Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Is God a just judge?
Nope, God is a dick.

God is whatever we want god to be.

^Which means that God is a dick.

jesus and god are two different beings

Originally posted by Shabazz916
jesus and god are two different beings

Yes, one is just a man while the other is just a belief.

Originally posted by Shabazz916
jesus and god are two different beings You sick f*ck.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You sick f*ck.

3 gods in 1.

What a bargain.

Everything that is God's is His Sons. All his judgments are for our own good.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
All his judgments are for our own good.

Unless you're gay. Or female. Or the recipient of a rape. Or a child. Or an old man. Or a million other ****ing things.

lol

Originally posted by dadudemon


Do you honestly think you've stumbled upon an amazing theosophical thought that wasn't already addressed 1900 years ago?


Edit - Let me know if you're serious. I don't think you are. If you were, you'd post it on a Christian Apologist message board where you would get real answers and real arguments.

I am not the poster you were asking this of, but ...

1. I am not so sure "there is nothing new under the sun" works here as an argument. We are living in a different time in a different locale in a different culture with different means of communication different mindsets and different scientific knowledge and technologies. That's too much "different" not to be considered new unless you have an exceptional definition of that word.

2. I think you mean "theological"? Theosophical is associated with Aleister Crowley and Luciferians and the like.

On the other hand, the OP has claimed to be Gnostic in other threads ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm surprised that a Skyfather like Zeus defeated Hulk when Zeus' Top-Tier son Hercules has lost to Hulk.

This is all we need to know of the blue wave.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, God is a dick.

+ 1

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God is whatever we want god to be.

Yes.

Not the bible God.

As depicted, is he a just God?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, one is just a man while the other is just a belief.

Well put.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am not the poster you were asking this of, but ...

1. I am not so sure "there is nothing new under the sun" works here as an argument. We are living in a different time in a different locale in a different culture with different means of communication different mindsets and different scientific knowledge and technologies. That's too much "different" not to be considered new unless you have an exceptional definition of that word.

2. I think you mean "theological"? Theosophical is associated with Aleister Crowley and Luciferians and the like.

On the other hand, the OP has claimed to be Gnostic in other threads ...

1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical" as in "theosophy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would appear that you do not have an understanding the Atonement.

Do you honestly think you've stumbled upon an amazing theosophical thought that wasn't already addressed 1900 years ago?


Edit - Let me know if you're serious. I don't think you are. If you were, you'd post it on a Christian Apologist message board where you would get real answers and real arguments.

Give an answer to the question instead of deflecting to me and you will see if the question has been addressed well or not.

You deflect and want to send me elsewhere because you know I am correct on this issue.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am not the poster you were asking this of, but ...

1. I am not so sure "there is nothing new under the sun" works here as an argument. We are living in a different time in a different locale in a different culture with different means of communication different mindsets and different scientific knowledge and technologies. That's too much "different" not to be considered new unless you have an exceptional definition of that word.

2. I think you mean "theological"? Theosophical is associated with Aleister Crowley and Luciferians and the like.

On the other hand, the OP has claimed to be Gnostic in other threads ...

Indeed I have but that has nothing to do with my moral position here. True that we do not see Jesus as a sacrifice but human useless human sacrifice is always wrong.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical" as in "theosophy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Hogwash.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus there would be no Christianity like we see it today. Christianity never taught his esoteric teachings and have nothing without God having Jesus murdered.

Regards
DL

The sacrifice of Christ is pretty much a central tenet of the foundation of Christianity.

Along with gun ownership, hating liberals, homosexuals, and foreigners.

whoa people really hate religion on KMC.

i've never been religious but i would probably be ticked off if i were.

can't people be objective about this?

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Regarding the Atonement, yeah, you can pretty much bet that anything anyone thinks about the Atonement has already been thought and argued about. It is one of if not the most important aspect of Christianity.

2. No, I mean "theosophical"


And what does atonement mean exactly and what was its relevance in the discussion anyway?

And what does atonement mean again?

Originally posted by Breno
And what does atonement mean again?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atonement

Originally posted by dadudemon


we actually CHOSE to be born into this life ...







Unless you were giving shorthand for "born again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Unless you were giving shorthand for "born again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for.

I'm Mormon.

We don't think God forced us to be born into this mortal existence: we think we chose to be born in this existence. We call this concept the, "preexistance." The concept finds its origins from a statement in Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." Clearly, we existed before being put into this plane of existence. How else could Joel Extending the concept of free will that God gives us, we would have had a logical choice to be born on the earth rather than stay with God, in heaven.



When the scriptures make reference to being taught the gospel and having these things being brought back to our "remembrance", we clearly were taught them, before, in a preexistance with God. How else would we remember them unless we were taught them, before?



1 Corinthians 4:17

1 Timothy 4:6

2 Timothy 1:5



The concept of a preexistance is something that the Jews believe but, strangely, many Christians do not believe. You'd think that Christians would maintain that belief. But I've heard, from a Jewish guy, that Christians do not necessarily NOT believe in the preexistance concept, it is just not taught.

The preexistance concept was struck down by 5th of the 7 enumerical coucils as "heresy", which is why the concept of a preexistance seems to evade so many Christian teachings, today.

More preexistance evidence:

Psalm 139:16


But probably the biggest nail in the coffin is this:

Zechariah 12:1

How could God put a spirit into a body that did not exist before the body? Clearly, God created the spirit, first, and then put it in the body, as that verse tells us.


