people....that's where I'm getting that from.

Can you explain how it's possible that homosexuality existed prior to the fall without having more than those two people?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You said this in response to my question...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It existed in animals then and now.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

Really?  No changes in the animal kingdom between then and now, huh?  Evolution has conveniently been paused for purposes of this discussion?

Show it to me in the Bible.  A discussion among Christians (i.e. myself and the OP) MUST be couched in the context of scripture.

If you insist....show me homosexuality among humans in creation, as God designed it pre-fall.  He created man and he created woman.  He united them and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

Either he created other humans or there was no homosexuality among humans.  Christians assume (good grief I hope they do) that what happened in the six days of creation and remained in the Garden was as God intended and that "it was good".


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly, do you love someone very much who is gay? Like possibly a family member of close friend?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

IF..... we have to play by the rules that god created man and the animals and it is a fact that there are homosexual examples of each, then god must have wanted it.

If you want to go by evolution, then people are mammals, mammals are animals and there are examples of homosexuality in each.

If you think the Story of Creation and Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are true, then I hate to burst your bubble but that story has been told over a thousand years BEFORE the Hebrews decided to include it in their tales.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

> IF..... we have to play by the rules that god created man and the animals and it is a fact that there are homosexual examples of each, then god must have wanted it.





Good one.  That was hilarious.  I needed that today.




> If you think the Story of Creation and Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are true, then I hate to burst your bubble but that story has been told over a thousand years BEFORE the Hebrews decided to include it in their tales.



Here we are again at the end of every one of your arguments when they get shot down...."well, the Bible isn't true!"


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Shot down?

I missed that.

But there is evidence of clay tablets telling a similar story that predates the bibles version by over a thousand years. it is thought that hebrew slaves brought the story along with them and passed it on changing it to the version we know.

Not only is the bible not true, but it is not even original.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Here ya go...I'll find more for you to read also....

http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_african_origin.htm


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Deuteronomy 23:17
> No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.
> 
> I find several things interesting about this verse;
> ...




Can anyone tell me who used the male temple prostitutes in the Israelite temples?  Don't make me start a new thread on temple prostitutes.  I'll do it...  I really will...  I'll do it if I have to.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Shot down?
> 
> I missed that.
> 
> ...



Ever heard of oral tradition?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ever heard of oral tradition?



I sure have.

Read up on the second link I posted and see how oral tradition becomes suit to fit.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Can anyone tell me who used the male temple prostitutes in the Israelite temples?  Don't make me start a new thread on temple prostitutes.  *I'll do it...  I really will...  I'll do it if I have to.*




This might be the hardest I laughed all day..... thanks HJ


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I sure have.
> 
> Read up on the second link I posted and see how oral tradition becomes suit to fit.



You get Genesis out of that?  I gotta be honest, I'm not seeing it other than there were supernatural beings and humans were created by them.

I would assume that everyone who believes in a supernatural "god" would have to have some sort of story that imparts humanity from the supernatural.

What's surprising about that?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Supernatural beings that created humans.........what a zany concept!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

http://halexandria.org/dward179.htm


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

I'm not seeing the problem.  There are lots of religions.  All rely on a supernatural being.  If he is seen as "creator", then he likely created man in some way.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You said this in response to my question...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The argument is no gayness before the fall
gayness after the fall
therefore gayness = sin

I follow.
Point being, a lot of things happened after the fall, like wearing clothes. That is not sinful.
And, as previously mentioned, there's no indication WHATSOEVER that gayness started with the fall, that's your conjecture.

God saw that his creation was good, however there was not-good in the Garden - I mean, going around telling Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge wasn't exactly kosher?

But I take the Genesis stories to be what they are: parables and myths and certainly not an important enough story to take as some kind of gospel as to when homosexuality began.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

The first tablet description tells of creation. It is at least hundreds of years before the Hebrews told the story.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Greaserbilly, do you love someone very much who is gay? Like possibly a family member of close friend?



I have close friends of many different types, and yes, that includes gays - and yes they matter to me a lot as people.

And believe me, some of my friends have a hard time as to why I'm hanging around with a lot of "bible bashing rednecks", just as I'm sure here some people have issues with me having artistic and homosexual type friends, atheists and such.

What on earth does this have to do with what the Bible says or doesn't say about gay people.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

> certainly not an important enough story to take as some kind of gospel



Awesome...


Seeing as it foreshadows the Gospel, I would think it should be taken as gospel.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The first tablet description tells of creation. It is at least hundreds of years before the Hebrews told the story.



It tells creation....it does not tell the Genesis story in any way, shape, manor or form as I read it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm not seeing the problem.  There are lots of religions.  All rely on a supernatural being.  If he is seen as "creator", then he likely created man in some way.



I am glad you believe  that earlier stories of creation outside of the bible are possible.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It tells creation....it does not tell the Genesis story in any way, shape, manor or form as I read it.



It tells of creation LONG before the bible told it.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Awesome...
> 
> 
> Seeing as it foreshadows the Gospel, I would think it should be taken as gospel.



Genesis?

Dude, for the record, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis, which contradict each other.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I have close friends of many different types, and yes, that includes gays - and yes they matter to me a lot as people.
> 
> And believe me, some of my friends have a hard time as to why I'm hanging around with a lot of "bible bashing rednecks", just as I'm sure here some people have issues with me having artistic and homosexual type friends, atheists and such.
> 
> *What on earth does this have to do with what the Bible says or doesn't say about gay people*.



I think it helps in understanding where your argument that homosexulaity is not a sin comes from. It has nothing to do with the OP, I was curious to know why you have such a strong argument for it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It tells of creation LONG before the bible told it.



And that makes it true? or it makes the Bible untrue?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Genesis?
> 
> Dude, for the record, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis, which contradict each other.



That would be a good thread to start in the Christianity forum.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

I would say that if you consider one to be true then the other is equally as true. If you dismiss one then you should dismiss the other for the same reasons.

Personally, I believe all are legend and myth that is found in every culture in every part of the world.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Genesis?
> 
> Dude, for the record, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis, which contradict each other.



Or you can start a new one here. I'd like to see it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I would say that if you consider one to be true then the other is equally as true. If you dismiss one then you should dismiss the other for the same reasons.
> 
> Personally, I believe all are legend and myth that is found in every culture in every part of the world.



What does the other creation account have to go with it, you know, whats the main course? The Genesis account has 65 other books that have been attacked since its inception and is still going strong.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or you can start a new one here. I'd like to see it.



That would be cool to, I just think it might get moved.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or you can start a new one here. I'd like to see it.



I started the original thread and I'd LOVE to have it discussed on here!!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What does the other creation account have to go with it, you know, whats the main course? The Genesis account has 65 other books that have been attacked since its inception and is still going strong.



Read up on it and see.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Genesis?
> 
> Dude, for the record, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis, which contradict each other.


I think my explanation of this solves some of the problems associated. When God spoke things into existence, I see this as that they had not "came to be" yet but were created in word. This sheds light into many subjects; In the beginning was the word, the word became flesh, etc. As with most bible opinions, there is simply not enough evidence to prove my point as truth. Just opinion


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Shot down?
> 
> I missed that.
> 
> ...




So, you won't believe the Bible but you'll believe some other unauthenticated statement that might cast doubt on something the Bible says.
I say prove it!  Give me a reference to the original tablets.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> So, you won't believe the Bible but you'll believe some other unauthenticated statement that might cast doubt on something the Bible says.
> I say prove it!  Give me a reference to the original tablets.



Again Ron, you like to add words that just simply are not said. I do not have doubt that ancient writings exist. Dead Sea Scrolls, Clay Tablets, smashed berries painted on cave walls...people liked to write things down. 

What I do not believe( and THIS you can now take as EXACTLY what I am saying) is that any of it is more divine inspired than the other, any of it divine at all, or any of it is anything other than the work, writings, paintings, thought or wishes of MAN.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Now you can see I am not making it up.   IE: Proof

http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/Clay-tablets.htm


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 26, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I think it helps in understanding where your argument that homosexulaity is not a sin comes from. It has nothing to do with the OP, I was curious to know why you have such a strong argument for it.



My argument comes from reading more specifically into what the Bible says. The fact that I have gay friends is irrelevant. I also have friends who screw around on their wives, but "they're warshed by the blood of the Lamb" and therefore consider their actions not a problem. Adultery seems to be a problem in conservative churches, right Jimmy Swaggart? I'm not going to go picking apart adultery to see if it's okay. It's clearly wrong, as a promise has been made not to cheat on someone, and you cheat on someone.

My apologies. Without referring to my notes I was confusing up malakoi and arseno- and saying "soft bed" as opposed to "male bed", which is what aresenokoites would mean.

However, the word has been used to describe things that question the translation as "homosexual". The snake doing same to Adam and Eve, and people doing that with their wives, etc.

I am trying to re-find some references with no dog in the game. You're right that you'll find arguments either from the Conservative Baptist Church of All Queers Must Die or from the Gay Liberation Church of Everything Goes. I did find some non-theological discussion of the word, which indicates that it's totally up in the air.

The point remains that there absolutely were words in the Greek for "homosexual", but Paul didn't use them. 

Watch this space - still looking. And still discarding anything from any source that has an axe to grind one way or the other.

My gut feeling is that God doesn't create things just to destroy them, and that the nature of sin is really something that hurts the self or another. I've seen gay people try not to be, and seen the hurt that that can cause - and the usual stem of it is "gayness is a sin, therefore it's a choice, therefore it's cause your daddy didn't play football with you and do manly things, let's beat some sense into you".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 26, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> My apologies. Without referring to my notes I was confusing up malakoi and arseno-



... which is what I said earlier.

I still don't see where you're getting "male bed" out of that.  The Greek interlinear is pretty plain.  It says arsenokoites means "sodomite".


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Genesis?
> 
> Dude, for the record, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis, which contradict each other.



Yes, dude....Genesis.  It foreshadows Christ.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... which is what I said earlier.
> 
> I still don't see where you're getting "male bed" out of that.  The Greek interlinear is pretty plain.  It says arsenokoites means "sodomite".



I could say it means "oranges". 
Anyhow, I have a call in to a couple of experts on Ancient Greek in and I forwarded the very cogent questions asked here


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes, dude....Genesis.  It foreshadows Christ.



Genesis, the book which contains TWO creation stories, both of which contradict each other.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

What do you consider the Bible to be?  You claim Christ and yet don't appear to believe the Bible, so I'm confused.  If you can't trust all of it, how do you suppose you can trust any of it?


Point out the contradictions and we can talk.  But you're not going to like the outcome of the discussion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am glad you believe  that earlier stories of creation outside of the bible are possible.



Of course I do!  Does that somehow take away from the biblical account of creation?

There is currently a "great recession" in our economy.

I say Obama is the culprit...

...he says Bush is the cause.

The great recession IS a reality.  But there are two accounts of how it came to be.  


If you believe in a creator (no matter who he is), you must believe that there is an account of creation.

Only one account, however, can be accurate.  THAT is the point.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What do you consider the Bible to be?  You claim Christ and yet don't appear to believe the Bible, so I'm confused.  If you can't trust all of it, how do you suppose you can trust any of it?
> 
> 
> Point out the contradictions and we can talk.  But you're not going to like the outcome of the discussion.



The Bible has many contradictions, as it was written by men.
That doesn't mean I don't believe in it, it means that it isn't infallible.

http://www.stphilipscathedral.org/Sermons/newsView.asp?NewsId=40968277&CategoryID=1

As for where are the inconsistencies and contradictions?

Start at infidels.org. They maintain several lists.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Anyhow, I have a call in to a couple of experts on Ancient Greek in and I forwarded the very cogent questions asked here



I appreciate your willingness to look into this, but the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are experts in ancient Greek, and you completely discount their opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Of course I do!  Does that somehow take away from the biblical account of creation?
> 
> There is currently a "great recession" in our economy.
> 
> ...



In beliefs, none of it has to be accurate. 

