Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Get back to me on your homosexuality condemnation when you are sinless yourself.
I'm not the topic, dear.
What did Jesus say to the woman accused of adultery?
I'm not the topic either. Point is, stop judging other people and clean up your own act.
Consider the fact that civil marriage law has nothing to do with your Bible.
You can quote homos and homo sites all day long and it doesn't change the Word of God.
According to you there are no correct Bible translations on the book store shelves on this planet. Talk about someone who needs to get a clue............
You can quote homos and homo sites all day long and it doesn't change the Word of God.
According to you there are no correct Bible translations on the book store shelves on this planet. Talk about someone who needs to get a clue............
Well first of all your insistence that any source which points out the errors commonly associated with the Bible as "homo sites" tells me a lot about your mentality. The truth is, I'm pretty damned certain you don't even understand what Romans was and what Paul was doing when he wrote it. So allow me to educate you (again).
Romans was a letter written to the Christians in Rome. At the time Christians were experiencing some wicked persecution by the Romans and what Paul was writing was a political propaganda pamphlet intended to be circulated among the Christians of Rome to give them comfort, boost their spirits, and disparage Rome. Romans would be the same thing in Paul's time as "Common Sense" was in revolutionary America, "J'Accuse" was in 19th century France, or the Daily Kos or Worldnetdaily would be today.
Put in modern language, what Paul is saying in Romans 1 is:
"Hey guys, I know you are facing some serious shit and I am looking forward to coming there and helping you out. I can do this because I rock and even better you rock too. Look at those fucked up Romans with their idolatrous worship and pagan sexual rituals. We don't do that because we are awesome. DOWN WITH CAESAR AND DEATH TO ROME!!! Woooohooo Christians! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!"
What people (like you) tend to do is get so wrapped up in the solemnity of the Biblical language: all the "thou art"s, and "they hath"s, that they view it as so serious and holy and they miss the entire point completely. What Paul is doing in Romans 1 is pumping up his audience by making a distinction between the Romans and the Christians. "For Romans, they have to go through all these ridiculous rituals to reach their gods and even heterosexuals are forced into these rituals that go against their sexual orientation. But because of Jesus and His sacrifice, us Christians get to go directly to the big guy Himself."
Paul was a politician...all of them were the politicians of their day. Back then they did not separate between religion and politics like we do in the modern United States. Back then it was one and the same. What Paul is saying is very much like Nancy Pelosi speaking at a Democratic fundraiser and saying that "Republicans are in favor of polluted water and dirty air". It's bullshit propaganda intended to excite the audience at the expense of "the enemy".
What you are doing is taking two lines from a political pamphlet, ignoring the context, ignoring the historical relevance, ignoring the culture clash between Christians and Romans at the time, completely oblivious to what Paul was intending to do, and using those two verses in isolation in order to justify the condemnation and judgement (both of which Jesus and Paul say not to do) of a given segment of society. Then when someone attempts to point out your error, your response is character attacks. And you say I'M the one distorting the scriptures?!?!?! You need a hard dose of reality, my friend, or at least an intellectual capacity that extends beyond one of Milgram's subjects.
You can quote homos and homo sites all day long and it doesn't change the Word of God.
According to you there are no correct Bible translations on the book store shelves on this planet. Talk about someone who needs to get a clue............
Well first of all your insistence that any source which points out the errors commonly associated with the Bible as "homo sites" tells me a lot about your mentality. The truth is, I'm pretty damned certain you don't even understand what Romans was and what Paul was doing when he wrote it. So allow me to educate you (again).
Romans was a letter written to the Christians in Rome. At the time Christians were experiencing some wicked persecution by the Romans and what Paul was writing was a political propaganda pamphlet intended to be circulated among the Christians of Rome to give them comfort, boost their spirits, and disparage Rome. Romans would be the same thing in Paul's time as "Common Sense" was in revolutionary America, "J'Accuse" was in 19th century France, or the Daily Kos or Worldnetdaily would be today.
