A ho mo sexual man was studying the bible at my workplace...

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Newflash: the Bible study is free. Their publications are free. Donations are voluntary.

Also, I don't know what crazy beliefs you're talking about.Aidenfury19

My apologies on the first count then.

As for the second one I would consider a prohibition against life-saving blood transfusions pretty crazy, its right up there with the Catholic objection to contraceptives.

Also kind of crazy is the rather arbitrary seeming 144,000 and I generally consider patriarchy pretty backwards, but to be fair thats a common problem in many denominations.

So I expected, what else? Witnesses choose themselves whether to accept blood or not (they're not forced). The Bible strongly says that blood should not be eaten. There are many alternatives to blood transfusions and blood transfusions can actually be life-threatening.

It's not arbitrary. Like I said, studying helps.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Newflash: the Bible study is free. Their publications are free. Donations are voluntary.

Also, I don't know what crazy beliefs you're talking about.Revinh

My apologies on the first count then.

As for the second one I would consider a prohibition against life-saving blood transfusions pretty crazy, its right up there with the Catholic objection to contraceptives.

Also kind of crazy is the rather arbitrary seeming 144,000 and I generally consider patriarchy pretty backwards, but to be fair thats a common problem in many denominations.

So I expected, what else? Witnesses choose themselves whether to accept blood or not (they're not forced). The Bible strongly says that blood should not be eaten. There are many alternatives to blood transfusions and blood transfusions can actually be life-threatening.

It's not arbitrary. Like I said, studying helps.

Blood transfusions are rarely fatal, and are in the majority of cases much better then alternatives. And who said anything eating blood?

Do you have a download link to where I can get some explanation? Otherwise please explain.

Blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. Intravenous and oral are entirely different delivery methods with different physiological impacts. The dangers inherent are minimalized by blood testing and blood transfusions are very much a necessity in the case of excessive blood loss or blood disorders.

Oh and in regards to "what else?" how about the stances towards governmental participation and other religions or even denominations?

And they had to interpret what he said to them in order to give others the ability to understand. Interpretation doesn't mean "change." It is the method of rendering the meaning of something (in this case, God's Word) according to one's personal understanding. Moses transmitted God's Word through himself, thus interpreting it. foxhound_fox

Well, I'm sure the "businessman" would've made sure the "secretary" really wrote his words.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]No, the Bible does not claim that. Perfect example of lack of understanding.foxhound_fox

Did you read the article?

[The Bible doesn't claim the world became flooded and Noah took two of each animal onto his ark? The Bible doesn't claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, Adam created in God's image and Eve from Adam's rib?foxhound_fox

Those, yes.

It is all just interpretation of what is written. Taken literally, the Bible claims things that have been disproven by science. The Earth is more than 6000 years old and the human race evolved from lesser apes who began walking upright a few million years ago.foxhound_fox

That's a theory, not a fact.

What is argued by the link you provided is science not disproving a different interpretation of the book of Genesis. foxhound_fox

What?

[QUOTE="Revinh"]The early people were much closer to perfection. We were talking about this in the "How literal is the Bible?" thread.foxhound_fox

We didn't.

[[QUOTE="Revinh"]What do you mean 'you would drown by breathing'?foxhound_fox

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Revinh"]It is taken as God's Word by people who believes it's God's Word.

As I explained, it's inspired of God, not fabrications of humanity. God directly spoke to some of its writers like Moses.

The Bible is perfect. When people say it contradicts itself and such allegations, it's usually due to lack of knowledgeRevinh

Belief and inspiration still doesn't make it "God's Word."

The Bible is definitely not perfect. It is a fabrication of humanity interpreting Moses's and Jesus's teachings. Many of those interpretations were excluded from the "final" copies.

I am not debating faith in the Bible here. I am debating whether or not the Bible, a book written on paper by human beings, is the actual, factual work of a unprovable and unknowable metaphysical being... which it definitely is not. The Bible is an interpretation of a few men who "say" they talked to God. It is NOT God writing his thoughts down on paper. Even if they did talk to God, they would still have to interpret what he said in order to put it into words the human mind could understand.