And the First Estate is found in Jude 1:6:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Clearly, we kept our first estate but the third of the host of heaven, which Lucifer was apart of, did not keep their first estate.



Regardless, I do not expect you to believe this. In fact, I am positive that you will not believe it. It seems to be a strongly entrenched concept in Christianity due to the evils that are the enumerical councils (much of those decisions incorrectly interpreted and set, for over a thousand years, the direction the Catholic Church would take and they still influence, incorrectly so, protestant faiths). Why, when Jews already believed in a preexistance, would Christians stop believing in a preexistance? I think it is simple: the enumerical councils were full of biblical laymen and had strong political agendas. They gladly picked and chose which gospel they would accept and reject for their own wicked machinations.

Ignore that previous post.


I got distracted at work when I was editing it:


Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Unless you were giving shorthand for "born again", I think I understood everything you wrote EXCEPT for this quoted statement above.

Are you talking natural birth or spiritual birth (i.e. Baptism & Conversion)?

The latter I'd understand.
The former I myself would be interested in hearing an explanation for.

I'm Mormon.

We don't think God forced us to be born into this mortal existence: we think we chose to be born in this existence. We call this concept the, "preexistance." The concept finds its origins from a statement in Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." Clearly, we existed before being put into this plane of existence. Extending the concept of free will that God gives us, we would have had a logical choice to be born on the earth rather than stay with God, in heaven. If we didn't, our free will is not preserved.



When the scriptures make reference to being taught the gospel and having these things being brought back to our "remembrance", we clearly were taught them, before, in a preexistance with God. How else would we remember them unless we were taught them, before?



1 Corinthians 4:17

1 Timothy 4:6

2 Timothy 1:5



The concept of a preexistance is something that the Jews believe but, strangely, many Christians do not believe. You'd think that Christians would maintain that belief. But I've heard, from a Jewish guy, that Christians do not necessarily NOT believe in the preexistance concept, it is just not taught anymore.

But there is another, darker, reason that the preexistance concept seems to not be taught by modern Christians: it was struck down by 5th of the 7 enumerical coucils as "heresy", which is why the concept of a preexistance seems to evade so many Christian teachings, today. Why did it take until a 5th council before they struck it down if it was "heresy"? It certainly was a concept in Judism before Christianity started takings roots. It was certainly a concept taught by early Christians...clearly, there was something else going on in these councils that was not necessarily of God. More on that, later...

More preexistance evidence:

Psalm 139:16


But probably the biggest nail in the coffin is this:

Zechariah 12:1

How could God put a spirit into a body that did not exist before the body? Clearly, God created the spirit, first, and then put it in the body, as that verse tells us. How long that spirit existed before being put in the body, we cannot know. Mormons assert it was a ridiculously long time before...some Christians assert it was created at nearly the same time the body was. Others assert that the spirit, contrary to what is taught in the scriptures, was formed after the fetus was formed and the fetus is "quickened" with a spirit.


And the First Estate is found in Jude 1:6:

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Clearly, we kept our first estate but the third of the host of heaven, which Lucifer was apart of, did not keep their first estate.



Regardless, I do not expect you to believe this. In fact, I am positive that you will not believe it. It seems to be a strongly entrenched concept in Christianity due to the evils that are the enumerical councils (much of those decisions incorrectly interpreted and set, for over a thousand years, the direction the Catholic Church would take and they still influence, incorrectly so, protestant faiths). Why, when Jews already believed in a preexistance, would Christians stop believing in a preexistance? I think it is simple: the enumerical councils were full of biblical laymen and had strong political agendas. They gladly picked and chose which gospel they would accept and reject for their own wicked and political machinations.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The sacrifice of Christ is pretty much a central tenet of the foundation of Christianity.

Along with gun ownership, hating liberals, homosexuals, and foreigners.

+ 1

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL


Regards
DL

Originally posted by Raisen
whoa people really hate religion on KMC.

i've never been religious but i would probably be ticked off if i were.

can't people be objective about this?

Read the post just above and tell us if we should like religions?

Especially the Abrahamic deniers of equality to women and gays cults.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Read the post just above and tell us if we should like religions?

Especially the Abrahamic deniers of equality to women and gays cults.

Regards
DL

if that's how you think it is, then you're wrong, my friend...
there are certain circumstances that prohibits women in doing something but most of it are just a misinterpretation... let me give you an example:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness."
I Timothy 2:11

this verse is often misinterpreted as a sexist remark... but even men should be silent if there's no interpreter:

"But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:28

with regard to homosexuals... what was prohibited is the act, not the person...

"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,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
I Corinthians 6:9-10

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

it's the act, not the person...

Originally posted by dyajeep
if that's how you think it is, then you're wrong, my friend...
there are certain circumstances that prohibits women in doing something but most of it are just a misinterpretation... let me give you an example:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness."
I Timothy 2:11

this verse is often misinterpreted as a sexist remark... but even men should be silent if there's no interpreter:

"But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God."
I Corinthians 14:28

with regard to homosexuals... what was prohibited is the act, not the person...

"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,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
I Corinthians 6:9-10

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

it's the act, not the person...


Who goes to hell? The act or the person?

As to women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

Regards
DL

Look at all the people defending Islam and none defending Christianity. Foolish hypocrites claiming "Oh I'm not bias"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Look at all the people defending Islam and none defending Christianity. Foolish hypocrites claiming "Oh I'm not bias"

This is a Christian centered O.P.

There are thread for Islam.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
This is a Christian centered O.P.

There are thread for Islam.