The point I am trying to make is that the Bible is certainly not the first or only claim about how creation started and that was for the believers that are too close minded and think otherwise. I wanted to show that a creation story is not exclusive to the bible and show that even hundreds or thousands of years before the bible says creation started, there were people on the planet already telling a creation story. Many christians think that the bible is exclusive to the events told within it and in reality many other cultures have told similar stories LONG before the bible says it happened. On one hand a two tales of a great flood add credibility that there once was a great flood. On the other hand the made up fiction in between the stories clearly shows that it is made up.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I appreciate your willingness to look into this, but the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. are experts in ancient Greek, and you completely discount their opinion.



I believe the translation is biased.

Keep in mind, that "sin" is one most people can't see themselves ever committing, so they rail hard against it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I believe the translation is biased.



All of them?

Bible Gateway currently lists 25 English translations.  None of them translates the verse the way you say it should be translated.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Until I had a very in depth talk with a woman who was gay, I used to think like you did. I am fully convinced that a person is born with feelings towards the male or female type and it is not a matter of choice. This woman dated boys all through school and in her 20's was married and had children and fought those feelings towards women all her life. Now in her 40's I have never known her to be happier. While I do not agree with it, she is the same great person she always was yet even happier now. The way she described the inner gut feelings that she had to suppress convinced me that it is not a choice.


If you let them steal all of their life, they will grow up a thief to! There is more to life than being law abiding.........theres moral values also!  



Greaserbilly said:


> That's correct.
> 
> And saying "don't lie down with a man in the bed of a woman" is a condemnation of a specific act, not a blanket condemnation of men liking other men a certain way.



So is saying that shalt not covet your neighbors wife a condemnation of a specific act involving just your neighbors wife or a blanket condemnation of not coveting any mans wife? 

If this is true...................the hot chick on the next street is not my neighbors wife


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> All of them?
> 
> Bible Gateway currently lists 25 English translations.  None of them translates the verse the way you say it should be translated.



For the 55,000th time:

A decision was made to translate it a certain way back in the day of King James.

Most have gone with the flow and translated the same way.

However, should you go to the original Greek, not what some people writing Bibles think, you see that term used to rail against things between men and women, as well as child molestation.

Are you seeing what I'm saying yet?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In beliefs, none of it has to be accurate.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that the Bible is certainly not the first or only claim about how creation started and that was for the believers that are too close minded and think otherwise. I wanted to show that a creation story is not exclusive to the bible and show that even hundreds or thousands of years before the bible says creation started, there were people on the planet already telling a creation story. Many christians think that the bible is exclusive to the events told within it and in reality many other cultures have told similar stories LONG before the bible says it happened. On one hand a two tales of a great flood add credibility that there once was a great flood. On the other hand the made up fiction in between the stories clearly shows that it is made up.




It IS exclusive to the events to within it.

No other account starts with God.  As I said, the result (creation) is not arguable.  The source is what is in question between religions.

I dare say that Mr. Obama is mistaken about the economy...just like the muslims are wrong about the source of creation.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It IS exclusive to the events to within it.
> 
> No other account starts with God.  As I said, the result (creation) is not arguable.  The source is what is in question between religions.
> 
> I dare say that Mr. Obama is mistaken about the economy...just like the muslims are wrong about the source of creation.



Many accounts start with a God or Gods. None are more right and none are more wrong than the others.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> If you let them steal all of their life, they will grow up a thief to! There is more to life than being law abiding.........theres moral values also!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moral values? Then there is not a person here that is any "better" morally than anyone that is gay.  You can"t turn someone into being gay and you can't turn someone away from it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

I see exactly what you're saying.  Now ...



Greaserbilly said:


> A decision was made to translate it a certain way back in the day of King James.
> 
> Most have gone with the flow and translated the same way.



The KJ translators are not the "bad guys" here.  They followed the Bishop's Bible and other previous translations, which translated the verse in the exact same way.  Here's how Tertullian translated the passage in the 3rd century:  _“ ... adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God,”_

Besides, modern translators have not hesitated to correct the KJ translators if they thought a KJV passage or verse was incorrect.  




Greaserbilly said:


> ... should you go to the original Greek, not what some people writing Bibles think,



Two points:

1)  Those "some people writing Bibles" _are_ experts in the original Greek.

2)  When I pointed out the original Greek in the the lexicon and the interlinear, you dismissed that as well.


Your basic premise seems to be, "An expert that disagrees with me is not really an expert."


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Many accounts start with a God or Gods. None are more right and none are more wrong than the others.



Correction...many accounts start with a god or gods....none of them start with God...Yahweh.  

None of them.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> 2)  When I pointed out the original Greek in the the lexicon and the interlinear, you dismissed that as well.
> 
> 
> Your basic premise seems to be, "An expert that disagrees with me is not really an expert."



So how, if the word means "homosexual", can a man commit that sin with his wife?

So how, if the word means "homosexual" was it used to decry the abuse of children?

So how, if the word means "homosexual" was it used in other contexts?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> So how, if the word means "homosexual", can a man commit that sin with his wife?
> 
> So how, if the word means "homosexual" was it used to decry the abuse of children?
> 
> So how, if the word means "homosexual" was it used in other contexts?



I'm not a Greek scholar.  I have to rely on Greek experts to translate the text into English.  And _none of them_ translate it the way you say it should be translated. 

If what you say is true, don't you think there would be _one_ English translation that agrees with you?  If such a translation exists, I've never seen it or heard about it.   

Also, when I Google the word "arsenokoites", I'm inundated with gay websites that assure me that whatever "arsenokoites" means, it certainly does not mean "gay".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think you can say the same thing about ARSENOKOITAI.  There's almost no variation in the different translations:  homosexual, sodomite, and even "men who have sex with men".



I just found a new one.  The Bishop's Bible of 1587 actually uses the term "buggerer".


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 27, 2011)

> Also, when I Google the word "arsenokoites", I'm inundated with gay websites that assure me that whatever "arsenokoites" means, it certainly does not mean "gay".



So you think it's a case of "thou dost protest too much"?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So you think it's a case of "thou dost protest too much"?



Yep.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What do you consider the Bible to be?  You claim Christ and yet don't appear to believe the Bible, so I'm confused.  If you can't trust all of it, how do you suppose you can trust any of it?
> 
> 
> Point out the contradictions and we can talk.  But you're not going to like the outcome of the discussion.



I'm game.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=611854


----------



## bullethead (Jun 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Correction...many accounts start with a god or gods....none of them start with God...Yahweh.
> 
> None of them.



True. You would think if Yahweh was responsible he'd get more credit universally.

One set of beliefs in one small region of one very large world. It doesn't exactly scream majority does it?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not a Greek scholar.  I have to rely on Greek experts to translate the text into English.  And _none of them_ translate it the way you say it should be translated.



You're not looking in the right places. Stop looking at your Greek Interlinear and look at the extremely few non-Biblical uses of the word.  It has been used, though extremely infrequently, outside of the Bible.

You keep insisting that it's "me" or "gay websites" insisting on a "new, totally unrelated translation".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 27, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You're not looking in the right places. Stop looking at your Greek Interlinear and look at the extremely few non-Biblical uses of the word. It has been used, though extremely infrequently, outside of the Bible.



This approach breaks every rule I've ever seen.  I took a seminar once on biblical hermeneutics, and here is one methodology they taught:  if a passage is vague, look first within the rest of that particular book.  If it's still not clear, next look at other writings by that same author.  If that doesn't help, look at what the Bible as a whole teaches on the subject.




Greaserbilly said:


> ... look at the extremely few non-Biblical uses of the word.



Such as?  Let's see 'em.




Greaserbilly said:


> You keep insisting that it's "me" or "gay websites" insisting on a "new, totally unrelated translation".



That's because you and gay websites are the only ones I've seen doing it.  If you point me to a third option, I'll look at it.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 27, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I see exactly what you're saying.  Now ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One other point that needs to be brought up is the simple fact that in most translations of the last 50 years or more, the scholars (and there usually were dozens)  didn't even start with the KJ, but almost universally used much older documents/manuscripts, the notable exceptions being the NKJV and the 21st Century King James Version which used both, yet sought to preserve the bulk of the KJV wording and style. I would presume that this was, at least in part, due to marketing considerations.
The idea that most recent translations were derived from the KJV is positively absurd.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

greaser....let me ask you about homosexuality from a different perspective, ok?


Would you agree that God has very clearly ordained marriage as the ONLY institution under which he approves of sexual activity?

Would you also agree (and this is actually not even technically necessary...so feel free not to if you can find a way) that God only ordained marriage to be a union between men and women?


I ask those questions rhetorically because the answers should be obvious to anyone who believes scripture.

If you follow me here's the logic that brings us to God's disapproval of homosexual activity (regardless of whether he disapproves of homosexual feelings or attractions):

God only approves of sexual activity within the confines of marriage.

God defines marriage as the union between men and women (I word it that way because you might actually debate ONE man and ONE woman) based on what I've seen so far.

Therefore....God does not approve of homosexual (or hetero for that matter) activity outside of marriage.  God does not ordain marriage between two men or two women.  So he does not approve of the activity.

If you can show me ANY way to interpret scripture to show that God approves of marriage between men and men or women and women, we can keep discussing whether God approves of homosexual activity.  But you're going to be seriously hardpressed to do so.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> greaser....let me ask you about homosexuality from a different perspective, ok?
> 
> 
> Would you agree that God has very clearly ordained marriage as the ONLY institution under which he approves of sexual activity?
> ...



God has lots of rules doesn't he? No one has been able to follow them all as he "instructed", he knows we are all sinners, he knows who will do what, everyone believer on here has admitted that they are without sin, so what is the difference if someone is "acting" gay(because all we all know its a choice ) or they are doing one of the other half-a-million "sins" that cannot be avoided? One sin is not any worse than the other.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Moral values? Then there is not a person here that is any "better" morally than anyone that is gay.  You can"t turn someone into being gay and you can't turn someone away from it.



There is somethine morally, mentally wrong with a man wanting to be partners with another man


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> God has lots of rules doesn't he? No one has been able to follow them all as he "instructed", he knows we are all sinners, he knows who will do what, everyone believer on here has admitted that they are without sin, so what is the difference if someone is "acting" gay(because all we all know its a choice ) or they are doing one of the other half-a-million "sins" that cannot be avoided? One sin is not any worse than the other.



I never said whether I think it's a choice or not.  ACTING on it is most certainly a choice, just like acting on heterosexual feelings is a choice.

But, you are correct...sin is sin.  The difference is that one should NEVER intentionally and knowingly continue in a sin.

Being a sinner is a given.  Repentance means being broken hearted over that sin and turning from it.

Continuing in homosexual behavior, continuing in adultery, continuing in gluttony....whatever the sin....continuing in it is not acceptable....but you knew that I suspect.  

Then we move to Matthew 18 for how it should be handled.  But that's a different thread.  Perhaps we, as a church, are too focussed on homosexuality because it's shocking to us.  I would actually suggest that we're overlooking other continued sins more than we are overemphasizing homosexuality.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> There is somethine morally, mentally wrong with a man wanting to be partners with another man



Why?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

I'd like to know why christians aren't as hard on gluttons as they are on homosexuals.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

See my post above...I think we were thinking the same thing.

I actually agree with you.  We seem to see homosexuality as "worse" because it's culturally unacceptable in Christianity.  But the reality is that it is simply continued  sin.  We too often turn a blind eye to other, more obvious issues within our body.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I never said whether I think it's a choice or not.  ACTING on it is most certainly a choice, just like acting on heterosexual feelings is a choice.
> 
> But, you are correct...sin is sin.  The difference is that one should NEVER intentionally and knowingly continue in a sin.
> 
> ...



I do not know of a any larger group of people that scream "Do as I say, Not as I do" outside of the religious. I do not know of any larger group of Repeat Offenders that think attending church on Sunday cleans the slate for the week. I do not know of any group outside of the religious that preach and point out the morals and values in their handbook to everyone they can yet do not follow them themselves.  

