Jesus on Marriage...

[koshergrl]

Yeah, right.

God's a liar.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If God thought homosexuality was a sin, he wouldn't have created gay people. Once upon a time, the same narrow minded kind of person thought people with left handed dominance were evil. Gays are simliarly demonized. Being gay is just like being left handed with the majority of people born right handed.

 

[NLT]

If God thought homosexuality was a sin, he wouldn't have created gay people.

Free will, God does not intevene in free will. Its your choice to eat a taco or smoke a pole? Just like Eve ate the apple.

 

[koshergrl]

If God thought homosexuality was a sin, he wouldn't have created gay people. Once upon a time, the same narrow minded kind of person thought people with left handed dominance were evil. Gays are simliarly demonized. Being gay is just like being left handed with the majority of people born right handed.

God created Satan. So what? Does that mean it's okay to be evil?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Love. You fall in love. That's what happens. Is it a choice? It doesn't feel that way. It feels like destiny.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Satan is a myth. The fallen angel myth. It's metaphor and teaching story.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, right.

God's a liar.

If that is the conclusion you've drawn from what has been said then you are even stupider than anyone ever guessed.

You should retake your critical thinking course.

 

[Newby]

The wisdom is the Word of God. The word of God that Peter wrote says Paul's letters are Scripture. Is the NT the Word of God or just part of it?

I have to say my take on "the wisdom" is similar to yours. Not meant as an insult, but meant as saying God gave Paul wisdom....or the word of God.

But that still doesn't mean Paul relied on a faulty translation. After all, he was human. Even Popes aren't infallible, though the Church claims otherwise.

Well the whole point of all this is that the Bible today and the "Bible" then (there technically was no Bible then but I refer to the books the Bible is made of) are different things. We haven't even discussed books that are falsely attributed. Revelations for example is widely attributed to John the Apostle, but very few scholars actually think it was John the Apostle who wrote it. The style of writing is totally different, the language is problematic compared to other things John wrote, etc.

It was very common in those days for some person to write a political book (and we forget that at the time these books were all politics) and attribute it to someone famous in order to give it more credibility. There is tons of evidence that many (or at least some) of the books in the Bible were not written by the person traditionally associated with it. Revelation is just one example and its inclusion was controversial from day one. Martin Luther issued several strong opinions that having Revelation in the Bible was flat out absurd because it lacked credible authorship and was contrary to the message of God that was universal in other books.

And again I need to reemphasize that there were no printing presses in those days so the books were hand copied over and over. When they were copied, changes were made because in an earlier version a political point was being made, and then the guy copying it realized that it was now a moot point so he would change it to reflect a more current political point. And that happens over and over and over. So as we don't have the originals of any of these texts (all we have are copies) there is simply no way to know what they said to begin with.

So when we look at the Bible and ask "is it the word of God?" Well....it becomes an individual decision. For me, I believe that when the original authors wrote them they were divinely inspired and as such it was "the word of God". However, the moment someone copied it and began to change it as we know they did, it stopped being "the word of God" and started to become "the word of man". After 2,000 - 3,000 years depending on the book....that's a lot of changes and a lot of "man" corrupting the word of "God". In other words if it was "the word of God" it's not anymore.

Now that doesn't mean we should just toss the Bible over our shoulder, but what it does mean is that we should look for very general themes, large overriding concepts, etc. We should be focusing on the general point of a story or lesson and stop focusing so much on these little tiny details, because as Newby said "the devil is in the details" and when applied to this situation, that creates an entirely new meaning. The devil (if you believe in such a concept) is absolutely thrilled that the word of God has been changed and he would be ecstatic to know that people are focusing on issues like homosexuality instead of God's love.

So it's all sunshine and roses, huh? No consequences for any behavior, just love for everyone? You study one of the most complex books known to human kind, and that's your take away?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I have to say my take on "the wisdom" is similar to yours. Not meant as an insult, but meant as saying God gave Paul wisdom....or the word of God.

But that still doesn't mean Paul relied on a faulty translation. After all, he was human. Even Popes aren't infallible, though the Church claims otherwise.