Regards
DL

Not really, I created a thread about muslim extremists and everyone started talking about christianity.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Not really, I created a thread about muslim extremists and everyone started talking about christianity.

Oh well. That is a problem when the vast majority here have more to do with Christianity.

Some like me may sometimes speak to the whole of the Abrahamic cults depending on the issue at hand.

Bend my man that way you will not break.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Who goes to hell? The act or the person?

of course, the person... my point is, it's not wrong to be a gay if you're not doing homosexual acts... i have some friends in our church who are openly gay, i.e. they are attracted to same sex, talks like a girl, moves like a girl... but he never dresses like a girl, does not engage in homosexual relationship and continues his service to God...

as to women, i never see the Bible degrade women... by saying women are "weaker vessel" does not equate to "weaker sex" (not as the term we use today like degrading women)... women are weaker so men who are stronger will respect, understand and honor them:

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
I Peter 3:7

You need to go back to bible school. Shouldn't be quoting scriptures unless you understand their context. You could make a fool of yourself and miss enform the needy. Shocking!

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Oh well. That is a problem when the vast majority here have more to do with Christianity.

Some like me may sometimes speak to the whole of the Abrahamic cults depending on the issue at hand.

Bend my man that way you will not break.

Regards
DL

Not really though, people who are anti-christian will hate christianity over any other religion there is. Hence why the flipped out of me talking about Islam even though none of them are Islamic, its liberal brainwashing as they all drones. Especially Robtarded and Bardock.

Originally posted by Breno
You need to go back to bible school. Shouldn't be quoting scriptures unless you understand their context. You could make a fool of yourself and miss enform the needy. Shocking!

not unless you have your own pre-conceived interpretation with the verse, i don't see nothing wrong... and i don't think someone who writes wrong spelled words telling me to go back to Bible school...

1 spelling mistake doesn't change the facts. You have clearly suffered from the effects of a poor education. In addition to feeling the need to point out someone's spelling mistake (showing poor social skills) you have also demonstrated that you have a derisory understanding of English grammar. Infact, your written english is like that of a foreigner. I would hazard a guess and say that if you had ever tried to read the bible you didn't understand much of what you read

Originally posted by Breno
1 spelling mistake doesn't change the facts. You have clearly suffered from the effects of a poor education. In addition to feeling the need to point out someone's spelling mistake (showing poor social skills) you have also demonstrated that you have a derisory understanding of English grammar. Infact, your written english is like that of a foreigner. I would hazard a guess and say that if you had ever tried to read the bible you didn't understand much of what you read

When someon can't arrgue the point, thay becom the gramer polic.

this comment ---

Originally posted by Breno
You need to go back to bible school.

is from someone telling me that i have poor social skills...





Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When someon can't arrgue the point, thay becom the gramer polic.

what point? him telling me not to quote the Scriptures unless i understand the context? i did not see any refute...

and this ---


Originally posted by Breno
Infact, your written english is like that of a foreigner. I would hazard a guess and say that if you had ever tried to read the bible you didn't understand much of what you read

is a very racist comment... very discriminatory... i don't know why your "buddha" approved it...

Originally posted by dyajeep
...what point? him telling me not to quote the Scriptures unless i understand the context? i did not see any refute...

It was a general statement about how people argue. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I had just replied to "Greatest I am (not)" about the same thing. I found it interesting that a parallel argument on the same thread had fallen into the same trap.

you said ---

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When someon can't arrgue the point, thay becom the gramer polic.

what is the point then? if it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, then what am i supposed to argue?

i'll be waiting for Breno to refute my interpretation about I Peter 3:7... Breno, prove that i'm out of context...

really funny how you purposely ignore the racist comment though... well, it's a slap on your face, Breno, to be corrected in spelling by a foreigner...

Originally posted by dyajeep
you said ---
what is the point then? if it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, then what am i supposed to argue?


What?! You don't get it?!

Look, if you have a counter argument, you are going to write that argument. If you don't have a counter argument, then you are going to nit-pick on spelling and grimmer. Therefore, if someone is nit-picking on spelling and grimmer, it is because they don't have a counter argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Look, if you have a counter argument, you are going to write that argument.

stop.

just stop.

stop your attitude.

listen to reason.

here's my post ---

Originally posted by dyajeep
of course, the person... my point is, it's not wrong to be a gay if you're not doing homosexual acts... i have some friends in our church who are openly gay, i.e. they are attracted to same sex, talks like a girl, moves like a girl... but he never dresses like a girl, does not engage in homosexual relationship and continues his service to God...

as to women, i never see the Bible degrade women... by saying women are "weaker vessel" does not equate to "weaker sex" (not as the term we use today like degrading women)... women are weaker so men who are stronger will respect, understand and honor them:

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
I Peter 3:7

here's Breno's post ---

Originally posted by Breno
You need to go back to bible school. Shouldn't be quoting scriptures unless you understand their context. You could make a fool of yourself and miss enform the needy. Shocking!

what do i need to argue? there's no refute... this is just plain bashing...

Originally posted by dyajeep
stop.

just stop.

stop your attitude.

listen to reason.

here's my post ---



here's Breno's post ---



what do i need to argue? there's no refute... this is just plain bashing...

I don't care about your argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't care about your argument.

then you're trolling...

sheesh... what a waste of time!

Originally posted by dyajeep
then you're trolling...

sheesh... what a waste of time!