If God doesn't "like" homosexuals then maybe he shouldn't have made them. If he didn't make them then they don't need to follow his exclusive rules or him.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> See my post above...I think we were thinking the same thing.
> 
> I actually agree with you.  We seem to see homosexuality as "worse" because it's culturally unacceptable in Christianity.  But the reality is that it is simply continued  sin.  We too often turn a blind eye to other, more obvious issues within our body.



Perhaps the reason is that they prefer to point the finger at others rather than themselves.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

> I do not know of a any larger group of people that scream "Do as I say, Not as I do" outside of the religious. I do not know of any larger group of Repeat Offenders that think attending church on Sunday cleans the slate for the week. I do not know of any group outside of the religious that preach and point out the morals and values in their handbook to everyone they can yet do not follow them themselves.



100% agree.  Unfortunately, in many cases, "Christians" are not very Christ-like.




> If God doesn't "like" homosexuals then maybe he shouldn't have made them. If he didn't make them then they don't need to follow his exclusive rules or him.



He does like them.  In fact, he loves them.  In my opinion and from my studies, he did not make them homosexual....but he did make them.  Why are people gay?  I honestly don't know with 100% certainty.  I do know that, biblically speaking, God did not create them that way and does not approve of the BEHAVIOR.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps the reason is that they prefer to point the finger at others rather than themselves.



Perhaps.....in fact, probably. 


Just because we sometimes point out the logs when we have our own specks to worry about does not change the fact that the log exists...would you agree?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I'd like to know why christians aren't as hard on gluttons as they are on homosexuals.



I agree with HF:  sin is sin.  However, scripture is especially hard on all sexual sins.  Here, in Leviticus 18 (NIV), the words "detestable", "perversion", "defile", and "wickedness" are used to describe it.  Other versions use the word "abomination".  I don't see similar language being used to describe gluttony.


_ 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD. 
 6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. 

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

 8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. 

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

 10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you. 

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

 12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative. 

 13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative. 

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

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

 16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. 

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

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

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

 20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her. 

 21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 

 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. 

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

 24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 

 29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’”_


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

agree....I was just trying to allow for the simplistic understanding that he presented.  Very good post.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Perhaps.....in fact, probably.
> 
> 
> Just because we sometimes point out the logs when we have our own specks to worry about does not change the fact that the log exists...would you agree?



I think the way Jesus put it was the log is in your eye and the speck in the other person's. Frankly it's no more your business who others choose to love than it is what or how much others choose to eat. If there is a God that has an issue with how they lived their life that also isn't anyone elses concern.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

centerpin why did you not quote what the bible says about gluttony? It's funny that now all of a sudden we have different severities of sin. Is there a different level of the hot place for the gluttons than for the homosexuals? Or do they all burn for eternity just the same?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> centerpin why did you not quote what the bible says about gluttony? It's funny that now all of a sudden we have different severities of sin. Is there a different level of the hot place for the gluttons than for the homosexuals? Or do they all burn for eternity just the same?



Did you read my post?  I'll repeat it:



centerpin fan said:


> ... scripture is especially hard on all sexual sins.  Here, in Leviticus 18 (NIV), the words "detestable", "perversion", "defile", and "wickedness" are used to describe it.  Other versions use the word "abomination".  I don't see similar language being used to describe gluttony.



If you disagree, please post the relevant scriptures.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Did you read my post?  I'll repeat it:
> 
> 
> 
> If you disagree, please post the relevant scriptures.



I'm not contesting what the bible claims to be sexual sins. You're the one saying gluttony isn't as bad. I'd like to see the scriptures backing that one up. I'd also like the answer to my question concerning what punishment is meted out in the afterlife for the glutton and the homosexual. I'm not aware of any difference in punishment scripturally. If you are, please share it.

And since sexual sin is so abhorrent... I wonder if christian parents who love to harp on homosexuality would react as strongly to their child having premarital sex as they would to having committed a homosexual act? I wonder how many of them had premarital sex themselves?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're the one saying gluttony isn't as bad.



I didn't say that.  I said scripture uses very harsh language to describe all sexual sins.  I don't know of any scripture where gluttony is called "detestable", "a perversion" or "an abomination".  If you disagree, please provide the relevant scriptures.




atlashunter said:


> I'd also like the answer to my question concerning what punishment is meted out in the afterlife for the glutton and the homosexual. I'm not aware of any difference in punishment scripturally.



Neither am I.  As I said before, sin is sin.  The Bible does come out very hard against all sexual sins, though.  Leviticus is one example.  Another is 1 Corinthians 6, which we discussed earlier.  Paul lists several sins in verses 9 and 10 (sexual and otherwise) and then adds this to explain how sexual sins are different:

_18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies_


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I do not know of a any larger group of people that scream "Do as I say, Not as I do" outside of the religious. I do not know of any larger group of Repeat Offenders that think attending church on Sunday cleans the slate for the week. I do not know of any group outside of the religious that preach and point out the morals and values in their handbook to everyone they can yet do not follow them themselves.


Umm....uh.....mankind?  



> If God doesn't "like" homosexuals then maybe he shouldn't have made them. If he didn't make them then they don't need to follow his exclusive rules or him.


Your all about God not creating people. If God only created YOU on this earth, you would complain He didn't create other people.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think the way Jesus put it was the log is in your eye and the speck in the other person's. Frankly it's no more your business who others choose to love than it is what or how much others choose to eat. If there is a God that has an issue with how they lived their life that also isn't anyone elses concern.



Read Matthew 18 and come back to me.  You are wrong biblically speaking.  

It is very much my business if they claim to be a follower of Christ.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You can"t turn someone into being gay and you can't turn someone away from it.


Wrong. I know  a lady that turned from it. Thought she was born lesbian, lived a lesbian lifestyle for over 21 years, from the time she was 14 to 35. She turned from it when saw her way of life was wrong. She will tell you quick, no one is born gay, thats a crutch to justify what you want to do. Her parents never taught her that being gay was wrong. They let her live with what felt good at the time. No one is born a thief, a murderer, a rapist etc they are just never corrected in their youth. SO therefore when they grow up, they think its ok to do those things.



atlashunter said:


> Why?


Since you dont want to accept Biblical reasons against homosexual acts, go read the scientific uses for the human body parts. Read what they are intended for. Man to man is not even scientifically or physically designed for each other. Goes against the natural use, but of course that is also biblical.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who utilized the services of the male prostitutes in the Israelite's temples.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Umm....uh.....mankind?
> 
> 
> Your all about God not creating people. If God only created YOU on this earth, you would complain He didn't create other people.



You are all about God creating people. If he did create people then he created gay people too.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Wrong. I know  a lady that turned from it. Thought she was born lesbian, lived a lesbian lifestyle for over 21 years, from the time she was 14 to 35. She turned from it when saw her way of life was wrong. She will tell you quick, no one is born gay, thats a crutch to justify what you want to do. Her parents never taught her that being gay was wrong. They let her live with what felt good at the time. No one is born a thief, a murderer, a rapist etc they are just never corrected in their youth. SO therefore when they grow up, they think its ok to do those things.



I had no idea that thieves, rapists, murderers, and arsonists could all be prevented at early childhood. I vote that all parents of any one of those convicted of such crimes immediately go to prison along with their child as they are just as responsible.... no, actually do more time because it is their fault. I think you should head up the committee to do away with all these menaces to society by writing a guide to parenthood and we should follow it nation wide!

Your lady friend has found a way to enjoy both sides, just lets you think she's changed. Lots of Bi's out there too. There is no gay switch to throw and turn it on and off.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 28, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I had no idea that thieves, rapists, murderers, and arsonists could all be prevented at early childhood. I vote that all parents of any one of those convicted of such crimes immediately go to prison along with their child as they are just as responsible.... no, actually do more time because it is their fault. I think you should head up the committee to do away with all these menaces to society by writing a guide to parenthood and we should follow it nation wide!
> 
> Your lady friend has found a way to enjoy both sides, just lets you think she's changed. Lots of Bi's out there too. There is no gay switch to throw and turn it on and off.



The parenthood guide is already written, the Bible says train up a child in the way he should go, it also says spare the rod spoil the child. But anyway, its not rocket science to see that some kids rebel, but that has nothing with not being taught any better. And the lady friend says your funny, just goes to prove that folks will justify what they do regardless. Now since you have managed to overlook everything biblical against homosexuality, can you provide any biblical support for it?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

Spotlite, I am not a bible believer so I'm not saying there is support for it in the bible. In fact from what I have read in the bible there is no tolerance for it. That brought me to the question for the people that think god created everything, Why did god create homosexuals, full well KNOWING they are homosexuals, KNOWING he is against them in the first place?? The Pro-Bible crowd argues that it is free will, choice....OK, but then if you look through nature there are numerous examples of homosexuality and behavior within the animal world( also which god created) and as far as I know they never got the cop-out free pass of Free Will.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, I am not a bible believer so I'm not saying there is support for it in the bible. In fact from what I have read in the bible there is no tolerance for it. That brought me to the question for the people that think god created everything, Why did god create homosexuals, full well KNOWING they are homosexuals, KNOWING he is against them in the first place?? The Pro-Bible crowd argues that it is free will, choice....OK, but then if you look through nature there are numerous examples of homosexuality and behavior within the animal world( also which god created) and as far as I know they never got the cop-out free pass of Free Will.



If your not a Bible believer and believe God created everything, its impossible for you to understand the Bible and why God does what God does. God created man...............not homosexuals, rapist, robbers, robots etc. Its up to man to serve him or not.

Even if a person is an athiest or just simply doesnt believe that the Bible is accurate, no one can argue the fact that there are plenty good teachings in it to teach you how to live a good clean respectful life toward your family, co workers and neighbors.  

As far as animals go, there was no sacrifice made for their sins nor is there anything supporting a way to reach them for salvation, humans are the ones with souls. They are just animals, and other than someone just wanting to do as an animal does, I dont see a comparison in what they do vs what a human does. Remember, if you let them, animals will cross breed with their own brothers. sisters etc, and thats acceptable in an animal world. But its looked down on for humans................


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> If your not a Bible believer and believe God created everything, its impossible for you to understand the Bible and why God does what God does. God created man...............not homosexuals, rapist, robbers, robots etc. Its up to man to serve him or not.
> 
> Even if a person is an athiest or just simply doesnt believe that the Bible is accurate, no one can argue the fact that there are plenty good teachings in it to teach you how to live a good clean respectful life toward your family, co workers and neighbors.
> 
> As far as animals go, there was no sacrifice made for their sins nor is there anything supporting a way to reach them for salvation, humans are the ones with souls. They are just animals, and other than someone just wanting to do as an animal does, I dont see a comparison in what they do vs what a human does. Remember, if you let them, animals will cross breed with their own brothers. sisters etc, and thats acceptable in an animal world. But its looked down on for humans................



I do not believe the bible and I do not believe god made everything, THEY are the points from where I get my thoughts from. I once DID believe in both and am well read within the bible. it is also why I find it so ungod-like.

I do think that while the bible has some good teachings it ( sure "Do good, Be Good, Reap Good Things...")is also full of bad ones too. While I think it is a good read, I also think it is 100% totally man made.

Souls? http://wonderofcreation.org/2009/07/27/do-animals-have-souls/

Who sacrificed for our sins BEFORE the New Testament? I think you are overlooking the fact that we are animals too. We inbreed/crossbreed and act just the same as other animals, it happens a lot in uncivilized parts of the world, it is just that "we" are a little more civilized(in our own minds anyway).

The problem with the bible is that it is too specific about our origins and it does not leave any room for the truth.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I do not believe the bible and I do not believe god made everything



Then your original question cant be answered in a way you can understand or even agree with.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Then your original question cant be answered in a way you can understand or even agree with.



I ask so I can get a better understanding of how others think. I ask because maybe I can show another option or hear a reply that I didn't think of. I ask because I enjoy the conversation. I might not agree but I can certainly understand.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Since no one has stepped forward to comment on who utilized the services of the male prostitutes in the Israelite's temples, I guess I'll try a different tactic.  I'll make an ascertion and see if anyone would like to refute it.

It is my position that a large portion of male Israelites engaged in homosexual activity and incorporated this homosexual activity into some type of religious experience.  This was a normal activity before, during, and after the time period when the OT laws regarding sexual activity were written.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

What's your point?