Well the whole point of all this is that the Bible today and the "Bible" then (there technically was no Bible then but I refer to the books the Bible is made of) are different things. We haven't even discussed books that are falsely attributed. Revelations for example is widely attributed to John the Apostle, but very few scholars actually think it was John the Apostle who wrote it. The style of writing is totally different, the language is problematic compared to other things John wrote, etc.

It was very common in those days for some person to write a political book (and we forget that at the time these books were all politics) and attribute it to someone famous in order to give it more credibility. There is tons of evidence that many (or at least some) of the books in the Bible were not written by the person traditionally associated with it. Revelation is just one example and its inclusion was controversial from day one. Martin Luther issued several strong opinions that having Revelation in the Bible was flat out absurd because it lacked credible authorship and was contrary to the message of God that was universal in other books.

And again I need to reemphasize that there were no printing presses in those days so the books were hand copied over and over. When they were copied, changes were made because in an earlier version a political point was being made, and then the guy copying it realized that it was now a moot point so he would change it to reflect a more current political point. And that happens over and over and over. So as we don't have the originals of any of these texts (all we have are copies) there is simply no way to know what they said to begin with.

So when we look at the Bible and ask "is it the word of God?" Well....it becomes an individual decision. For me, I believe that when the original authors wrote them they were divinely inspired and as such it was "the word of God". However, the moment someone copied it and began to change it as we know they did, it stopped being "the word of God" and started to become "the word of man". After 2,000 - 3,000 years depending on the book....that's a lot of changes and a lot of "man" corrupting the word of "God". In other words if it was "the word of God" it's not anymore.

Now that doesn't mean we should just toss the Bible over our shoulder, but what it does mean is that we should look for very general themes, large overriding concepts, etc. We should be focusing on the general point of a story or lesson and stop focusing so much on these little tiny details, because as Newby said "the devil is in the details" and when applied to this situation, that creates an entirely new meaning. The devil (if you believe in such a concept) is absolutely thrilled that the word of God has been changed and he would be ecstatic to know that people are focusing on issues like homosexuality instead of God's love.

So it's all sunshine and roses, huh? No consequences for any behavior, just love for everyone? You study one of the most complex books known to human kind, and that's your take away?

I'd rather have sunshine and roses than the continuous judging you usually dish out.

Love is what Jesus is about. Try it.

 

[koshergrl]

Love. You fall in love. That's what happens. Is it a choice? It doesn't feel that way. It feels like destiny.

So? Falling in love doesn't force you to act. Those are the choices people make. Own them.

 

[Ravi]

The wisdom is the Word of God. The word of God that Peter wrote says Paul's letters are Scripture. Is the NT the Word of God or just part of it?

I have to say my take on "the wisdom" is similar to yours. Not meant as an insult, but meant as saying God gave Paul wisdom....or the word of God.

But that still doesn't mean Paul relied on a faulty translation. After all, he was human. Even Popes aren't infallible, though the Church claims otherwise.

Well the whole point of all this is that the Bible today and the "Bible" then (there technically was no Bible then but I refer to the books the Bible is made of) are different things. We haven't even discussed books that are falsely attributed. Revelations for example is widely attributed to John the Apostle, but very few scholars actually think it was John the Apostle who wrote it. The style of writing is totally different, the language is problematic compared to other things John wrote, etc.

It was very common in those days for some person to write a political book (and we forget that at the time these books were all politics) and attribute it to someone famous in order to give it more credibility. There is tons of evidence that many (or at least some) of the books in the Bible were not written by the person traditionally associated with it. Revelation is just one example and its inclusion was controversial from day one. Martin Luther issued several strong opinions that having Revelation in the Bible was flat out absurd because it lacked credible authorship and was contrary to the message of God that was universal in other books.

And again I need to reemphasize that there were no printing presses in those days so the books were hand copied over and over. When they were copied, changes were made because in an earlier version a political point was being made, and then the guy copying it realized that it was now a moot point so he would change it to reflect a more current political point. And that happens over and over and over. So as we don't have the originals of any of these texts (all we have are copies) there is simply no way to know what they said to begin with.