No, just pointing out that if you are being the grammar police then that is because you don't have a point. I don't have to care about your argument to be able to tell you that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, just pointing out that if you are being the grammar police then that is because you don't have a point. I don't have to care about your argument to be able to tell you that.

ok, so being a "grammar police" is a crime now?

and it's pretty stupid to continue talking to you regarding this... i quote a Bible verse, i was bashed, i corrected a spelling, now i don't have a point, and i'm the bad guy...

thanks, shakya, for proving that...

and your "i'm more intelligent than you because i don't believe in the Bible" attitude should stop... you're being an a$$hole... but if you want to go on like that, no problem - continue with your hypocrisy, buddhist...

once again,

Originally posted by dyajeep
thanks, shakya, for proving that...

you can stop now...

(auto quote)[/

Wow! Nothing better to do?

Firstly, I wasn't talking about your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7. I was mainly talking about a previous post by another individual. I responded to you directly after you picked a hole in my ability to spell. However, since you have requested a more learned interpretation of the formentioned scripture I shall endeavour to enlighten you.

In Peter's day an earthen vessel was a highly valued tool and an integral part of day to day living, in much the same way a mains water pipe is for us in our day and age. A wonderful luxury that many of us take for granted. So imagine if your vessel (some of which were 2 metres high) had a few hair line cracks in it, how carful are you going to be with it? You're going to be a bit more gentle with it otherwise what you've put in may not reach it's destination.

So after encouraging the women about the virtues of being submissive. Peter diplomatically and poetically warnes the men that they need to respect their wives if they are to be sure that their prayers will reach their destination unhindered.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

This scripture has nothing to with women being weaker at all, it's an encouragement for men to be stronger. There are so many rubbish translations of the bible around it's no wonder that people don't understand it

Originally posted by dyajeep
you said ---



what is the point then? if it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, then what am i supposed to argue?

i'll be waiting for Breno to refute my interpretation about I Peter 3:7... Breno, prove that i'm out of context...

really funny how you purposely ignore the racist comment though... well, it's a slap on your face, Breno, to be corrected in spelling by a foreigner...

(auto quote)[/

Wow! Nothing better to do?

Firstly, I wasn't talking about your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7. I was mainly talking about a previous post by another individual. I responded to you directly after you picked a hole in my ability to spell. However, since you have requested a more learned interpretation of the formentioned scripture I shall endeavour to enlighten you.

In Peter's day an earthen vessel was a highly valued tool and an integral part of day to day living, in much the same way a mains water pipe is for us in our day and age. A wonderful luxury that many of us take for granted. So imagine if your vessel (some of which were 2 metres high) had a few hair line cracks in it, how carful are you going to be with it? You're going to be a bit more gentle with it otherwise what you've put in may not reach it's destination.

So after encouraging the women about the virtues of being submissive. Peter diplomatically and poetically warnes the men that they need to respect their wives if they are to be sure that their prayers will reach their destination unhindered.

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

This scripture has nothing to with women being weaker at all, it's an encouragement for men to be stronger. There are so many rubbish translations of the bible around it's no wonder that people don't understand it

And by the way I am a foreigner too

Originally posted by Breno
Firstly, I wasn't talking about your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:7. I was mainly talking about a previous post by another individual.

if that's the case, then i apologize... just a tip, bro... use the quote button...

Originally posted by dyajeep
if that's the case, then i apologize... just a tip, bro... use the quote button...

So this is the quote button. Is this the button I should have used, or the I button needn't have used? It appears to have included your last message to me. If I had used the quote button in the first place wouldn't it have appeared as though I was rebuking you personally?

I may be wrong. I'm new here

Originally posted by Breno
If I had used the quote button in the first place wouldn't it have appeared as though I was rebuking you personally?

I may be wrong. I'm new here

yup, mine was the last post when you replied, so i assumed you're talking to me... but none of that!

welcome to the forum, Breno!

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, God is a dick.


So this confirms the "Man created God"






No seriously ... You'll go to hell.

COME AND GET ME BOY!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
COME AND GET ME BOY!

What was your address again?

Originally posted by God
So this confirms the "Man created God"
Absolutely!
Originally posted by God
No seriously ... You'll go to hell.
Been there, done that. You can leave hell anytime you like.

Originally posted by dyajeep
of course, the person... my point is, it's not wrong to be a gay if you're not doing homosexual acts... i have some friends in our church who are openly gay, i.e. they are attracted to same sex, talks like a girl, moves like a girl... but he never dresses like a girl, does not engage in homosexual relationship and continues his service to God...

as to women, i never see the Bible degrade women... by saying women are "weaker vessel" does not equate to "weaker sex" (not as the term we use today like degrading women)... women are weaker so men who are stronger will respect, understand and honor them:

"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
I Peter 3:7

"i never see the Bible degrade women"

Then you intentionally do not see it.

He shall rule over you ---- makes women forever less than men.

As to gays, if your God did not want them exercising their natures then he should not have created them as is. To do so and then deny them the use of those natures would be completely immoral.

Can you see that?

Or is your homophobia too deep to let clear thinking through?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
How's hell Satan?

I see that you did not like your own answer to the O.P. and decided just to insult and run.

How Christian of you.

All here will see that and that does well for my side.

A big thanks my friend.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
"i never see the Bible degrade women"

Then you intentionally do not see it.

He shall rule over you ---- makes women forever less than men.

not unless all women have a physical built of, let's say, Chyna (former WWE superstar), then i will agree that women will rule over men...

wake up to the reality, man. men are strong physically so they should protect their women, not the other way around. that's not even degrading women, it's caring for them.