They're not interpretations of Moses' and Jesus' teachings. It was Moses himself who wrote the first five books of the Bible. Two of the Gospel writers are eyewitnesses or Jesus. Luke is an accurate historian. They recorded what happened. If God has spoken to some of the writers then he obviously did so in a way that humans can understand.

It definitely is God's Word.

That's assuming god exists. That's assuming the bible isn't a complete fraud.

Well, I've studied it and believe without a doubt it's divinely inspired and that God exists. I wasn't assuming.

Actually I didn't say YOU were assuming. I'm saying your statement is only valid under the conditions of assumption. Belief doesn't cancel out assumption, belief is assumption. You can believe whatever you want. I'm not always right, I've been wrong before. Maybe I am wrong, because there is significant probability that you may be right. BUT presently it's all under assumption. Maybe you do know he exists but you can't prove it. Maybe he hangs out with you or something. As for the rest of us we can only assume.

Because he said so doesn't cut it. You need realistic evidence. As in some obvious signs of existence. Take poop for example. It's evident, it's obviously real. You can see it smell it and even taste if you want. I don't recomend tasting it but it is possible for you to do so. The only thing evident about religion is that evidently a large percentage people believe god is real. Absolutely no tangibility.

I don't care if you read some books and believe god is real simply because somebody said so. It's all hearsay. I want evidence. Claims and beliefs are a waste of time. It's all What If. Well what if you had some proof? Maybe then I would take you seriously because then you could say I KNOW.

Blood transfusions are rarely fatal, and are in the majority of cases much better then alternatives. And who said anything eating blood?Manly-manly-man

It's not "eating" blood but it's "taking it in."

Do you have a download link to where I can get some explanation? Otherwise please explain.

Blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. Intravenous and oral are entirely different delivery methods with different physiological impacts. The dangers inherent are minimalized by blood testing and blood transfusions are very much a necessity in the case of excessive blood loss or blood disorders.

Oh and in regards to "what else?" how about the stances towards governmental participation and other religions or even denominations? Aidenfury19

Transfusion alternatives

If the doctor tell you not to drink alcohol does that mean it'd be okay for alcohol to be injected in you? Blood transfusions can cause immune responses and through it diseases can be contracted even by blood testing. It's not so much that it's dangerous, though, but that they take how God views blood and it's about obeying his commandments.

You mean their refusal to participate in wars?

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Well, I've studied it and believe without a doubt it's divinely inspired and that God exists. I wasn't assuming.MagnumPI

Actually I didn't say YOU were assuming. I'm saying your statement is only valid under the conditions of assumption. Belief doesn't cancel out assumption, belief is assumption. You can believe whatever you want. I'm not always right, I've been wrong before. Maybe I am wrong, because there is significant probability that you may be right. BUT presently it's all under assumption. Maybe you do know he exists but you can't prove it. Maybe he hangs out with you or something. As for the rest of us we can only assume.

Because he said so doesn't cut it. You need realistic evidence. As in some obvious signs of existence. Take poop for example. It's evident, it's obviously real. You can see it smell it and even taste if you want. I don't recomend tasting it but it is possible for you to do so. The only thing evident about religion is that evidently a large percentage people believe god is real. Absolutely no tangibility.

I don't care if you read some books and believe god is real simply because somebody said so. It's all hearsay. I want evidence. Claims and beliefs are a waste of time. It's all What If. Well what if you had some proof? Maybe then I would take you seriously because then you could say I KNOW.

And I'm assuming you haven't read something I posted thereafter.

That's a theory, not a fact.

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.

Revinh

1) Theory requires the strongest burden of proof under science, it is better than just a single fact.

2) Unless you have an explanation for where all the water went it was still there and you would still drown, it has been thoroughly estimated there is not enough water for a worldwide flood.