Priests molest little boys.  Bishop Eddie Long apparently does naughty things.  Jim Earl Swilley says he's been gay his whole life and led a congregation of thousands in Conyers.

Are you under the impression that the actions of "Christians" always reflect what God approves of?  Kind of negates the need for a savior, don't ya think?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What's your point?
> 
> Priests molest little boys.  Bishop Eddie Long apparently does naughty things.  Jim Earl Swilley says he's been gay his whole life and led a congregation of thousands in Conyers.
> 
> Are you under the impression that the actions of "Christians" always reflect what God approves of?  Kind of negates the need for a savior, don't ya think?



Your examples are deviant behavior that is contrary to the normal, accepted practices of the church.  My ascertion is that it was a normal, accepted practice that was not only endorsed by the church, but the church provided the male prostitutes.  The church that provided the male prostitutes for religious purposes is the same church that wrote the rules regarding sexual sins.  

This should shed some light on the argument regarding whether all homosexuality was condemned by the church or just specific types of acts.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Leviticus 10:1-2
Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the Lord by burning before Him a different kind of fire than He had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the Lord's presence and burned them up, and they died there before the Lord.

I would think that homosexual activity in the temple would result in a more harsh punishment than burning incense, unless of course it was authorized by God.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Since no one has stepped forward to comment on who utilized the services of the male prostitutes in the Israelite's temples, I guess I'll try a different tactic.  I'll make an ascertion and see if anyone would like to refute it.
> 
> It is my position that a large portion of male Israelites engaged in homosexual activity and incorporated this homosexual activity into some type of religious experience.  This was a normal activity before, during, and after the time period when the OT laws regarding sexual activity were written.



 What's your basis for this?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What's your basis for this?



Scripture is clear that temple prostitutes existed.
Scripture is clear that there were both male and female temple prostitutes.  Scripture never condemns the practice of having temple prostitutes, only that the temple prostitutes could not be Israelites.  Scripture is clear that a portion of young virgin captives of war were given to the priest.

I'm stating the obvious and asking someone to prove me wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 1, 2011)

Interesting. I never heard of that. I think we can safely assume the male prostitutes wouldn't have been for the use of women. Makes you wonder...


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Your examples are deviant behavior that is contrary to the normal, accepted practices of the church.  My ascertion is that it was a normal, accepted practice that was not only endorsed by the church, but the church provided the male prostitutes.  The church that provided the male prostitutes for religious purposes is the same church that wrote the rules regarding sexual sins.
> 
> This should shed some light on the argument regarding whether all homosexuality was condemned by the church or just specific types of acts.



It's not a question of whether it's accepted by the church...it's a question of whether it's accepted by God.

BTW...Jim Earl and Bishop Long were very much accepted by their churches and still are.  Does that mean that God is ok with it?  The Bible shows us what is and is not acceptable...not the behavior of the church (unfortunately and to the detriment of the Gospel).


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It's not a question of whether it's accepted by the church...it's a question of whether it's accepted by God.
> 
> BTW...Jim Earl and Bishop Long were very much accepted by their churches and still are.  Does that mean that God is ok with it?  The Bible shows us what is and is not acceptable...not the behavior of the church (unfortunately and to the detriment of the Gospel).





HawgJawl said:


> Leviticus 10:1-2
> Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the Lord by burning before Him a different kind of fire than He had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the Lord's presence and burned them up, and they died there before the Lord.
> 
> I would think that homosexual activity in the temple would result in a more harsh punishment than burning incense, unless of course it was authorized by God.



It wasn't the church that burned up Aaron's sons for burning incense in the wrong way.  God killed them on the spot for that violation.  At the same time, in the same temple, homosexual activity was occuring as a normal activity, however there is no record of God killing the people performing homosexual acts.  There is no recorded condemnation of those acts.  There is no indication that those acts were not encouraged or maybe even required.

Also, the person who wrote the laws pertaining to what was required and what was forbidden, especially with great detail regarding the temple, was Moses, who spoke face-to-face with God.  Do you think Moses misunderstood God's orders regarding homosexual acts in the temple?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

First, if you've posted it before, forgive me.  But please give me the historical references you're using for the claim that it was a "normal activity" in the temple.

Second...are you under the impression that God always kills immediately and on the spot for disobedience?

Wouldn't be many of us around if that were the case, huh?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 5, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> That's a very good and very valid question.
> I'll ask about that one.





Greaserbilly said:


> Anyhow, I have a call in to a couple of experts on Ancient Greek in and I forwarded the very cogent questions asked here



Did you ever hear back about this?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> First, if you've posted it before, forgive me.  But please give me the historical references you're using for the claim that it was a "normal activity" in the temple.
> 
> Second...are you under the impression that God always kills immediately and on the spot for disobedience?
> 
> Wouldn't be many of us around if that were the case, huh?



I've posted my basis for making the assertion.

I do not believe that God always kills immediately for disobedience, however I do believe that during the time period when God was speaking face-to-face with Moses, God made it crystal clear what acts He forbid.  If God burned up Aaron's sons for burning incense incorrectly, it would seem that homosexual acts in the temple would at least merit a prohibition from God if they were in fact an abomination.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

Forgive me....show me the basis again?  I want to see if it's conjecture or accurate information.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

Ok, nevermind....I found it in your posts.

Here is what the ESV says for Deut 23:17



> [17] “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. [18] You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.
> (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 ESV)



Here is what you posted...



> Deuteronomy 23:17
> No Israelite man or woman may ever become a temple prostitute.



The ESV is widely considered to be the most accurate translation of our day.  It does not mention anything about the temple of the Lord.

Neither does the KJV... "There shall be no (w)hore of the daughters of Isreal, nor a sodomite of the sons of Isreal."

NIV says this..."No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."

NASB says this..."“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute."



*So my question is....where in the world do you get that homosexual prostitutes were common in the temple of the Lord?

There were lots of temples in those days where lots of gods were worshipped.  Can you point to a specific example of this going on in the temple of the Lord God, Yahweh?*


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Numbers 31:17-18
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves

The Lord, through Moses, told the Israelites that they could keep the young virgin girls captured in war, to do with as they pleased.  I believe it's obvious what they were used for.

Numbers 31:40-41
16,000 young girls, of whom 32 were the Lord's share. Moses gave all the Lord's share to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had directed him.

That would be the Lord's temple that received the Lord's portion of the young virgins.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

uhhhhhh......I'm still not seeing homosexual prostitutes in the Lord's temple.  Did you show it to me and I missed it?

In fact, there is no prostitution mentioned in either of those passages.

Why are you all of a sudden shying away from the Deut passage that you INSISTED repeatedly that someone address Hawg?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> uhhhhhh......I'm still not seeing homosexual prostitutes in the Lord's temple.  Did you show it to me and I missed it?
> 
> In fact, there is no prostitution mentioned in either of those passages.
> 
> Why are you all of a sudden shying away from the Deut passage that you INSISTED repeatedly that someone address Hawg?



I'm not shying away from anything.  You have to look at all the references to temple prostitutes in order to see that they were common.  The scripture stating that Israelites cannot be temple prostitutes should confirm that temple prostitutes existed and that there were official regulations regarding who you could and could not use as a temple prostitute.  Those regulations came from Moses who stated that all his regulations came directly from God.  It was fine to use (non-Israelite) slaves as temple prostitutes.  The act of having temple prostitutes in the Lord's temple is never condemned, as long as the prostitutes are not Israelites.  

The scripture you provided tells me that an Israelite should not be a prostitute, and therefore any money earned from being a prostitute is not acceptable as an offering to God.  However, there is no prohibition of using a prostitute.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> There were lots of temples in those days where lots of gods were worshipped.  Can you point to a specific example of this going on in the temple of the Lord God, Yahweh?[/B]



This is the question I was addressing with the Numbers scripture.


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 5, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Numbers 31:17-18
> Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves
> 
> The Lord, through Moses, told the Israelites that they could keep the young virgin girls captured in war, to do with as they pleased.  I believe it's obvious what they were used for.
> ...



"young virgin girls captured in war, to do with as they pleased."

You added that part , the Bible doesn't say that.
Your are just an example of those that twist and add to make verses say what YOU want them to say.
The virgins could have been as wives or servants as was common in those days.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

> I'm not shying away from anything.



Then address what I posted.  There is nothing in any of those very well respected translations that reference a temple.....much less the temple of the Lord.  You seem to have pulled that out of thin air.  If there's a translation that says that, I'm listening.  But I've shown you FIVE that don't.




> You have to look at all the references to temple prostitutes in order to see that they were common.



You haven't SHOWN me one yet so that I can address it!  It's not there in anything you've posted.




> The scripture stating that Israelites cannot be temple prostitutes should confirm that temple prostitutes existed and that there were official regulations regarding who you could and could not use as a temple prostitute.  Those regulations came from Moses who stated that all his regulations came directly from God.  It was fine to use (non-Israelite) slaves as temple prostitutes.  The act of having temple prostitutes in the Lord's temple is never condemned, as long as the prostitutes are not Israelites.



Again...you've not shown anything that ok's prostitutes in the temple.  



> The scripture you provided tells me that an Israelite should not be a prostitute, and therefore any money earned from being a prostitute is not acceptable as an offering to God.  However, there is no prohibition of using a prostitute.



So now we've gone from "God says it's ok to have homosexual prostitutes in the temple of the Lord"....to "well there's nothing that prohibits the use of prostitutes"....my how we travel quickly down the path to retraction.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> "young virgin girls captured in war, to do with as they pleased."
> 
> You added that part , the Bible doesn't say that.
> Your are just an example of those that twist and add to make verses say what YOU want them to say.
> The virgins could have been as wives or servants as was common in those days.



I guess i should have written that in another color. I assumed it was obvious that the second paragraph was from me and not the scripture.

If the soldiers were not allowed to do with the young virgins "as they pleased", where is the regulations for precisely what they could be used for.  All through the first five books of the bible, Moses goes into great detail regarding precisely what can be done where and by whom on what day and in what manner.  Since there was no regulation given regarding how the young virgins could be used, it follows that there were no regulations on how the young virgins could be used.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

The New Living Translation is the one I quoted regarding temple prostitute.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 5, 2011)

Fair enough.  Any others?  Did you choose that one specifically to suit your purpose or is that legitimately the one you read from on a consistent basis?

I didn't look at that one and you're right, it does say temple.  But it does not specifically refer to the temple you're thinking of.

I've consistently thought of and read that temple prostitutes were common when worshipping other gods....but never in the temple of the Lord.  I would assume that's why the KJV, the NIV, the ESV and many others translate it the way they do.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

It is stated in more than one place in the first five books of the bible that when Israel goes to war with a neighboring nation, everyone must be destroyed because survivors might lead Israel to sin.  It was forbidden to allow anyone from a neighboring nation, whether from a war or not, to live among the Israelites because they might lead Israel to sin.

The exception made a little later, was that the soldiers could keep the young virgin girls.  Does that mean the everyone but a young virgin girl might lead Israel to sin?  An infant or a small boy might lead Israel to sin therefore they must be killed, but a young virgin girl would never lead Israel to sin, so they were the only ones safe to keep.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> "young virgin girls captured in war, to do with as they pleased."
> 
> You added that part , the Bible doesn't say that.
> Your are just an example of those that twist and add to make verses say what YOU want them to say.
> The virgins could have been as wives or slaves as was common in those days.



Revised for historical accuracy.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Fair enough.  Any others?  Did you choose that one specifically to suit your purpose or is that legitimately the one you read from on a consistent basis?
> 
> Yes, I normally use both the New Living Translation and the King James Version
> 
> ...



Again, it seems that any practice that might occur within a temple of another God would be covered by a blanket regulation such as thou shalt have no other god before me or thou shalt not make any graven image to worship, etc.  It seems hard to believe that God would specify that if you are worshipping another god in another god's temple, in that situation, you shouldn't be a prostitute.


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Revised for historical accuracy.