Originally posted by Greatest I am
As to gays, if your God did not want them exercising their natures then he should not have created them as is. To do so and then deny them the use of those natures would be completely immoral.

Can you see that?

Or is your homophobia too deep to let clear thinking through?

Regards
DL

even straight people are not obliged to use "their natures" or you just too inclined in carnal things? i know many homosexuals who devoted their lives to God and they are happy... and i believe those people are big candidates for salvation...

Originally posted by dyajeep
not unless all women have a physical built of, let's say, Chyna (former WWE superstar), then i will agree that women will rule over men...

wake up to the reality, man. men are strong physically so they should protect their women, not the other way around. that's not even degrading women, it's caring for them.




even straight people are not obliged to use "their natures" or you just too inclined in carnal things? i know many homosexuals who devoted their lives to God and they are happy... and i believe those people are big candidates for salvation...

Thanks for showing us all that your religion has created a homophobic misogynous man.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Thanks for showing us all that your religion has created a homophobic misogynous man.

Regards
DL

that's not homophobic, man... that's Biblical...

"Be vigilant; stand fast in the faith; quit yourselves like men; be strong."
I Corinthians 16:13

being a man means being strong... being the opposite is being women...

"The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They have remained in their strongholds; Their might has failed, They became like women; They have burned her dwelling places, The bars of her gate are broken."
Jeremiah 50:31

your illogical defense for women had twisted your mind so much that you don't see that there's nothing homophobic there... it's just plain truth...

Originally posted by dyajeep
that's not homophobic, man... that's Biblical...

"Be vigilant; stand fast in the faith; quit yourselves like men; be strong."
I Corinthians 16:13

being a man means being strong... being the opposite is being women...

"The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They have remained in their strongholds; Their might has failed, They became like women; They have burned her dwelling places, The bars of her gate are broken."
Jeremiah 50:31

your illogical defense for women had twisted your mind so much that you don't see that there's nothing homophobic there... it's just plain truth...

But the bible is very homophobic.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I would say that putting homosexuals to death would be considered homophobic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the bible is very homophobic.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I would say that putting homosexuals to death would be considered homophobic.

the Bible is against homosexual acts, but not against the homosexual person...

Originally posted by dyajeep
the Bible is against homosexual acts, but not against the homosexual person...

How can you say that when the bible says to kill the person, not the action?

Originally posted by dyajeep
the Bible is against homosexual acts, but not against the homosexual person...

Now that was an interesting read.

When a gay man stands for God's judgement, will God punish the act with hell, --- or will the person be sent to hell?

I hope you recognize how un-intelligent your statement is with your second thought.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Now that was an interesting read.

When a gay man stands for God's judgement, will God punish the act with hell, --- or will the person be sent to hell?

I hope you recognize how un-intelligent your statement is with your second thought.

Regards
DL

nope, i just know how blind you are that you cannot see something out of the box... you can be gay or lesbian without engaging in homosexual acts, and being so, you'll be a candidate for salvation...

you're thinking that homosexual person and homosexual acts are inseparable... well, you're d@mn wrong!

Originally posted by dyajeep
nope, i just know how blind you are that you cannot see something out of the box... you can be gay or lesbian without engaging in homosexual acts, and being so, you'll be a candidate for salvation...

you're thinking that homosexual person and homosexual acts are inseparable... well, you're d@mn wrong!

So, the bible is only homophobic toward homosexuals who have engaged in homosexual acts? Or did I misunderstand?

How do you feel about homosexuals? Just for context. There are many people who only believe parts of the bible, and not the rest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the bible is only homophobic toward homosexuals who have engaged in homosexual acts? Or did I misunderstand?

How do you feel about homosexuals? Just for context. There are many people who only believe parts of the bible, and not the rest.

i treat homosexuals as people too! never higher, never lower... i have friends and even relatives... i'm fair to them... and yes, the act itself is wrong, but the person? the person can be a celibate... straight people do abstinence too, not just homosexuals...

Originally posted by dyajeep
i treat homosexuals as people too! never higher, never lower... i have friends and even relatives... i'm fair to them... and yes, the act itself is wrong, but the person? the person can be a celibate... straight people do abstinence too, not just homosexuals...

These guy friends and relatives, do you love them?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Now that was an interesting read.

When a gay man stands for God's judgement, will God punish the act with hell, --- or will the person be sent to hell?

I hope you recognize how un-intelligent your statement is with your second thought.

Regards
DL


Now the above was revealing. It illustrates the kind of subtle bullying used to prevent people from speaking out against what they know to be wrong.

The one who does speak out against what is wrong must be willing to endure labels of ignorance, insanity, prejudice, or some combination of the 3.


The simple fact of the matter is that Dyajeep was largely correct in what he said.


I would advise that he remember he is NOT alone, not even on this board, in this forum, or in this thread, hope that he will in no wise back down to this form of intimidation, and would likewise suggest he take time before answering.

Remember, Dyajeep, the very GOAL of many people in this thread is to get others angry, in the hopes their opponent will write some hasty response that betrays their anger, and drowns out the rightness of message.


If there is any fault, it lies with the limits of the English language.
What does it mean to punish an act?
Does the fact that a person is punished mean the punishing is unjust or that the man's act was, in fact, right?

Perhaps another question can parallel and illustrate that it is Dyajeep's stance, and not DL's, that is actually the correct one?

When a man drives drunk, will the law punish the act of drunk driving, -- or will the person be sent to jail?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...When a man drives drunk, will the law punish the act of drunk driving, -- or will the person be sent to jail?