Transfusion alternatives

If the doctor tell you not to drink alcohol does that mean it'd be okay for alcohol to be injected in you? Blood transfusions can cause immune responses and through it diseases can be contracted even by blood testing. It's not so much that it's dangerous, though, but that they take how God views blood and it's about obeying his commandments.

You mean their refusal to participate in wars?

Revinh

Thanks for the link, I really meant with regards to the 144,000 though (I'll still read this).

Because alcohol is actually a toxic compound, no. Blood is not toxic, oxygen bonds with blood and carries itself to the various organs and extremities, blood also contains leukocytes that help fend off disease. Blood transfusions require extensive screening of the source blood for this reason and the risks are very minimal if the correct procedure is followed. I've had dozens of blood tests in my lifetime and haven't contracted anything from them, you exaggerate the risk.

The practical concerns about blood loss and sicle-cell anemia amongst other diseases outweigh the supernatural concerns for me.

I mean the refusal to obey laws seen as contradicting God's laws. So where does this all go? Refusal to distribute contraceptives by pharmacists (an observed problem)? How about refusal to follow gender nondiscrimination laws? How about a refusal to give a dying person a blood transfusion? These are all possible conflicts.

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Well, I've studied it and believe without a doubt it's divinely inspired and that God exists. I wasn't assuming.Revinh

Actually I didn't say YOU were assuming. I'm saying your statement is only valid under the conditions of assumption. Belief doesn't cancel out assumption, belief is assumption. You can believe whatever you want. I'm not always right, I've been wrong before. Maybe I am wrong, because there is significant probability that you may be right. BUT presently it's all under assumption. Maybe you do know he exists but you can't prove it. Maybe he hangs out with you or something. As for the rest of us we can only assume.

Because he said so doesn't cut it. You need realistic evidence. As in some obvious signs of existence. Take poop for example. It's evident, it's obviously real. You can see it smell it and even taste if you want. I don't recomend tasting it but it is possible for you to do so. The only thing evident about religion is that evidently a large percentage people believe god is real. Absolutely no tangibility.

I don't care if you read some books and believe god is real simply because somebody said so. It's all hearsay. I want evidence. Claims and beliefs are a waste of time. It's all What If. Well what if you had some proof? Maybe then I would take you seriously because then you could say I KNOW.

And I'm assuming you haven't read something I posted thereafter.

Wow, you are dedicated to assuming. You must be the ultimate believer. I get the impression you consider anything that you are willing to believe is evidence.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

That's a theory, not a fact.

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.Aidenfury19

1) Theory requires the strongest burden of proof under science, it is better than just a single fact.

2) Unless you have an explanation for where all the water went it was still there and you would still drown, it has been thoroughly estimated there is not enough water for a worldwide flood.

1. A theory that has many scientific evidence against it. A theory that is highly debated on a regular basis (and no, it's not only by creationists). It obviously isn't as much as a fact as gravity and atom.

2. Flood

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MagnumPI"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Well, I've studied it and believe without a doubt it's divinely inspired and that God exists. I wasn't assuming.MagnumPI

Actually I didn't say YOU were assuming. I'm saying your statement is only valid under the conditions of assumption. Belief doesn't cancel out assumption, belief is assumption. You can believe whatever you want. I'm not always right, I've been wrong before. Maybe I am wrong, because there is significant probability that you may be right. BUT presently it's all under assumption. Maybe you do know he exists but you can't prove it. Maybe he hangs out with you or something. As for the rest of us we can only assume.

Because he said so doesn't cut it. You need realistic evidence. As in some obvious signs of existence. Take poop for example. It's evident, it's obviously real. You can see it smell it and even taste if you want. I don't recomend tasting it but it is possible for you to do so. The only thing evident about religion is that evidently a large percentage people believe god is real. Absolutely no tangibility.