Put in modern language, what Paul is saying in Romans 1 is:
"Hey guys, I know you are facing some serious shit and I am looking forward to coming there and helping you out. I can do this because I rock and even better you rock too. Look at those fucked up Romans with their idolatrous worship and pagan sexual rituals. We don't do that because we are awesome. DOWN WITH CAESAR AND DEATH TO ROME!!! Woooohooo Christians! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!"
What people (like you) tend to do is get so wrapped up in the solemnity of the Biblical language: all the "thou art"s, and "they hath"s, that they view it as so serious and holy and they miss the entire point completely. What Paul is doing in Romans 1 is pumping up his audience by making a distinction between the Romans and the Christians. "For Romans, they have to go through all these ridiculous rituals to reach their gods and even heterosexuals are forced into these rituals that go against their sexual orientation. But because of Jesus and His sacrifice, us Christians get to go directly to the big guy Himself."
Paul was a politician...all of them were the politicians of their day. Back then they did not separate between religion and politics like we do in the modern United States. Back then it was one and the same. What Paul is saying is very much like Nancy Pelosi speaking at a Democratic fundraiser and saying that "Republicans are in favor of polluted water and dirty air". It's bullshit propaganda intended to excite the audience at the expense of "the enemy".
What you are doing is taking two lines from a political pamphlet, ignoring the context, ignoring the historical relevance, ignoring the culture clash between Christians and Romans at the time, completely oblivious to what Paul was intending to do, and using those two verses in isolation in order to justify the condemnation and judgement (both of which Jesus and Paul say not to do) of a given segment of society. Then when someone attempts to point out your error, your response is character attacks. And you say I'M the one distorting the scriptures?!?!?! You need a hard dose of reality, my friend, or at least an intellectual capacity that extends beyond one of Milgram's subjects.
You talk a lot, but you don't say anything. You will type 1000 words to explain why 30 words in the bible don't really mean what they say. You're deceived.
Well first of all your insistence that any source which points out the errors commonly associated with the Bible as "homo sites" tells me a lot about your mentality. The truth is, I'm pretty damned certain you don't even understand what Romans was and what Paul was doing when he wrote it. So allow me to educate you (again).
Romans was a letter written to the Christians in Rome. At the time Christians were experiencing some wicked persecution by the Romans and what Paul was writing was a political propaganda pamphlet intended to be circulated among the Christians of Rome to give them comfort, boost their spirits, and disparage Rome. Romans would be the same thing in Paul's time as "Common Sense" was in revolutionary America, "J'Accuse" was in 19th century France, or the Daily Kos or Worldnetdaily would be today.
Put in modern language, what Paul is saying in Romans 1 is:
"Hey guys, I know you are facing some serious shit and I am looking forward to coming there and helping you out. I can do this because I rock and even better you rock too. Look at those fucked up Romans with their idolatrous worship and pagan sexual rituals. We don't do that because we are awesome. DOWN WITH CAESAR AND DEATH TO ROME!!! Woooohooo Christians! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!"
What people (like you) tend to do is get so wrapped up in the solemnity of the Biblical language: all the "thou art"s, and "they hath"s, that they view it as so serious and holy and they miss the entire point completely. What Paul is doing in Romans 1 is pumping up his audience by making a distinction between the Romans and the Christians. "For Romans, they have to go through all these ridiculous rituals to reach their gods and even heterosexuals are forced into these rituals that go against their sexual orientation. But because of Jesus and His sacrifice, us Christians get to go directly to the big guy Himself."
Paul was a politician...all of them were the politicians of their day. Back then they did not separate between religion and politics like we do in the modern United States. Back then it was one and the same. What Paul is saying is very much like Nancy Pelosi speaking at a Democratic fundraiser and saying that "Republicans are in favor of polluted water and dirty air". It's bullshit propaganda intended to excite the audience at the expense of "the enemy".
What you are doing is taking two lines from a political pamphlet, ignoring the context, ignoring the historical relevance, ignoring the culture clash between Christians and Romans at the time, completely oblivious to what Paul was intending to do, and using those two verses in isolation in order to justify the condemnation and judgement (both of which Jesus and Paul say not to do) of a given segment of society. Then when someone attempts to point out your error, your response is character attacks. And you say I'M the one distorting the scriptures?!?!?! You need a hard dose of reality, my friend, or at least an intellectual capacity that extends beyond one of Milgram's subjects.