But they don't kill the drunk driver. They put him in jail to protect himself and others. The drunk driver will have his day in court. The judge (or jury) will decide the punishment.

The bible commands to kill the homosexual caught in the act. That is homophobic. Stopping a drunk driver is not drunkphobic, it is to protect people. Homosexuals don't go out and kill people, but drunk drivers do.

Everyone is bible scholar here aren't they?

You guys are forever quoting scriptures to justify/prove a point of view. When you say the bible says this or the bible says that, 90% of the time it isn't saying what you think it might be. To understand what the bible is really saying you must read it chronologically. It is a book that's made up of lots of other books written by lots of different people and tied together by a particular belief system. A belief system that started as one religion and evolved into another. The bible (as a whole) attempts to justify that transition through the fulfilment of prophetic promise (Jews disagree though)

So while there are elements of the bible that don't exactly embrace homosexuality or any other sexual abnormality, it would be wrong to say that the book as whole is homophobic. It clearly isn't

And there's nothing wrong or particularly limiting with english language either!
It has over 250,000 words and the average American has a vocabulary of less 500 words. That's why most of you have problems articulating yourselves 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
These guy friends and relatives, do you love them?

of course, same love and care for my straight friends and relatives... why do you ask?

Originally posted by dyajeep
of course, same love and care for my straight friends and relatives... why do you ask?

You sounded homophobic.

Originally posted by dyajeep
i treat homosexuals as people too! never higher, never lower... i have friends and even relatives... i'm fair to them... and yes, the act itself is wrong, but the person? the person can be a celibate... straight people do abstinence too, not just homosexuals...

You treat homosexuals as people too. Homosexuals are people. Definitely homophobic! Then you go on to say "never higher, never lower". Wow, man, just wow!

If I was gay, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with you.

what? treating all people fairly is definitely not homophobic... i don't know why you take my response negatively...

let me get this clear: many people claims that the Bible condemns homosexual people, and i'm saying that it's not the case... it's the act not the person... so when you asked me how i feel about them, i responded that i treat them as people because they ARE people! i don't condemn them...

even the Bible acknowledges that if a homosexual person leave his/her homosexual acts, then he/she can be candidates for salvation:

"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,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
I Corinthians 6:9-11

because in Christianity, there is no male nor female because all are one in Jesus:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:28

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bummer dude!

i know, but it's a choice... but as the verse goes: not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given...

Originally posted by dyajeep
i know, but it's a choice... but as the verse goes: not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given...

I still don't see why your religion says that homosexuality is bad.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I still don't see why your religion says that homosexuality is bad.

at least, i know for a fact (in the Bible) that the act is bad, not the person...

Originally posted by dyajeep
at least, i know for a fact (in the Bible) that the act is bad, not the person...

That's the NT, but not the OT. The OT was kill them!

You still haven't told me why the bible thinks that the homosexual act is wrong. I guess we could start a new threat if that is too far off topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's the NT, but not the OT. The OT was kill them!

just to clarify, OT laws and commandments are specifically for Israel:

"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel."
Malachi 4:4

that's the reason why there was a big issue of transition from OT to NT in the time of Jesus and His apostles... stubborn scribes and pharisees are hell-bent on insisting the implementation of OT to all people regardless... and Jesus rebuked them and amended (even changed) the OT to form the New...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You still haven't told me why the bible thinks that the homosexual act is wrong. I guess we could start a new threat if that is too far off topic.

we can, no problem about that...

in the Bible, it says:

"For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God."
I Corinthians 11:12

the relationship God had made is man to woman... that is natural, otherwise:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Romans 1:27

Originally posted by dyajeep
just to clarify, OT laws and commandments are specifically for Israel:

"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel."
Malachi 4:4

that's the reason why there was a big issue of transition from OT to NT in the time of Jesus and His apostles... stubborn scribes and pharisees are hell-bent on insisting the implementation of OT to all people regardless... and Jesus rebuked them and amended (even changed) the OT to form the New...



we can, no problem about that...

in the Bible, it says:

"For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God."
I Corinthians 11:12

the relationship God had made is man to woman... that is natural, otherwise:

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Romans 1:27

That sounds very homophobic to me.

Originally posted by dyajeep
read between the lines:

"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,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
I Corinthians 6:9-11

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would be better if you just tell me.

i just did:

Originally posted by dyajeep
and such were some of you... some of the Christians (in Corinth, to be specific) were homosexuals, but when converted into Christianity, stopped the homosexual acts...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds very homophobic to me.

not in any way, man... there is a reason for everything... if the God of the Bible is not partial:

"For God shows no partiality."
Romans 2:11

then we should not be partial too, as a Christian or as a person:

"My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory."
James 2:1

which means - homosexual or not, we should not show partiality... in the Bible,it is written that we should:

"So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
Galatians 6:10

do good to all people...

"Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."
I Peter 2:17

respect all people...

"And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Matthew 22:39

love all people...

it doesn't get any clearer than that... whether it be a woman or a homosexual, we should love them all, with no partiality...

Wouldn't everyone in Hell be an example that God Has failed?

Originally posted by dyajeep
using modern translations does not, in any way, make any difference in my argument...

Is that all you care about? The old English is hard to read, and your argument doesn't work because I have a hard time reading it. To be honest, most of the time I don't read it because of the difficulty. So, don't quote the bible. Just tell me, but if you insist, then us a new translation, so I can read it.

Originally posted by dyajeep
no, it's not... you just don't want to admit i have a point... the God of the Bible teaches Christians to love all people, without partiality...