So when we look at the Bible and ask "is it the word of God?" Well....it becomes an individual decision. For me, I believe that when the original authors wrote them they were divinely inspired and as such it was "the word of God". However, the moment someone copied it and began to change it as we know they did, it stopped being "the word of God" and started to become "the word of man". After 2,000 - 3,000 years depending on the book....that's a lot of changes and a lot of "man" corrupting the word of "God". In other words if it was "the word of God" it's not anymore.

Now that doesn't mean we should just toss the Bible over our shoulder, but what it does mean is that we should look for very general themes, large overriding concepts, etc. We should be focusing on the general point of a story or lesson and stop focusing so much on these little tiny details, because as Newby said "the devil is in the details" and when applied to this situation, that creates an entirely new meaning. The devil (if you believe in such a concept) is absolutely thrilled that the word of God has been changed and he would be ecstatic to know that people are focusing on issues like homosexuality instead of God's love.

FYI, I accidentally typed "that doesn't mean Paul relied on a faulty translation" when I meant to type "that doesn't mean Paul didn't rely on a faulty translation."

I edited my post to reflect the change.

Now, if only the Bible translators would edit their own mistakes and bad translations.

 

[koshergrl]

yeah why don't you list those "mistakes", rav?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Love. You fall in love. That's what happens. Is it a choice? It doesn't feel that way. It feels like destiny.

So? Falling in love doesn't force you to act. Those are the choices people make. Own them.

Falling in love. Has it ever happened to you?

 

[Newby]

Well the whole point of all this is that the Bible today and the "Bible" then (there technically was no Bible then but I refer to the books the Bible is made of) are different things. We haven't even discussed books that are falsely attributed. Revelations for example is widely attributed to John the Apostle, but very few scholars actually think it was John the Apostle who wrote it. The style of writing is totally different, the language is problematic compared to other things John wrote, etc.

It was very common in those days for some person to write a political book (and we forget that at the time these books were all politics) and attribute it to someone famous in order to give it more credibility. There is tons of evidence that many (or at least some) of the books in the Bible were not written by the person traditionally associated with it. Revelation is just one example and its inclusion was controversial from day one. Martin Luther issued several strong opinions that having Revelation in the Bible was flat out absurd because it lacked credible authorship and was contrary to the message of God that was universal in other books.

And again I need to reemphasize that there were no printing presses in those days so the books were hand copied over and over. When they were copied, changes were made because in an earlier version a political point was being made, and then the guy copying it realized that it was now a moot point so he would change it to reflect a more current political point. And that happens over and over and over. So as we don't have the originals of any of these texts (all we have are copies) there is simply no way to know what they said to begin with.

So when we look at the Bible and ask "is it the word of God?" Well....it becomes an individual decision. For me, I believe that when the original authors wrote them they were divinely inspired and as such it was "the word of God". However, the moment someone copied it and began to change it as we know they did, it stopped being "the word of God" and started to become "the word of man". After 2,000 - 3,000 years depending on the book....that's a lot of changes and a lot of "man" corrupting the word of "God". In other words if it was "the word of God" it's not anymore.

Now that doesn't mean we should just toss the Bible over our shoulder, but what it does mean is that we should look for very general themes, large overriding concepts, etc. We should be focusing on the general point of a story or lesson and stop focusing so much on these little tiny details, because as Newby said "the devil is in the details" and when applied to this situation, that creates an entirely new meaning. The devil (if you believe in such a concept) is absolutely thrilled that the word of God has been changed and he would be ecstatic to know that people are focusing on issues like homosexuality instead of God's love.

So it's all sunshine and roses, huh? No consequences for any behavior, just love for everyone? You study one of the most complex books known to human kind, and that's your take away?

I'd rather have sunshine and roses than the continuous judging you usually dish out.

Love is what Jesus is about. Try it.

Except I don't judge. Why do you constantly have to use dishonesty to try to make a 'point'? Or is it your age, and you just don't remember any prior conversations that you have with people? This is why I rarely ever respond to any posts you make, you're one of the most dishonest people on this board.