There goes the pride thing again. Changing words to suit you. 
It's simple, by accepting Jesus Christ you have the promise of eternal life in Heaven. Reject him and what he did for all on the cross and you will be eternally separated from God and spend that time in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. For eternity.


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 6, 2011)

Sorry about that "the bad place"


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 6, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> There goes the pride thing again. Changing words to suit you.
> It's simple, by accepting Jesus Christ you have the promise of eternal life in Heaven. Reject him and what he did for all on the cross and you will be eternally separated from God and spend that time in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. For eternity.



Why should anyone believe that?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> There goes the pride thing again. Changing words to suit you.
> It's simple, by accepting Jesus Christ you have the promise of eternal life in Heaven. Reject him and what he did for all on the cross and you will be eternally separated from God and spend that time in Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. For eternity.



The above line of thought is the exact type of mindset that drove me away from religion. 

I've known some incredible people in my lifetime that have passed on. A few of them led about as straight of a life as anyone could. They were fantastic human beings that loved their family and friends, they were always willing to lend a helping hand to complete strangers, they were pillars of their communities, etc,etc,etc, they were respected and looked up to by everyone that knew them and even by people that met them only once or not at all, their reputations preceded them.  At their funerals the people that were lined up around the block just to show respect could not have said nicer things about them and most shared a story about how the person touched their lives in a special way. I know people are "nice" at viewings/wakes but you know when people are genuine or just going through the motions. These people that passed on left something special behind with everyone they have ever met. 2 in particular did not believe in man's perception of God nor did they believe in organized religion. I can say and mean this with every fiber of my being, IF there is a place where people go after death, a nice place, a heaven, and neither of these folks are there because they did not latch onto the Jesus bandwagon, then heaven is missing out. These people lived their lives and shared with others along the lines of how Jesus is portrayed in the bible without ever being under the impression that they MUST. If heaven is filled with the phonies that fill the pews on Sundays that praise Jesus that day and live their lives so opposite of his teachings the rest then something is radically wrong. And I think what is radically wrong is the brainwashed teachings of organized religion(take your pick) that has requirements for it's members based off of man made rules to further benefit the church. It is made up of the most low down phony scoundrels that can be gathered in one place on a Sunday that think a few extra bucks in the offering is gonna get them a better seat in heaven, while they whisper condescending comments among themselves about the person sitting next to them.

I'd rather spend eternity with the genuine people wherever it is. I've  spent my whole life not wanting to be in with the phonies and I certainly do not want to spend eternity with them.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 6, 2011)

You know I'm on your side, but churches aren't COMPLETELY full of phonies. That doesn't make it better for me, but there are some people that really try and keep their religion and god with them all week long. 

Eternal separation from God... Means no missionaries (the singular... well takes two) and beer??


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

> IF there is a place where people go after death, a nice place, a heaven, and neither of these folks are there because they did not latch onto the Jesus bandwagon, then heaven is missing out.



I suppose the problem is that He|| is likely full of nice people.  I'm in a meeting all day.  But I want to expand on this at some point.



> It is made up of the most low down phony scoundrels that can be gathered in one place on a Sunday that think a few extra bucks in the offering is gonna get them a better seat in heaven, while they whisper condescending comments among themselves about the person sitting next to them.



These people are spoken of often in the Bible.  They are sometimes referred to as Pharisees...and Jesus did not think highly of them.

You too often are looking at the "christians" and transferring their behavior onto Christ.  Is it a very sad thing that those in churches behave so badly so often.  I wish I could singlehandedly change it.  But I cannot.

It does not change the fact that God is a good god.  His "followers" too often make him look bad.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> You know I'm on your side, but churches aren't COMPLETELY full of phonies. That doesn't make it better for me, but there are some people that really try and keep their religion and god with them all week long.
> 
> Eternal separation from God... Means no missionaries (the singular... well takes two) and beer??



Agreed! I know some deeply religious, wonderful people that try to live their life the best they can. They touch peoples lives and are highly loved and respected and attend church more than regularly and also conduct themselves in the same way day in and day out. I think very highly of these people but I do not see how they are any better or any more worthy of anything because they worship Jesus.

THE problem I have with the others is that they will sit next to these genuine people and act as if they are on the same level. Not to mention that the only thing they might have in common is that they each worship and believe in Jesus while their actions in every other aspect of life is so different.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I suppose the problem is that He|| is likely full of nice people.  I'm in a meeting all day.  But I want to expand on this at some point.



I doubt that anyone is there. I highly suspect that it is a made up place to keep followers of religions "in line".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

The "Just Believe" free pass is sickening.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I doubt that anyone is there. I highly suspect that it is a made up place to keep followers of religions "in line".



I'm sure you believe that.  BUT, if it's real and what the Bible says is true, then what I posted is accurate....it is likely full of nice people.  That was my point.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

IF.........

Is a BIG assumption

ANYTHING is possible with the word IF stacking the deck.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

And you don't allow for "IF" in your belief?  Awefully staunch of you.

Mine has to be an IF, but your's doesn't?  I threw IF in because you stated that you don't believe.  I was only clarifying my belief...which doesn't require IF.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The "Just Believe" free pass is sickening.



Wow.....excellent debate tactics today my friend.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

I wasn't debating anything, I am stating my opinion.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 6, 2011)

Why don`t all of you agree to disagree, and let it go.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> Why don`t all of you agree to disagree, and let it go.



If it were that simple there would be no need for any forum on any subject anywhere on the internet.

This is the best place to ask questions, reply and vent. I like it! It is one of the few where each side gets a fair shake.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If it were that simple there would be no need for any forum on any subject anywhere on the internet.
> 
> This is the best place to ask questions, reply and vent. I like it! It is one of the few where each side gets a fair shake.





Yep, but when tempers flare, folks get mad, say things they shouldn`t say, and memberships here get lost. 

Suit yourself, all of you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

Nic,

Nobody is taking offense to anything today.  Just spirited debate/discussion.  We'll try to play nicer.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

huntinfool said:


> nic,
> 
> nobody is taking offense to anything today.  Just spirited debate/discussion.  We'll try to play nicer.



x2!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

So....why is it sickening?  That's extremely strong language.  I'm curious why such a violent reaction?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Did you ever hear back about this?



Still waitin.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So....why is it sickening?  That's extremely strong language.  I'm curious why such a violent reaction?



You take things to literally. Stomach turning, put-offish, disgusted are all terms I could have used.

I "get" that if you believe in Jesus and follow him as your savior you are going to heaven. I "get" that you will still have to answer for your deeds once there, but I am guessing you will still enter the pearly gates as long as your deeds are not too bad. Where that line is, I don't have a clue. I am fairly sure( by past conversations with clergy) that people who attend church regularly and follow Christ yet are dishonest, disloyal, deceitful, adulterous, even committed murder, etc... are going to get into heaven. They will be judged, but they are saved for believing. Next you have another person that led an exemplary life, a life that others wish they could achieve in ten lifetimes, yet they never followed Jesus. This person is not allowed to enjoy a nice afterlife ??? You said H E "double hockey stix" is full of nice people! Well good, that is a membership I'd rather be included with......IF as you say, it is true!


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I "get" that if you believe in Jesus and follow him as your savior you are going to heaven.


I dont think you do.



> "I "get" that you will still have to answer for your deeds once there, but I am guessing you will still enter the pearly gates as long as your deeds are not too bad.


Saverity is not what is looked at, it has to do with the heart.



> Where that line is, I don't have a clue.


There is no "line"


> I am fairly sure( by past conversations with clergy) that people who attend church regularly and follow Christ yet are dishonest, disloyal, deceitful, adulterous, even committed murder, etc... are going to get into heaven. They will be judged, but they are saved for believing.


There again, it has to do with the heart, not specifically what sin is committed.


> Next you have another person that led an exemplary life, a life that others wish they could achieve in ten lifetimes,


Who is defining exemplary?


> This person is not allowed to enjoy a nice afterlife ???


Not allowed??? You choose, it is very much so allowed.


> You said H E "double hockey stix" is full of nice people! Well good, that is a membership I'd rather be included with......IF as you say, it is true!


Jesus didn't come to earth to make mean people nice.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am fairly sure( by past conversations with clergy) that people who attend church regularly and follow Christ yet are dishonest, disloyal, deceitful, adulterous, even committed murder, etc... are going to get into heaven. They will be judged, but they are saved for believing.



I think Jesus addressed these people in Matthew 7:21-23:

_“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

string, in YOUR religion what you say is how it goes. That is why understanding Christianity and being raised Christian I can say "I get it". I know the rules. I also know, or it is my understanding, from discussing such things with people involved in other religions that their followers get along just fine on earth and in the afterlife too so don't think you have any sort of exclusivity once you pass on. Many people believe in a God or some sort of supreme being and live their life in ways that they were taught and believe are it's/his will. They are happy knowing they will enter the afterlife with him. There are many Jews that have entered the pearly gates without the help of Jesus.  Their stories of the afterlife are as believable and as credible as yours. Are you saying these people won't qualify even though the God is the same??


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I think Jesus addressed these people in Matthew 7:21-23:
> 
> _“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ _



Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, more scripture. It's gotta be in the heart to count......

What about the Jews that believe in the same god of Abraham as you do but do not follow the NT? Have they not been getting "in" for centuries??


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 6, 2011)

> Next you have another person that led an exemplary life, a life that others wish they could achieve in ten lifetimes, yet they never followed Jesus.



THIS is the fallacy in the argument.  It's an argument that athiests across the world try to use and the assumption is that "innocent" people will go to He||.  

Usually it is in reference to the "Well how can a loving God send INNOCENT people to He|| even though they live in a hut in New Guinea and have never heard the name of Jesus?"  But it's the same argument here.

The fact is that you don't know any innocent people bullethead.  You might THINK you do (or did).  But you don't (didn't).  Forget what the Bible says about there is no one innocent, not one.  Forget that.  

You have no idea what those people who lived "exemplary" lives did behind closed doors.  You have no idea what they did when they were kids (or adults for that matter).  All you know is the very tiny part of their lives that you observed.

Trust me....if you knew me personally, you would think I was a GREAT guy (forget what you know about me here!).  You would think I was the best guy you knew.  You would think I was living an exemplary life.  

If I were to tell you some of the horrible things I've done in my life and some of the people I've hurt, you'd be shocked.  Literally shocked.

bullethead....there are no people (at the very least there are VERY few...Ghandi perhaps...maybe Mother Terresa) who live the life that you are referring to.

The Bible says there are literally NONE.  But you don't buy that so I'm trying to avoid using that logic.  But that is why there is a need for a savior.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, more scripture.



Of course.  What do you expect me to quote?




bullethead said:


> It's gotta be in the heart to count......



Yep.




bullethead said:


> What about the Jews that believe in the same god of Abraham as you do but do not follow the NT? Have they not been getting "in" for centuries??



What does that have to do with this:



bullethead said:


> The "Just Believe" free pass is sickening.


 
... or this?



bullethead said:


> I am fairly sure( by past conversations with clergy) that people who attend church regularly and follow Christ yet are dishonest, disloyal, deceitful, adulterous, even committed murder, etc... are going to get into heaven. They will be judged, but they are saved for believing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> THIS is the fallacy in the argument.  It's an argument that athiests across the world try to use and the assumption is that "innocent" people will go to He||.
> 
> Usually it is in reference to the "Well how can a loving God send INNOCENT people to He|| even though they live in a hut in New Guinea and have never heard the name of Jesus?"  But it's the same argument here.
> 
> ...



How do you know what Gandhi or Mother Theresa has done in their lives? What does it say in The Bible about either of those two?

I know what you are saying and I agree to a point. I never said or implied that anyone I knew was had never done anything that someone might have been displeased with or were totally innocent. In a lifetime it happens. 

You use yourself as an example and I appreciate that. It is also what I am talking about. Of all the things you've done you think your going to heaven (as you know it) because you have a savior. Awesome. Good, grand, great for you. I knew/know people that have done much less and believe in a god..without Jesus.. that are under the same impression that they will be getting into heaven. They follow their set of rules to get where they are told they are going so how do they differ?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Of course.  What do you expect me to quote?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally I don't buy into any of it, but since you do, or anyone else that does, I am asking why yours is more right. Why are you assured a spot in heaven and they are not? OR, why are you both going to be there despite different beliefs in the process, but still worship the same god??