I can't understand half the old English, so all I read was the words you wrote, and that was really confusing.

Originally posted by dyajeep
nope...

Telling someone they cannot follow their natural sexual orientation or die or burn in hell is not liking someone.

Originally posted by dyajeep
yes, i do...

Then tell me. What makes a homosexual person homosexual?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Telling someone they cannot follow their natural sexual orientation or die or burn in hell is not liking someone.

Are there natural and innatural homosexuals or just the former?

Originally posted by Bentley
Are there natural and innatural homosexuals or just the former?

I don't know. All of the gay people that I have ever asked told me it was how they always felt. Some tried to be straight, but couldn't. I can only draw a conclusion from what they told me, homosexuality is natural for them, just like heterosexual is natural for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know. All of the gay people that I have ever asked told me it was how they always felt. Some tried to be straight, but couldn't. I can only draw a conclusion from what they told me, homosexuality is natural for them, just like heterosexual is natural for me.

Ok, I was just wondering what you meant by natural in your statement. That's a simple take on it.

Originally posted by Bentley
Ok, I was just wondering what you meant by natural in your statement. That's a simple take on it.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that all you care about? The old English is hard to read, and your argument doesn't work because I have a hard time reading it. To be honest, most of the time I don't read it because of the difficulty. So, don't quote the bible. Just tell me, but if you insist, then us a new translation, so I can read it.

fair enough, but just to clarify, i used Modern/New King James and Revised Standard which are newer versions of the old...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can't understand half the old English, so all I read was the words you wrote, and that was really confusing.

you just don't wanna read it, dude... the verses i gave is pretty much easy to understand... and it wasn't old english...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Telling someone they cannot follow their natural sexual orientation or die or burn in hell is not liking someone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then tell me. What makes a homosexual person homosexual?

not all natural "urges" are morally correct...

you posted this on page 4 ---

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the bible is very homophobic.

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I would say that putting homosexuals to death would be considered homophobic.

if you will continue reading it, it states ---

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion."
Leviticus 18:22-23

there are also people who prefer bestiality, natural for them? yes... morally correct? no...

and don't you go tell me you don't understand that, 'cause you're the one who gave that verse, i just asked you to read the proceeding verse...

By the way, the reason bestiality is immoral is because animals cannot give consent. Therefore, bestiality is always a type of rape.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
By the way, the reason bestiality is immoral is because animals cannot give consent. Therefore, bestiality is always a type of rape.

When animals are in estrus they will often let anyone shag them! So tell me then, if you had weird feelings for you dog and she was happy for you to mate with here, would that make it ok? And would the bible be wrong to disapprove of bestiality. After all it all feels quite natural

Breno

Your dog and her. Rather

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you think?

Probably there is a very organic thing about it, but that's me talking out off my butt. I don't have a definitive opinion on it.

Originally posted by Bentley
As far as I know, catholicism allows homosexual people to love each other, they just consider their mating a sin. It's an odd kind of nitpicking ...




Not really. There are a lot of things wrong with Catholicism, but, assuming what you said to be correct, THAT part of the doctrine makes sense.

Love and sex are not one and the same.

If it were, the law would essentially be saying a person who was raped was loved too much by their rapist.

Originally posted by Bentley


We know God is supposed to care more about the consequences of an act, and not the act itself.






We do?

Exactly how do we know such a thing?


What passage or passages of the Bible are you deriving this from?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider




We do?

Exactly how do we know such a thing?


What passage or passages of the Bible are you deriving this from?

So I'm getting you disagree? Two acts cannot be good or evil in the eyes of God depending on context?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You honestly don't think there's a reason for that, given what you've told other posters and myself in the past, Shaky?

There is a very good reason for that. He is hiding behind a book, just like people who use videos to hide behind. He can just tell me in his own words, but I think he is too afraid. Or perhaps he feels powerless and needs to pump up his opinion with the perceived authority of the bible.

And stop quoting me from other threads. All you are trying to do is take me out of context. If you continue, I will report it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a very good reason for that. He is hiding behind a book, just like people who use videos to hide behind. He can just tell me in his own words, but I think he is too afraid. Or perhaps he feels powerless and needs to pump up his opinion with the perceived authority of the bible.

And stop quoting me from other threads. All you are trying to do is take me out of context. If you continue, I will report it.



No, Shaky.

There is little if anything out of context about that quote, or my use of it.

If I was trying to take you out of context, I wouldn't have linked to the page that quote appears on for people to see.

Report if you feel you must.


There is a point beyond which failure to mention influencing factors becomes a barrier to any meaningful communication.



Whether you intend it or not, you've lain a clever trap here.
Will a man who has a legitimate condition which makes reading comprehension difficult and INHERENTLY leads him to interpret things different from most people be able to counsel dyajeep on whether his communication is, in fact, sufficient for the understanding of the average reader?
Or would efforts, failing for reasons Dyajeep could not guess at, only lead to frustration?

But there's another layer to this. MENTIONING that elephant in the room gives you a weapon to go after anyone who would clarify the difficulty.

Finally, there's another layer still.

Dyajeep is WRONG in the implicit assumption that all translations of the Bible are equally valid. There are some words, that, when changed, alter the meaning of a passage or lesson entire. Sometimes a change as small as a single letter can do that.

The latter we illustrated when we pointed out that "god of this world", because of the simple alteration of the "g" in "god" to lowercase, tells us that, not only are we not referring to Jehovah, God the Father, or God the Son, or even God, the Holy Spirit, we are in fact talking about SATAN, chief adversary of mankind.