You talk a lot, but you don't say anything. You will type 1000 words to explain why 30 words in the bible don't really mean what they say. You're deceived.
Translation: "Uh..........boy, I don't know how to respond to that because I have no idea what I am talking about. Uhhhh....you're a liar. I hope that cuts it."
Now unless anyone has anything valuable to say and has an angle that is worthwhile to debate instead of the typical "you're a liar", "you are a homo" bullshit that the anti-gay crowd has been giving since Amelia and a select few others disappeared, I will be moving from this thread as it is apparent that rational and intelligent opposition is nowhere to be found.
Consider that Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman.
You don't get it. God is laughing his ass off at you.
God has an ass? Does he park it behind his Mercedes?
You don't get it. God is laughing his ass off at you.
God has an ass? Does he park it behind his Mercedes?
Wait... god is a he? So that means he has a penis?
Blue Phantom would have about 10,000 rep points by the time it had been here as long as ravi and posted as many times...
Who's helping you boost this Sock ravi?...
peace...
You can quote homos and homo sites all day long and it doesn't change the Word of God.
According to you there are no correct Bible translations on the book store shelves on this planet. Talk about someone who needs to get a clue............
Well first of all your insistence that any source which points out the errors commonly associated with the Bible as "homo sites" tells me a lot about your mentality. The truth is, I'm pretty damned certain you don't even understand what Romans was and what Paul was doing when he wrote it. So allow me to educate you (again).
Romans was a letter written to the Christians in Rome. At the time Christians were experiencing some wicked persecution by the Romans and what Paul was writing was a political propaganda pamphlet intended to be circulated among the Christians of Rome to give them comfort, boost their spirits, and disparage Rome. Romans would be the same thing in Paul's time as "Common Sense" was in revolutionary America, "J'Accuse" was in 19th century France, or the Daily Kos or Worldnetdaily would be today.
Put in modern language, what Paul is saying in Romans 1 is:
"Hey guys, I know you are facing some serious shit and I am looking forward to coming there and helping you out. I can do this because I rock and even better you rock too. Look at those fucked up Romans with their idolatrous worship and pagan sexual rituals. We don't do that because we are awesome. DOWN WITH CAESAR AND DEATH TO ROME!!! Woooohooo Christians! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!"
What people (like you) tend to do is get so wrapped up in the solemnity of the Biblical language: all the "thou art"s, and "they hath"s, that they view it as so serious and holy and they miss the entire point completely. What Paul is doing in Romans 1 is pumping up his audience by making a distinction between the Romans and the Christians. "For Romans, they have to go through all these ridiculous rituals to reach their gods and even heterosexuals are forced into these rituals that go against their sexual orientation. But because of Jesus and His sacrifice, us Christians get to go directly to the big guy Himself."
Paul was a politician...all of them were the politicians of their day. Back then they did not separate between religion and politics like we do in the modern United States. Back then it was one and the same. What Paul is saying is very much like Nancy Pelosi speaking at a Democratic fundraiser and saying that "Republicans are in favor of polluted water and dirty air". It's bullshit propaganda intended to excite the audience at the expense of "the enemy".
What you are doing is taking two lines from a political pamphlet, ignoring the context, ignoring the historical relevance, ignoring the culture clash between Christians and Romans at the time, completely oblivious to what Paul was intending to do, and using those two verses in isolation in order to justify the condemnation and judgement (both of which Jesus and Paul say not to do) of a given segment of society. Then when someone attempts to point out your error, your response is character attacks. And you say I'M the one distorting the scriptures?!?!?! You need a hard dose of reality, my friend, or at least an intellectual capacity that extends beyond one of Milgram's subjects.
You talk a lot, but you don't say anything. You will type 1000 words to explain why 30 words in the bible don't really mean what they say. You're deceived.
Blue Phantom would have about 10,000 rep points by the time it had been here as long as ravi and posted as many times...