I don't care if you read some books and believe god is real simply because somebody said so. It's all hearsay. I want evidence. Claims and beliefs are a waste of time. It's all What If. Well what if you had some proof? Maybe then I would take you seriously because then you could say I KNOW.

And I'm assuming you haven't read something I posted thereafter.

Wow, you are dedicated to assuming. You must be the ultimate believer. I get the impression you consider anything that you are willing to believe is evidence.

I'm not assuming anymore. It's evident you didn't.

1. A theory that has many scientific evidence against it. A theory that is highly debated on a regular basis (and no, it's not only by creationists). It obviously isn't as much as a fact as gravity and atom.

Revinh

1. A theory about as widely accepted as can reasonably be expected, its only really in contention in the United States. Furthermore no reasonable scientific alternative has been brought up and most of the "scientific evidence" used against it has been proven invalid.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

1. A theory that has many scientific evidence against it. A theory that is highly debated on a regular basis (and no, it's not only by creationists). It obviously isn't as much as a fact as gravity and atom.Aidenfury19

1. A theory about as widely accepted as can reasonably be expected, its only really in contention in the United States. Furthermore no reasonable scientific alternative has been brought up and most of the "scientific evidence" used against it has been proven invalid.

No, I wouldn't say that most evidences against it are invalid. And most of the theory's evidences aren't particularly strong. But I'm not going to go into a debate about this as I've done that many times. I'm willing to continue on with this thread, however, if it does continue.

I'll take "God created man" over "man evolved from king kong or whatever." It's more reasonable for me that living thing only reproduce according to their kinds instead of shapeshifting over millions of years.

I gotta go to bed. I'll check back tomorrow, I guess.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

That's a theory, not a fact.

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.Revinh

1) Theory requires the strongest burden of proof under science, it is better than just a single fact.

2) Unless you have an explanation for where all the water went it was still there and you would still drown, it has been thoroughly estimated there is not enough water for a worldwide flood.

1. A theory that has many scientific evidence against it. A theory that is highly debated on a regular basis (and no, it's not only by creationists). It obviously isn't as much as a fact as gravity and atom.

2. Flood

LISTEN, fact is the most plausible explanation considering the avaliable information. All fact is based on theory. It's all theoretical. It's too complex to be compared to simple fact. BUT these theories prove something. Believing proves nothing. Fact is thee best possible and most plausible explanation. It's a proven explanation. This is why scientific fact is not constant, we learn more therefore theories evlolve. Better understanding provides better explanation.

Everything that ever existend left evidence and everything that ever will exist will leave evidence. So far god hasn't left anything. There is no logical theory to explain god. THERE is no valid theory for god because there is NOTHING to base it's theory on. How would you introduce a theory of god as a plausibilty or a fact when you have no theory to base it on nor evidence to support it?

I wouldn't be suprised if some people still believe the world is flat. That's a simple fact as clear as night and day.

Yes, bring a super soaker filled with holy water to work, and let em have it. Thatll teach him..... :|

No, but really.... :|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)Solid_Snake325

They are boith sex. Nowhere in the Bible does it say being a homosexual is a sin. It's always said the ACT OF SEX is a sin...and it's a sin, unless married, for heterosexual sex as well.

This is why there is such a problem with religion. No one understands what they've read...most of those posting in this thread as well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)MrGeezer

That's all fine and well but just because I like having premarital sex, and am wrong to do so, doesn't mean that it's okay for someone else to be gay.

If they're both wrong, then they're both wrong, but they don't both suddenly become okay just because I like to do one of them.

Not that I am saying that being gay or having premarital sex is wrong, I'm just saying that premarital sex doesn't really have anything to do with what he was talking about.

Read the quote...it's the sex that's considered a sin....not the person.:|

God isn't against homosexuality, early Christians were against homosexuality and made it clear in the book they wrote about Jesus's deeds. God is a benevolent, all-forgiving force which doesn't care what you do but only that you believe in Him/Her/It and are compassionate towards all living beings.foxhound_fox

You can't know any of that....though he does have the scripture intent wrong.