For an example of the former, especially in regards to work translated from source written in a different language, as the Bible famously is, read this excellent short article from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translation-what-the-first-line-of-the-stranger-should-be


You've taken it one step further.
Not only asking Dyajeep to use "easy" translations, but for Dyajeep himself to be your "Cliffs Notes" to the Bible. Have his understanding, which may or may not be complete, represent the Bible to everyone on the forum.

That does not work.
Some things cannot be shortcutted and retain their meaning.
This is one such case.

I hope at least some people recognize what you're doing for the trap it is.

Doesn't give. Rather

Originally posted by Breno
Why am I Sick? I was clearly being sarcastic and using your own angle as weight against your argument. Am not religious in the slightest so I don't have an agenda and neigther do I hide behind a book. You are clearly not intelligent enough to enter into a debate without being offensive and you have shown a complete lack of tact on a number of occasions thought this debate. Just because you severely retarded it give you licence to behave like a knob

All you had to do was "jk" Instead you decide to be a jerk! I didn't know you were being sarcastic, so I was defending myself. You have no idea how many people would seriously attack me like that? I'm sorry if that helps, but give me a sign post next time. And no need to brake the forum rules and get yourself banned over a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is morally wrong with loving someone? Again, calling homosexuality immoral is homophobic.

what? really, shak?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Love and sex are not one and the same.

If it were, the law would essentially be saying a person who was raped was loved too much by their rapist.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a very good reason for that. He is hiding behind a book, just like people who use videos to hide behind. He can just tell me in his own words, but I think he is too afraid. Or perhaps he feels powerless and needs to pump up his opinion with the perceived authority of the bible.

my belief is based on the Bible, shak... you are literate and articulate enough to understand my point... you're just denying to "understand" when there's a valid point and you cannot counter immediately...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Dyajeep is WRONG in the implicit assumption that all translations of the Bible are equally valid. There are some words, that, when changed, alter the meaning of a passage or lesson entire. Sometimes a change as small as a single letter can do that.

fair enough... not that all translations are valid but most of it (though not all) has the same essence or flow depending on the argument i'm into, few posts earlier...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You've taken it one step further.
Not only asking Dyajeep to use "easy" translations, but for Dyajeep himself to be your "Cliffs Notes" to the Bible. Have his understanding, which may or may not be complete, represent the Bible to everyone on the forum.

i do have shortcomings and my knowledge is incomplete... but i do understand what's morally correct and not, unlike someone who pretends to not understand the verses i gave...

dyajeep, I don't think you can answer the question; In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

I can answer it; the people who wrote the bible did not like homosexuals. In the OT they killed the homosexual, but in the NT they tried to change the homosexuals into heterosexuals or forbid them sex altogether.

Why did they hate homosexuals? Hatred and bigotry doesn't always have a reason, but it was probably fear. In the time of the bible, if you didn't have enough children, then everyone died. The more people you had the better your chances of survival. However, in a world with 7 billion people, these out dated ideas are not needed.

How do you maniacs keep this up, I feel sorry for you're keyboards, wrists and most of all, fingers!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
How do you maniacs keep this up, I feel sorry for you're keyboards, wrists and most of all, fingers!

This is my third keyboard this week. jk

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is my third keyboard this week. jk

Originally posted by dyajeep
that's what it says in the Bible... if you think it's not about homosexuals, then the Bible is not homophobic as you claim it to be!
So, the bible says that all homosexuals are really heterosexuals that engage in homosexual activity. That is not only wrong, but extremely homophobic.
Originally posted by dyajeep
as per what's written, it really was heterosexuals engaged in homosexual activities... and i'm not changing anything, especially the person... again, the act can be stopped...
We are not talking about heterosexuals. We are talking about homosexuals.
Originally posted by dyajeep
you still don't get it, do you? it's not that i don't like your answer, nor it's insufficient... by constantly bringing up OT, your answer is inappropriate... you do know what's "inappropriate", right?
Just answer the question, and stop avoiding.

In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the bible says that all homosexuals are really heterosexuals that engage in homosexual activity. That is not only wrong, but extremely homophobic.

i don't know what you're talking about, dude... don't know where in the blue hell you got that interpretation... 'coz that's surely not mine...

maybe i should stop, 'coz it's really obvious what your motive is - to put Christianity and the Bible in bad light... but then again, i will just plainly tell you that you're wrong... if you're right about Christianity, i'd be the first one to shout it out...

Originally posted by dyajeep
i don't know what you're talking about, dude... don't know where in the blue hell you got that interpretation... 'coz that's surely not mine...

maybe i should stop, 'coz it's really obvious what your motive is - to put Christianity and the Bible in bad light... but then again, i will just plainly tell you that you're wrong... if you're right about Christianity, i'd be the first one to shout it out...

baby

In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

The reason I ask is because in REALITY, it's not.

And I never had to make Christianity look bad, you did that for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
baby

In the bible, why is the act of homosexuality immoral?

The reason I ask is because in REALITY, it's not.

And I never had to make Christianity look bad, you did that for me.

ugh! that attitude...

in reality, homosexuals have the same hope for salvation as heterosexuals do, according to the Bible... and that's what's my message from the beginning...

distorting that will prove your real motive...

you keep asking the same question because that's where you think you can make an open shot at me...

while i already said that i do not deny that homosexual act is prohibited in the Bible, it does not - in any way - discriminate the homosexual person, as Christianity preaches love and impartiality to all people...