Who's helping you boost this Sock ravi?...
peace...
Yea, he's already neg repped me twice in one thread because he is losing.
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.
I'm going to go ahead and Assume that Ravi is Incapable of Countering my OP or making the case that Jesus was Pro-Gay or Pro-Gay Marriage.
Noted... Coward.
peace...
Jesus was so very concerned about homosexuality he said exactly nothing about it. Not a damn thing! That's how high it was on his list of concerns.
When a book has been translated as many times as the Bible has been, it's easy for things to get lost in translation. Some subjects can also be politicized.
For instance, Phoebe, a patroness of paul in the early church, is referred to in the Greek version of scripture as "diakonos" in Romans 16:1. This is the same term translated as "deacon" in reference to male church leaders, but you'll note that the verses that describe Phoebe are translated as "servant," even though the tense and usage of the words is exactly the same as the usage translated as "deacon."
If you review the English translations currently available, all of them use "servant" in Romans 16:1, but deacon elsewhere for "diakonos."
Political decision or "inspiration"?
It's hard to say. The bible spans almost 2,000 years of widely shifting cultural dynamics. The verses that have influenced a diminished role of women in the church have also been shifted by translators who chose words that reflected the desire to put women in a limited role, as recently as the NIV translation.
MOst people don't even think beyond a single English translation to consider the possible shifts in word and contextual/cultural meaning in these passages that have occurred as the books of the new testament have been translated from their original aramaic into hebrew, then latin, then greek, and then into the King James's English translation, and then modern english translations.
There was an obvious agenda even with the King James edition:
Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Link includes a lot of information on the problems with English translations of the Bible).James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible for Epistle and Gospel readings and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.
It deserves to be said that the oldest versions of any new testament book currently in existence date from 100+ years after the books of the new testament were purportedly written...many from 300 or more years since the death of Christ. We don't have ANY of the original versions of these books and letters. Even authorship of some of these books is suspect. And, modern versions eliminate the apocryphyal books, which up until the 1800s were standard.
There have been enough politically motivated shifts just from Greek to English to modern English that saying definitely what the Bible says on any particular moral issue is pretty difficult.
What I would say is this...on a lot of these subjects...it's between you and God. It's up to you to take these issues up with God and come to a place of accountability with him. That's an individual process that each person has to go through. Pretending that you're entitled to tell others what they should believe, as if this is all black/white is simply ignorant. A lot of it isn't black/white, which is why the Southern Baptist denomination (in which I grew up) used to emphasize unity in the essentials (apostle's creed) and tolerance in the non-essentials.
It's a shame that fundamentalist perspectives on this subject have lead to such ignorant dogmatism. In a lot of ways, that ignorant dogmatism does more harm than anything else to the cause of Christ, but that's just my take on it. YMMV.
p.s. Buford has made it clear in this thread that he's here to troll, and that's about it.
Do you so proudly display your ignorance of other topics as well? History is history dude. Ancient culture was what it was. Perhaps if you spent some time educating yourself on such things you wouldn't be championing your ignorance with such zest.
You're doing all the "championing of your ignorance with zest" with your child like translations and bad sourcing.
By the way, you should move to the middle east and become a Muslim. They still live that "ancient culture" you're so fond of where adult males are allowed to be homosexual as long as they are the "pitcher" and the young boys are the "catcher" and that its done in secrecy.
(sigh)....actually no....that's still a death offense for Muslims under Sharia law. But feel free to keep spewing your ignorance. It's quite entertaining.
Blue Phantom would have about 10,000 rep points by the time it had been here as long as ravi and posted as many times...
Who's helping you boost this Sock ravi?...
peace...
Yea, he's already neg repped me twice in one thread because he is losing.
Go ahead and call him ravi... It's Obviously yet another of her Socks.
800+ rep points since November?...
Yeah, that's a Tool of a Sock being Built right there.
ravi didn't used to show her tits to easily.
peace...
Yes, he's my sock, busted! I sometimes like to pose as a sensible conservative to show you rightwingloons up. bwahahahahaha!