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> There is no "line"



Are there not 7 deadly sins? Or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but I recall a line where Jesus' blood can no longer redeem you, or where God doesn't allow Jesus' blood to redeem you, rather.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Personally I don't buy into any of it, but since you do, or anyone else that does, I am asking why yours is more right. Why are you assured a spot in heaven and they are not? OR, why are you both going to be there despite different beliefs in the process, but still worship the same god??



I believe Jesus is the Messiah.  I believe He is Divine.  Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. do not.  Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> ... I recall a line where Jesus' blood can no longer redeem you, or where God doesn't allow Jesus' blood to redeem you, rather.



I think you're talking about the "unforgivable sin" from Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I believe Jesus is the Messiah.  I believe He is Divine.  Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. do not.  Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me."



Odd that Jesus didn't go global with that when he was here instead of only to the Jews who to this day still  believe JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES that are IN the Bible.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm

I mean these people ARE the chosen ones by GOD! They were the start of it all and christians are telling them they have got it all wrong???? Interesting.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 6, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Are there not 7 deadly sins? Or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but I recall a line where Jesus' blood can no longer redeem you, or where God doesn't allow Jesus' blood to redeem you, rather.



That was a good movie!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_(film)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Odd that Jesus didn't go global with that when he was here instead of only to the Jews who to this day still  believe JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES that are IN the Bible.
> 
> http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm
> 
> I mean these people ARE the chosen ones by GOD! They were the start of it all and christians are telling them they have got it all wrong???? Interesting.



Jesus' disciples and the early church were 100% Jewish so, obviously, many Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah.  Also, His followers went "global" pretty quickly.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Pretty quickly? Like?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Pretty quickly? Like?



Like throughout the empire by the end of the first century.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I think you're talking about the "unforgivable sin" from Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32.



Yeah, these are what I meant. 

Ah yes, denying the holy spirit. Is that the only one? I thought that suicide was an unforgivable sin because you can't ask for forgiveness for it? Maybe not.. Still though, in the case with the holy spirit, there is a line.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Jesus' disciples and the early church were 100% Jewish so, obviously, many Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah.  Also, His followers went "global" pretty quickly.



So people who were 100% Jewish did not believe what was written in the Bible(OT) as to be the truth( Messianic Prophesies not being fulfilled by Jesus) and they went with he was the Messiah anyway?

So then can the OT be trusted as truth? If it IS true then Jesus did not meet the qualifications so how can he be who he said he was?

If Jesus is who he said he is then the OT does not hold true, even though Jesus taught the OT.

OR, Jesus was a man that garnered followers through teachings of his own mixed in with OT teachings and over THOUSANDS of years he gained quite a following, albeit..mostly through force under the rulers of the world at the time when Christianity "took off".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

from here:

http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romeh/html/spreadchrist.html



"The Spread of Christianity


Christianity, one of a number of oriental religions that attempting to gain adherents in the Roman Empire, first achieved notoriety during Nero's reign. Nero made the Christians as scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. The historical Jesus had died 35 years earlier but Christianity spread quickly through the eastern provinces. By the 50 AD, a Christian community had developed in Rome.

By the end of the 1st century, the pattern of toleration then persecution would continue until the 4th century when Constantine became emperor. Domitian (81-96 AD), like Nero, allegedly persecuted Christians; "good" emperors (such as Trajan - 98-117 AD) chose to ignore the existence of Christians. The harsh persecutions began in the 3rd Century when Christanity was well established (even among the ruling classes) but came to be seen as a threat to the state. In 250 AD, Emperor Decius (249-251 AD) ordered all citizens of the empire to make sacrifice to the traditional gods of Rome. Unable to do this, many Christians suffered torture and death.

Persecution was renewed in 303 AD when Galerius made a final attempt to revitalize the old faith but in 312 AD the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion.; he was baptized on his death bed in 337 AD. Paganism was still tolerated, but temple treasures were confiscated and used to financially support church-building programs. This included the first St. Peter's in Rome and the churches over the Holy Places of Bethlehem and Jerusalem, where Constantine's mother, Helena, claimed to have found the cross on which Christ was crucified. Constantine became involved with the church and this led to a close tie between the state and the church, a tie that was to continue for centuries to come."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> So people who were 100% Jewish did not believe what was written in the Bible(OT) as to be the truth( Messianic Prophesies not being fulfilled by Jesus) and they went with he was the Messiah anyway?"



No, they _did_ believe He was the Messiah based on the OT prophecies:

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” - John 1:41

24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. 

 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. - Acts 18


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> "The Spread of Christianity
> 
> 
> Christianity, one of a number of oriental religions that attempting to gain adherents in the Roman Empire, first achieved notoriety during Nero's reign. Nero made the Christians as scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. The historical Jesus had died 35 years earlier but Christianity spread quickly through the eastern provinces. By the 50 AD, a Christian community had developed in Rome.
> ...



And your point is ...?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm

I think the Jewish people that do not follow Jesus seriously disagree.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 6, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That was a good movie!!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_(film)



I haven't seen it, but maybe that's where I was getting the phrase from.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> And your point is ...?



300+years (depending on source) to make it official in Rome then another thousand or so for Rome to force people into worshiping Jesus and another thousand plus for those people to force the rest into believing isn't exactly "pretty quick".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I think the Jewish people that do not follow Jesus seriously disagree.



I'm sure they do.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

"When the political power of the emperors collapsed with the fall of the Roman Empire, in 410, the Church and its leaders endured as the dominant influence in Roman culture and politics. "

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/history-of-christianity-in-rome-faq.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm sure they do.



And their source is from the OT.

So which is it?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Some insight on the spread of Christianity. 

http://www.unrv.com/culture/spread-christianity.php


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> 300+years (depending on source) to make it official in Rome then another thousand or so for Rome to force people into worshiping Jesus and another thousand plus for those people to force the rest into believing isn't exactly "pretty quick".



Skeptics have a fixation on the word "official" that borders on the pathological.  "Official" was a favorite term of the late, great (   ) Diogenes, as well.  The church was "official" on the Day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews believed Peter and were baptized.  That it was accepted by Constantine 300 years later did not make it any more official in the eyes of God or His followers.

I stand by my statement:  the church spread throughout the empire by the end of the first century -- not bad for a bunch of fishermen from Galilee and their Pharisee brother Paul.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Maybe PAULstianity is a better religion. He was a talented writer that never met Jesus yet wrote as if he were there to witness his teachings and actions and record his conversations. Paul pulled off a good one for sure.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Skeptics have a fixation on the word "official" that borders on the pathological.  "Official" was a favorite term of the late, great (   ) Diogenes, as well.  The church was "official" on the Day of Pentecost when 3,000 Jews believed Peter and were baptized.  That it was accepted by Constantine 300 years later did not make it any more official in the eyes of God or His followers.
> 
> I stand by my statement:  the church spread throughout the empire by the end of the first century -- not bad for a bunch of fishermen from Galilee and their Pharisee brother Paul.



Lots of religions spread that quickly. They did not have the world powers to MAKE them stick though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And their source is from the OT.



Yes, the same OT that Peter, Paul, and Apollos used to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.




bullethead said:


> So which is it?



Which is _what_?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Lots of religions spread that quickly. They did not have the world powers to MAKE them stick though.



For the first 300 years, the most powerful empire the world had ever seen tried to destroy them.  Not only did the church survive, it flourished.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, the same OT that Peter, Paul, and Apollos used to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The OT contradicted itself if one group claims it is the source of their messiah and the other group claims is the source that proves Jesus is not the messiah.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

I thought this thread was about homosexuality.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The OT contradicted itself if one group claims it is the source of their messiah and the other group claims is the source that proves Jesus is not the messiah.



No, one group believed and one group did not.  Simple as that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> For the first 300 years, the most powerful empire the world had ever seen tried to destroy them.  Not only did the church survive, it flourished.



Uh, that was not the Roman Empires main objective in those 300 years. Yes they persecuted the christians but it was not their main objective being that they were trying to conquer the world and all.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought this thread was about homosexuality.



I'm the OP so don't worry.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, one group believed and one group did not.  Simple as that.



Riiiiiiight! I wonder how two groups could read the words of god and get mixed meanings?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Yes they persecuted the christians but it was not their main objective ...



Thank goodness.  Their "hobby" of throwing Christians to the lions was effective enough.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I wonder how two groups could read the words of god and get mixed meanings?



You can't be serious.  Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Thank goodness.  Their "hobby" of throwing Christians to the lions was effective enough.



I'm fairly certain they threw everybody to the lions. Each have their tales of how they were persecuted more.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You can't be serious.  Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation?



I certainly have heard of it. Martin Luther....... I was raised Protestant you might have heard......

And that IS my point. The supposed word of god is not very exact if so many different people that read it get so many different interpretations.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And that IS my point. The supposed word of god is not very exact if so many different people that read it get so many different interpretations.



That didn't happen for 1,500 years.  As for the Jews and the OT, there was no question as to the "exactness" of the scripture.  Some just did not believe Jesus satisfied the prophecies.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Getting back to the OT and the Jewish beliefs of why Jesus is not the Messiah.....

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/

The OT passages that describe the messiah do not describe Jesus. Why? It seems the writings of the NT make that claim and they were written after his death. Why?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That didn't happen for 1,500 years.  As for the Jews and the OT, there was no question as to the "exactness" of the scripture.  Some just did not believe Jesus satisfied the prophecies.



YEAH! I'm guessing because what was written in the OT and what Jesus did or did not do that did not go with those writings sealed the deal to most that he was not the messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That didn't happen for 1,500 years.  As for the Jews and the OT, there was no question as to the "exactness" of the scripture.  Some just did not believe Jesus satisfied the prophecies.



What did happen in those 1500 years prior? World religious peace because everyone was on the same page or believe or be killed?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The OT passages that describe the messiah do not describe Jesus.



Thousands of 1st century Jews simply disagreed with that.  There are scores of Messianic Jews today who disagree with it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Thousands of 1st century Jews simply disagreed with that.  There are scores of Messianic Jews today who disagree with it.



Source for the 1st century crowd where it says they did not believe OT prophesy? And the Messianic Jews beliefs come from the NT, no?


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The above line of thought is the exact type of mindset that drove me away from religion.
> 
> I've known some incredible people in my lifetime that have passed on. A few of them led about as straight of a life as anyone could. They were fantastic human beings that loved their family and friends, they were always willing to lend a helping hand to complete strangers, they were pillars of their communities, etc,etc,etc, they were respected and looked up to by everyone that knew them and even by people that met them only once or not at all, their reputations preceded them.  At their funerals the people that were lined up around the block just to show respect could not have said nicer things about them and most shared a story about how the person touched their lives in a special way. I know people are "nice" at viewings/wakes but you know when people are genuine or just going through the motions. These people that passed on left something special behind with everyone they have ever met. 2 in particular did not believe in man's perception of God nor did they believe in organized religion. I can say and mean this with every fiber of my being, IF there is a place where people go after death, a nice place, a heaven, and neither of these folks are there because they did not latch onto the Jesus bandwagon, then heaven is missing out. These people lived their lives and shared with others along the lines of how Jesus is portrayed in the bible without ever being under the impression that they MUST. If heaven is filled with the phonies that fill the pews on Sundays that praise Jesus that day and live their lives so opposite of his teachings the rest then something is radically wrong. And I think what is radically wrong is the brainwashed teachings of organized religion(take your pick) that has requirements for it's members based off of man made rules to further benefit the church. It is made up of the most low down phony scoundrels that can be gathered in one place on a Sunday that think a few extra bucks in the offering is gonna get them a better seat in heaven, while they whisper condescending comments among themselves about the person sitting next to them.
> 
> I'd rather spend eternity with the genuine people wherever it is. I've  spent my whole life not wanting to be in with the phonies and I certainly do not want to spend eternity with them.