Yes, bring a super soaker filled with holy water to work, and let em have it. Thatll teach him..... :|

No, but really.... :|

Def_Jef88

No, KILL HIM! Because he's... HEATHENOUS SCUM!!SCUM I SAY! SCUM! And a dirtbag as well.

I asked him if he was pretty religious and he said yeah. Thats pretty weird, because God is against homosexuality...

1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 9: What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men...

I just wanted to clear this up too, because Ive been hearing a lot of people say that God has nothing against homosexuality.

Do you guys think I should show my co worker this scripture tomorrow or what??

Lil_Dwayne

i think if u show him the scripture your gonna get beat up by a gay guy

The romans liked it in the seat. Nobody was in their faces about it. They liked it gay To them there was no such thing as too gay They would accuse each other of not being gay enough. When they were arguing it was over who was gayer. The coliseum was a big gay melee.MagnumPI

The wealthy older Romans often had a young male lover...yes. However, that doesn't mean all Romans were gay or that those with male lovers were gay.

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]The romans liked it in the seat. Nobody was in their faces about it. They liked it gay To them there was no such thing as too gay They would accuse each other of not being gay enough. When they were arguing it was over who was gayer. The coliseum was a big gay melee.LJS9502_basic

The wealthy older Romans often had a young male lover...yes. However, that doesn't mean all Romans were gay or that those with male lovers were gay.

It was just a joke.

I asked him if he was pretty religious and he said yeah. Thats pretty weird, because God is against homosexuality...

1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 9: What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men...

I just wanted to clear this up too, because Ive been hearing a lot of people say that God has nothing against homosexuality.

Do you guys think I should show my co worker this scripture tomorrow or what??

Lil_Dwayne

The problem is, you are placing faith in the scripture.

I don't want to get flamed here, but I'll just say:

THE CAKE IS A LIE.

Do you get what I am saying?

I asked him if he was pretty religious and he said yeah. Thats pretty weird, because God is against homosexuality...

1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 9: What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men...

I just wanted to clear this up too, because Ive been hearing a lot of people say that God has nothing against homosexuality.

Do you guys think I should show my co worker this scripture tomorrow or what??

Lil_Dwayne

it's a misinterpreted thing. it just simply says God's against two men having sex. but homosexuality as a psychological thing, no. it also says "nor fornicators" meaning, unmarried people who have sex/pre-marital sex IN GENERAL - be it straight or homosexual.

so that gay man reading next to you isn't doing anything wrong. besides, please don't generalize the belief of american christianity. in catholicism, we have no problems with gay people being gay but the church dislikes premarital sex on both straight/gay.

Some people like to only select the few verse to suit their needsLonelynight

so true!

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

That's a theory, not a fact.

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.Revinh

1) Theory requires the strongest burden of proof under science, it is better than just a single fact.

2) Unless you have an explanation for where all the water went it was still there and you would still drown, it has been thoroughly estimated there is not enough water for a worldwide flood.

1. A theory that has many scientific evidence against it. A theory that is highly debated on a regular basis (and no, it's not only by creationists). It obviously isn't as much as a fact as gravity and atom.

Actually, no.... There is a branch of science called atomic theory. You see... there is actually no observational evidence of an atom. The same goes with a nuclear reaction. It is all very sound THEORY.

God is not neciceraly against homosexuality. God did not write the bible - men did. They were supposed to be putting forward gods words, but who knows if they did.

And also the bible was copped by hand thousands of times before the printing press was invented and it was coppied on mass - things that are coppied several times get changed. Ever tried playing chinese whispers?? For all we know god might be against men and women having sex. GOD COULD BE GAY!!!!!!!!

Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)LJS9502_basic

Got there (a while) before I could post that.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)Lil_Dwayne

What does that have to do with anything??

It means like 90% of the adult population it is the same boat... so why aren't you complaining at them.