Jesus was about more than love, he spoke about much, much more than that, but I understand that you only know how to parrot what you see others say, and you haven't really studied or understood that on your own, for yourself. You grasp onto anything or anyone that supports your opinion, and you use dishonesty against anyone that doesn't.

 

[koshergrl]

Are you suggesting, Sky, we have no control over our behavior when we fall in love?

That if you fall in love, you can't help falling into bed, getting pregnant or engaging in homosexuality, dropping out of school, becoming a substance abuser, etc?

Is that what you think love does to people?

 

[Ravi]

So it's all sunshine and roses, huh? No consequences for any behavior, just love for everyone? You study one of the most complex books known to human kind, and that's your take away?

I'd rather have sunshine and roses than the continuous judging you usually dish out.

Love is what Jesus is about. Try it.

Except I don't judge. Why do you constantly have to use dishonesty to try to make a 'point'? Or is it your age, and you just don't remember any prior conversations that you have with people? This is why I rarely ever respond to any posts you make, you're one of the most dishonest people on this board.

Jesus was about more than love, he spoke about much, much more than that, but I understand that you only know how to parrot what you see others say, and you haven't really studied or understood that on your own, for yourself. You grasp onto anything or anyone that supports your opinion, and you use dishonesty against anyone that doesn't.

Oh bullshit. You just judged BPs post and dismissed it by claiming he said something he did not say.

 

[Newby]

I'd rather have sunshine and roses than the continuous judging you usually dish out.

Love is what Jesus is about. Try it.

Except I don't judge. Why do you constantly have to use dishonesty to try to make a 'point'? Or is it your age, and you just don't remember any prior conversations that you have with people? This is why I rarely ever respond to any posts you make, you're one of the most dishonest people on this board.

Jesus was about more than love, he spoke about much, much more than that, but I understand that you only know how to parrot what you see others say, and you haven't really studied or understood that on your own, for yourself. You grasp onto anything or anyone that supports your opinion, and you use dishonesty against anyone that doesn't.

Oh bullshit. You just judged BPs post and dismissed it by claiming he said something he did not say.

Context, Ravi, try it sometime.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So it's all sunshine and roses, huh? No consequences for any behavior, just love for everyone? You study one of the most complex books known to human kind, and that's your take away?

I'd rather have sunshine and roses than the continuous judging you usually dish out.

Love is what Jesus is about. Try it.

Except I don't judge. Why do you constantly have to use dishonesty to try to make a 'point'? Or is it your age, and you just don't remember any prior conversations that you have with people? This is why I rarely ever respond to any posts you make, you're one of the most dishonest people on this board.

Jesus was about more than love, he spoke about much, much more than that, but I understand that you only know how to parrot what you see others say, and you haven't really studied or understood that on your own, for yourself. You grasp onto anything or anyone that supports your opinion, and you use dishonesty against anyone that doesn't.

You judge all the time, Newby. You judge liberals, poor people, gays, non-christians. You raise yourself and those who think like you to superior status all the time.

Jeus was about love. His primary message was to love God and love others as ourselves.

The Beatitudes reflect his teaching well.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

 

[koshergrl]

Sky, you are the last person in the world qualified to tell anybody what Jesus was about. Seriously.

 

[Ravi]

Except I don't judge. Why do you constantly have to use dishonesty to try to make a 'point'? Or is it your age, and you just don't remember any prior conversations that you have with people? This is why I rarely ever respond to any posts you make, you're one of the most dishonest people on this board.

Jesus was about more than love, he spoke about much, much more than that, but I understand that you only know how to parrot what you see others say, and you haven't really studied or understood that on your own, for yourself. You grasp onto anything or anyone that supports your opinion, and you use dishonesty against anyone that doesn't.

Oh bullshit. You just judged BPs post and dismissed it by claiming he said something he did not say.

Context, Ravi, try it sometime.

Context doesn't changed the fact that you judged BP's post. And then lied about what he said.

You burn in hell for lying, dearie, just like you burn in hell for murder.