You obviously had a bad experience in a church that had too many "holier than thou" people in it and I am sorry for that. You don't like my post but thats the way it is. Doing good deeds is not enough as faith with out deeds doesnt get it done either .
Churches are not perfect because they are full of people and people are not perfect at all, I don't care who they/you are . We will mess it up everytime on our own and by our way of thinking.  Read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5. Jesus's teaching , we all fall short ,its our nature .  Religion can be worthless when man uses it for his own gain or status, that is totally off base. But you can't judge everyone who "goes to church" as being that way.
When you say thats why you turned away ,,what are you turning to??


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Source for the 1st century crowd where it says they did not believe OT prophesy?



I don't know what you're talking about.  They did believe OT prophecy, and they believed it referred to Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> You obviously had a bad experience in a church that had too many "holier than thou" people in it and I am sorry for that. You don't like my post but thats the way it is. Doing good deeds is not enough as faith with out deeds doesnt get it done either .
> Churches are not perfect because they are full of people and people are not perfect at all, I don't care who they/you are . We will mess it up everytime on our own and by our way of thinking.  Read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5. Jesus's teaching , we all fall short ,its our nature .  Religion can be worthless when man uses it for his own gain or status, that is totally off base. But you can't judge everyone who "goes to church" as being that way.
> When you say thats why you turned away ,,what are you turning to??



I've read the Bible, Beatitudes, and everything before and after it. Good Book, Good Read. I believe it is a work of men.

What am I turning to? I thought I said that was the mindset that drove me away....

It didn't drive me anywhere other than the away from the holier than thou, do as I say not as I do crowd. I'm still on the road.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And the Messianic Jews beliefs come from the NT, no?



No.  They came from the OT prophecies.  They believe Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't know what you're talking about.  They did believe OT prophecy, and they believed it referred to Jesus.



I have given references of OT passages that the Jewish faith believe do not qualify Jesus as being the messiah. Are you saying those same passages show that he is the messiah?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm simply saying that many Jews then and now believe that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the OT.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm simply saying that many Jews then and now believe that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the OT.



I think they are called Christians


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I think they are called Christians



Whatever you want to call them, they were born Jews.  Messianic Jews don't refer to themselves as Messianic Christians.  Go read Lowjack's posts.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> How do you know what Gandhi or Mother Theresa has done in their lives? What does it say in The Bible about either of those two?



It says there is no one righteous...not even one.  




> I know what you are saying and I agree to a point. I never said or implied that anyone I knew was had never done anything that someone might have been displeased with or were totally innocent. In a lifetime it happens.



So I follow you.  You're saying you have known people who lived seemingly better lives than Christians you've known and yet the horrible example Christians looked at them and claimed that they were going to He||.  You see a cop-out where Christians use forgiveness as a free pass.

I agree with you.  It's true.  Many do use it as a crutch and a cop-out.  They treat grace like a filthy rag and toss it around without care.

What I would ask you to do, though, is try to seperate Christ and his Word in the Bible from the behavior of "Christians".  The only way I know to explain it is that there are Christians (I'm sure you know some) who really have "died to Christ" as the Bible describes.  You SEE Christ in their lives.  You know there is something different about them even when comparing to other "Christians".  I won't say that I can tell you which ones are which (I'm not the big guy).  What I'm saying is that there are followers of Christ and there are "Christians".




> You use yourself as an example and I appreciate that. It is also what I am talking about. Of all the things you've done you think your going to heaven (as you know it) because you have a savior. Awesome. Good, grand, great for you. I knew/know people that have done much less and believe in a god..without Jesus.. that are under the same impression that they will be getting into heaven. They follow their set of rules to get where they are told they are going so how do they differ?



I should have clarified a bit.  I did some really horrible things in my past.  I claimed Christ, but I did not follow him nor did I surrender my will to his.  That led me down some really rough paths and led me to hurt people who I dearly love...before I surrendered to Christ.

There are consequences for those actions.  The forgiveness because of the Savior you're talking about does not give me license to continue in my old ways.  It consumes me and requires me to turn and follow.  You will see the difference in a person who has truly done that....unfortunately, you will not in most of the "Christians" that you meet.  It's a heartbreaking reality.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Maybe PAULstianity is a better religion. He was a talented writer that *never met Jesus* yet wrote as if he were there to witness his teachings and actions and record his conversations. Paul pulled off a good one for sure.



1 Corinthians 15:3-15
New International Version (NIV)


 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,* and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.*


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> YEAH! I'm guessing because what was written in the OT and what Jesus did or did not do that did not go with those writings sealed the deal to most that he was not the messiah.



http://www.biblestudy.org/prophecy/old-testament-prophecies-jesus-fulfilled.html

....... or maybe they had another excuse.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> 1 Corinthians 15:3-15
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 
> 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,* and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.*


*

Ouch! 

Gotta sting a little bit, right?*


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Gotta sting a little bit, right?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> 1 Corinthians 15:3-15
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 
> 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,* and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.*


*

Geepers! ANOTHER bible verse used as if it were FACT! Yow! Of all the other ones that I do not believe.........THIS one has changed my whole outlook!! Now I certainly am POSITIVE Paul is full of Baloney.*


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ouch!
> 
> Gotta sting a little bit, right?



WhoooooooWieeee, sting, yessss. I don't know how I'll recover from such an undeniable proven tidbit of information taken from the exact book that is chock full of inerrant, infallible, consistent, 100% proven facts like the bible. Good one, really. Had I heard that 20 years ago I probably would have continued on my path of worship.

Or wait, nope, STILL not worthy of being taken seriously by a non-believer. You have to do better boys.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> http://www.biblestudy.org/prophecy/old-testament-prophecies-jesus-fulfilled.html
> 
> ....... or maybe they had another excuse.



Descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Through Joseph who was NOT his biological Father???

Please explain.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh wait...I guess these are going to garner the typical christian answer of..."It will happen in the second coming"


The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)

Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)

The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)

He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18)

The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)

Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)

He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)

All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)

Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)

There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)

All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)

The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)

He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)

Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)

The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)

The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)

Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)

The Temple will be rebuilt resuming many of the suspended mitzvot (Ezekiel 40)

He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9)

Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33)[3]

He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)

He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)
Reply With Quote


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Geepers! ANOTHER bible verse used as if it were FACT! Yow! Of all the other ones that I do not believe.........THIS one has changed my whole outlook!! Now I certainly am POSITIVE Paul is full of Baloney.



Come on now.  Just admit that you were wrong.  You posted that Paul never met him.....based on the Bible.  So now don't deny the rebuttle from the same source.

It doesn't require you to change your position on anything other than the fact that he did indeed bump into him once according to the Bible.

Is it that tough?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Geepers! ANOTHER bible verse used as if it were FACT! Yow! Of all the other ones that I do not believe.........THIS one has changed my whole outlook!! Now I certainly am POSITIVE Paul is full of Baloney.





bullethead said:


> WhoooooooWieeee, sting, yessss. I don't know how I'll recover from such an undeniable proven tidbit of information taken from the exact book that is chock full of inerrant, infallible, consistent, 100% proven facts like the bible. Good one, really. Had I heard that 20 years ago I probably would have continued on my path of worship.
> 
> Or wait, nope, STILL not worthy of being taken seriously by a non-believer. You have to do better boys.




That was just plain funny there!



BTW, yourself and Atlas,Ambush,SixMDH, and everyone else who consider yourselfs non-theistic-agnostic atheist choose to use Bible verses all the time(when there convenient to your argument), I and others will reserve that same right. What would you like me to do, go ask Paul myself?!? We have what he wrote, I'll take his word, just like you do with every piece of ancient history you buy into except the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Come on now.  Just admit that you were wrong.  You posted that Paul never met him.....based on the Bible.  So now don't deny the rebuttle from the same source.
> 
> It doesn't require you to change your position on anything other than the fact that he did indeed bump into him once according to the Bible.
> 
> Is it that tough?



Is it that tough for me to believe that Paul bumped into a risen dead man on the road to Damascus. YES

Paul did not travel with Jesus like the Apostles did for 3 years. He met a dead Jesus  once on a dirt road!( again, I'm using the bible here so right from the start I think it is unbelievable). So I am supposed to believe that on a road somewhere he bumped into him and from that encounter Paul could tell the tales of Jesus' conversations, teachings and miracles even though Paul was not there to personally witness any of those things?

Is it that tough for you to think that Paul may have been very good at embellishing things to make his story sound credible to the people of the times? 

I mean if someone were to write a book about a guy they never met and do it in a way that makes it seem like they were side by side for years, SOMEHOW they are going to have to slip in that they actually did meet at some point. What a better way than to say "hey, I was out on a deserted dirt road while on my way to Damascus to persecute some christians, when Lo and Behold here comes Jesus! We chit chatted a bit, and he told me to go into the city and be baptized, therefore I can write anything I want like I was there when it happened." "I never met him while he was alive....history can't put us together during those times, BUT, as long as someone believes I talked to him 3 years after he was dead the story will make sense."

OR was there a great light and a divine voice? Jesus? God? Heatstroke?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> That was just plain funny there!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, yourself and Atlas,Ambush,SixMDH, and everyone else who consider yourselfs non-theistic-agnostic atheist choose to use Bible verses all the time(when there convenient to your argument), I and others will reserve that same right. What would you like me to do, go ask Paul myself?!? We have what he wrote, I'll take his word, just like you do with every piece of ancient history you buy into except the Bible.



String we HAVE to use bible verses because it is the only way to communicate with people that use it as their ONLY source. It really is all you have got.

Yes! You can talk to Paul, just go for a stroll on a road where nobody else will see you and come back with a story that a blinding light spoke to you and it turned out to be Paul. Simple, he did it!


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

You just lost a little credibility with those last few posts.  If you can't admit you were wrong based on the source you are using, then you lose credibility in other arguments.  It's not even a big point to concede.  That's what's confounding about it.

I didn't ask you if it was hard to believe.  I know the answer to that.  I asked why you couldn't just say "Oh, I wasn't aware that was in there.  I was wrong about that."

BTW...he didn't meet a dead Jesus.  He was only dead while he was in that tomb.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool, HE MET A BLINDING LIGHT AND A VOICE. Read your bible. I KNOW the story. I KNOW that in the bible Paul did not spend time with Jesus like the other apostles did. He met a light and a voice 3 years after Jesus death. Paul was on his way to persecute some more christians.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You just lost a little credibility with those last few posts.  If you can't admit you were wrong based on the source you are using, then you lose credibility in other arguments.  It's not even a big point to concede.  That's what's confounding about it.
> 
> I didn't ask you if it was hard to believe.  I know the answer to that.  I asked why you couldn't just say "Oh, I wasn't aware that was in there.  I was wrong about that."
> 
> BTW...he didn't meet a dead Jesus.  He was only dead while he was in that tomb.



Your hanging on to a passage that states Paul met a light and voice like he spent time with Jesus on a regular basis. Very Credible.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

10-4 good buddy.  I'm just sayin'...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

I actually can admit I'm wrong, Paul wrote about this encounter in the year 55, so it was quite sometime after the 3 years I originally posted.

Also Paul was not alone, he had other men with him and they say they heard a voice, never saw anyone.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 10-4 good buddy.  I'm just sayin'...



Sayin what? Paul was blinded and heard a voice 22 years after the death of Jesus?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Paul.......

Acts 16:9
And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
- 1769 Oxford King James Bible 'Authorized Version


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

In fact a few times throughout Acts, Paul had "visions". He met them through his mind......


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

And since we are being honest, Acts was written by Luke and Luke told the STORY of Paul in Acts and I don't think Luke was there to witness Paul's "visions". It was written in @ the year 61. 3rd Person Writing style.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I actually can admit I'm wrong, Paul wrote about this encounter *in the year 55*, so it was quite sometime after the 3 years I originally posted.
> 
> Also Paul was not alone, he had other men with him and they say they heard a voice, never saw anyone.



This is only as far back a we can find....... so far.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

So what do you think changed Paul's mind on the road to Demascus Bullet?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> This is only as far back a we can find....... so far.



THE story as it was told in ACTS was not written by your buddy Paul at all. You wanted to use it out of the bible as if Paul met Jesus. He saw a light and heard a voice, sounds like they were tight. Then again in Acts Paul had lots of visions with appearances, according to the author....LUKE.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So what do you think changed Paul's mind on the road to Demascus Bullet?



Personally I think he was not happy with the ways of the old jewish teachings and thought this was a good way to get on the bandwagon and start his own style of law/teachings/religious views.

NT writings differ greatly from the OT ones and he was responsible for starting it.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

A long but good read.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Me thinks thou doth protest too much.



Me thinks thou doth believith writings of man WAY too much.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Me thinks thou doth protest too much.



Say what's on your mind HF.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Me thinks thou doth believith writings of man WAY too much.



You've referred to the writings of man repeatedly in this thread.  You just posted this:



bullethead said:


> A long but good read.
> 
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm



... a couple of hours ago.

You have no problems believing the writings of men who agree with you.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You've referred to the writings of man repeatedly in this thread.  You just posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Am I or have I ever tried to pass those writings off as divinely inspired? 

I have no problem believing writings of man AS writings of man that have done research to come to their conclusions.

I do not believe the writings of man that claim to be inspired by invisible beings with absolutely no proof outside of their own writings to back those writings up.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

I'll fix it so it is clear.

Me thinks thou doth believith writings of man as if they were the writings of a divine being WAY too much.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Am I or have I ever tried to pass those writings off as divinely inspired?



You guys certainly kiss the papal ring of St. Bart Ehrman on a regular basis.




bullethead said:


> I have no problem believing writings of man AS writings of man that have done research to come to their conclusions.



Will you admit that there are learned men who have done their own research and come to different conclusions?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Personally I think he was not happy with the ways of the old jewish teachings and thought this was a good way to get on the bandwagon and start his own style of law/teachings/religious views.



Philipians 3:4-6
If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. 

Paul loved the law based on his writings. Any other ideas?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Say what's on your mind HF.



You got awefully worked up there over something minor...

...when you protest too much...there's usually a reason.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Will you admit that there are learned men who have done their own research and come to different conclusions?


Yea...but....but those guys are stupid.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You guys certainly kiss the papal ring of St. Bart Ehrman on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can say this with 100% honesty. The only time(s) I have ever read or heard of Bart Ehrman is on this board if someone posts a link or video about him.


I certainly admit that there are learned men that have done research and have come to different conclusions. I never thought otherwise. What I have found is that more often than not when their research is put up head to head against other research, the research that backs the religious side falls short of undeniable proof. It fills those gaps in with faith when no other answer can be found.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Philipians 3:4-6
> If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
> 
> Paul loved the law based on his writings. Any other ideas?



Gotta sell the story you created.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You got awefully worked up there over something minor...
> 
> ...when you protest too much...there's usually a reason.



Worked up? Hardly even a raised brow. I just try my darnedest to prove what I am saying. I am still waiting for those bible verses that show Paul met Jesus, you know....other than in visions where he appeared to him or heard voices and blinding light.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I can say this with 100% honesty. The only time(s) I have ever read or heard of Bart Ehrman is on this board if someone posts a link or video about him.



Sorry.  I must have gotten you mixed up with someone else.  You skeptics all look alike.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yea...but....but those guys are stupid.



2 people will have two stories, each skewed to favor their point or belief. It is somewhere in the middle that the truth(or as close to the truth that can be had) is usually found.

I tend to look at both sides and try to research what is being said. I go with the side that I can find the most resources to back up the information I am being given. I won't take what I am being told or read at face value until after I am satisfied that what I am hearing tips the scales of believability to that side. Most times I look outside of the box.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Sorry.  I must have gotten you mixed up with someone else.  You skeptics all look alike.



All this is a lesson for me. I like discussing it and while I will search for sites to use to back up what I am thinking(possibly because someone can state them in a clearer way), my thoughts are my own.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Gotta sell the story you created.



I'm not following. Paul changed his mind on the way to Demascus, what do you think changed his mind so quickly?

pssssstt..... it wasn't that he didn't like the Jewish law


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not following. Paul changed his mind on the way to Demascus, what do you think changed his mind so quickly?
> 
> pssssstt..... it wasn't that he didn't like the Jewish law




psssst, MAYBE that's the story he needed to tell to sell the rest of it??


Or no wait, you want me to say he MET Jesus! Like in the bible! But if you read the bible he never actually met Jesus, just saw visions, apparitions, and heard voices.

I can't blame him though, nobody would follow his religion unless he was a member.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me

OK Paul, err Luke...which is it? They did or did not hear the voice?
What happened to these other guys that heard(or didn't hear) the voice??


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
> 
> Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me
> 
> ...



In Acts 9, Luke is telling the story.  In Acts 22, Paul is telling the story.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> In Acts 9, Luke is telling the story.  In Acts 22, Paul is telling the story.



Right! Thank You. Same story, two different authors, two different versions. Which way did it happen?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Which way did it happen?



No idea.  I wasn't there.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
> 
> Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me
> 
> ...



Leaving out a word is never a good thing Bullet

Acts 22
 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. 

   “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not *understand* the voice of him who was speaking to me. 

Not understanding and not hearing are two different things, but you already knew that didn't you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
> 
> Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me
> 
> ...



If they had wrote it down as Paul did, you wouldn't believe them now would you?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Leaving out a word is never a good thing Bullet
> 
> Acts 22
> 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
> ...



Oh FER CRYIN OUT LOUD! Every version of the bible has it's own words used. I did not leave anything out, it was the way it was written in the first online bible I found.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No idea.  I wasn't there.



Neither was Luke. It does not say much about his credibility of everything else he wrote.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If they had wrote it down as Paul did, you wouldn't believe them now would you?



IF, again? 

You know what they say about the queen and "if".


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh FER CRYIN OUT LOUD! Every version of the bible has it's own words used. I did not leave anything out, it was the way it was written in the first online bible I found.



Glad we got that squared away then.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> IF, again?
> 
> You know what they say about the queen and "if".



Well, Paul did write it down, and you don't believe him?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Leaving out a word is never a good thing Bullet
> 
> Acts 22
> 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
> ...



You are gonna have to take that matter up with the NKJV. They have it that they did not hear the voice.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh FER CRYIN OUT LOUD! Every version of the bible has it's own words used. I did not leave anything out, it was the way it was written in the first online bible I found.



Oh and BTW, I was just  with my last comment in post #371


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well, Paul did write it down, and you don't believe him?



Gotta say you are correct, because the bible is filled with these inconsistent stories. But now in this case while I am trying to learn from you guys I am confused because both Paul and Luke wrote it down, but there are two different versions. Which is the correct one?


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I've read the Bible, Beatitudes, and everything before and after it. Good Book, Good Read. I believe it is a work of men.
> 
> What am I turning to? I thought I said that was the mindset that drove me away....
> 
> It didn't drive me anywhere other than the away from the holier than thou, do as I say not as I do crowd. I'm still on the road.



God is good. I hope you find your way back to that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Neither was Luke. It does not say much about his credibility of everything else he wrote.



So, if they're not an eyewitness, they're not reliable?  Herodotus wrote about things he never witnessed.  So, he's not reliable?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am confused because both Paul and Luke wrote it down, but there are two different versions. Which is the correct one?



Paul and Luke did _not_ write it down.  Luke wrote both accounts.  In the second account in Acts 22, he quotes Paul.


----------



## Blueridge (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I've read the Bible, Beatitudes, and everything before and after it. Good Book, Good Read. I believe it is a work of men.
> 
> What am I turning to? I thought I said that was the mindset that drove me away....
> 
> It didn't drive me anywhere other than the away from the holier than thou, do as I say not as I do crowd. I'm still on the road.



Job 38-39  do you really think that men made that up and that it was not God inspired?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> In Acts 9, Luke is telling the story.  In Acts 22, Paul is telling the story.



From Stringmusic


> Well, Paul did write it down, and you don't believe him?



From you:


> Paul and Luke did not write it down. Luke wrote both accounts. In the second account in Acts 22, he quotes Paul.



You guys can talk about that amongst yourselves.

I know Luke wrote Acts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I know Luke wrote Acts.



So do I.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> Job 38-39  do you really think that men made that up and that it was not God inspired?



Yep


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So do I.



Let me clarify, I know someone credited "Luke" with writing Acts. who Luke actually was/is, I don't know. But as far as the bible goes, Yes, Acts is credited to Luke.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

Blueridge said:


> Job 38-39  do you really think that men made that up and that it was not God inspired?



Which author wrote Job?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Let me clarify, I know someone credited "Luke" with writing Acts. who Luke actually was/is, I don't know. But as far as the bible goes, Yes, Acts is credited to Luke.



I understood what you were saying.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 8, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From Stringmusic
> 
> 
> From you:
> ...



I'm sorry, I know that Luke wrote Acts, I got ahead of myself speaking about Paul. I imagine Paul wrote about Demascus at some point, or told Luke himself. I will re-word my question to say that Paul is quoted by Luke and you don't believe that.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I'm sorry, I know that Luke wrote Acts, I got ahead of myself speaking about Paul. I imagine Paul wrote about Demascus at some point, or told Luke himself. I will re-word my question to say that Paul is quoted by Luke and you don't believe that.



String you are right, I do not believe it. You have to understand that to me the bible is a work of fact and fiction with real places and real people (fact)surrounded by extravagant events and embellishment(fiction) and all authored by people who either were not there and did not witness it but they wrote about it at a minimum of decades if not centuries later as if they were there. The main thing that leads me to believe the way I do about the bible is that the majority of happenings, claims, tales, and events exist nowhere else outside of that bible. Not only did it take thousands of years for organized religion to piece together stories that fit their needs but these stories are often inaccurate, errant and unable to be validated by the means we use to validate other history/happenings all over the world. Not to mention that it has been interpreted to the point that modern versions use the words they want conveyed to the reader that are no where near what the original language intended.

I think that as far as reading material goes it is a good read,as far as religious purposes go the OT serves the Jewish faith well and the NT serves the Christian faith well.

Because "we" did not find the personal diary of god or jesus, or even a universal handbook, I believe that the majority of the bibles contents are stories made up by man to try to use religion as law. It is so centered to a small part of the world that the culture for that part of the world is rampant throughout the bible and it is no where near universal in it's traditions, practices or ways. It is not something "we" found as a complete work of a divine entity but it is a pile of stories that were written at unknown times by unknown authors and were pieced together by man thousands of years later. Many stories of the times were written. Many told a different story as to what is portrayed in the bible. Those stories were not allowed to be included because they did not fit the message that MAN, not god, wanted to tell. If the powers that be cannot take all of the writings of the time as accurate(even though they were written almost side by side with the ones they included) and truthful then how can I take what they hand picked to accurate and truthful.

If anything they took the most accurate historical records of their time, dismissed what they did not like and embellished what they did use to make their point.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2011)

What I find interesting about events that are recorded in the bible AND elsewhere, is that they are frequently stated in the records to be from different time periods or they are used for other religions or myths. 

Those tell me two things. First, that some of the events probably happened naturally. The different people understood different things going on and took them their own ways. Second, someone first came up with the concept of an event or a myth that was later thought of by future generations as a really good story and used again to create new stories. Whatever the intent of those stories may have been, it seemed like a good idea.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> What I find interesting about events that are recorded in the bible AND elsewhere, is that they are frequently stated in the records to be from different time periods or they are used for other religions or myths.
> 
> Those tell me two things. First, that some of the events probably happened naturally. The different people understood different things going on and took them their own ways. Second, someone first came up with the concept of an event or a myth that was later thought of by future generations as a really good story and used again to create new stories. Whatever the intent of those stories may have been, it seemed like a good idea.



Yep. take the great flood for example. It certainly happened in that region. It was recorded by many. It was not worldwide, just what they thought was the entire world at that time. Then the writers take a known event and embellish the story of Noah and God into it to make it their own.
The same basic story is told elsewhere but with different participants. They take natural events/disasters and embellish them.


----------