[QUOTE="Lil_Dwayne"]

I asked him if he was pretty religious and he said yeah. Thats pretty weird, because God is against homosexuality...

1 Corinthians Chapter 6 verse 9: What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men...

I just wanted to clear this up too, because Ive been hearing a lot of people say that God has nothing against homosexuality.

Do you guys think I should show my co worker this scripture tomorrow or what??

Forerunner-117

Ah and here's where you make a mistake. It says "nor men who lie with men." That is true. But it does not say anything about homosexuality. That in itself, is not a sin. You can't help it if you are a homosexual. But ACTING on it is a sin i.e. having sex with another guy.

/thread

lol

That's a theory, not a fact.Revinh

We didn't.Revinh

Eh, I wouldn't think you'd actually drown and die, as long as you're not submerged in water. They were in the ark with some space to breath.Revinh

You can't know any of that....though he does have the scripture intent wrong.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Jaks_Secret"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)battlefront23

And as everyone knows, abstinence is wrong.

But anyways, you can't tell that God is against homosexuality. Three of many reasons why; (1) The Bible wasn't written by God, so we can't tell (2) There's a chance Jesus could have been homosexual, and God wouldn't hate his own son if he has the capacity to love everyone (3) God must be fine with homosexualitry because if he created everything, then he made humans be able to love each other. So it can't be that wrong.

no, no, and no

God did not write the Bible kid...everyone knows that. :|

Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)LJS9502_basic

it also all depends on how literal you're going to take that stuff...because the book is written by MAN after all. as long as you both get along there is no point in creating an issue

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]
how does the context demonstrate women to be possessions of men?Wetall_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)Jaks_Secret

And as everyone knows, abstinence is wrong.

But anyways, you can't tell that God is against homosexuality. Three of many reasons why; (1) The Bible wasn't written by God, so we can't tell (2) There's a chance Jesus could have been homosexual, and God wouldn't hate his own son if he has the capacity to love everyone (3) God must be fine with homosexualitry because if he created everything, then he made humans be able to love each other. So it can't be that wrong.

to #2 ....um.... what?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)ArmoredAshes

it also all depends on how literal you're going to take that stuff...because the book is written by MAN after all. as long as you both get along there is no point in creating an issue

The point was that he didn't interprete the text correctly.....:|

God is not neciceraly against homosexuality. God did not write the bible - men did. They were supposed to be putting forward gods words, but who knows if they did.

And also the bible was copped by hand thousands of times before the printing press was invented and it was coppied on mass - things that are coppied several times get changed. Ever tried playing chinese whispers?? For all we know god might be against men and women having sex. GOD COULD BE GAY!!!!!!!!

mattyftm

ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

[QUOTE="mattyftm"]

God is not neciceraly against homosexuality. God did not write the bible - men did. They were supposed to be putting forward gods words, but who knows if they did.

And also the bible was copped by hand thousands of times before the printing press was invented and it was coppied on mass - things that are coppied several times get changed. Ever tried playing chinese whispers?? For all we know god might be against men and women having sex. GOD COULD BE GAY!!!!!!!!

jlh47

ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

Proved some of the events happened and the people existed, can't remember if they say much about events like the ressurection, but they don't say anything about the real detail the Bible goes into.

[QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="mattyftm"]

God is not neciceraly against homosexuality. God did not write the bible - men did. They were supposed to be putting forward gods words, but who knows if they did.

And also the bible was copped by hand thousands of times before the printing press was invented and it was coppied on mass - things that are coppied several times get changed. Ever tried playing chinese whispers?? For all we know god might be against men and women having sex. GOD COULD BE GAY!!!!!!!!

james28893

ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

Proved some of the events happened and the people existed, can't remember if they say much about events like the ressurection, but they don't say anything about the real detail the Bible goes into.

it proves that the Bible was never altered. through all the translations, it stayed the same.

[QUOTE="james28893"][QUOTE="jlh47"][QUOTE="mattyftm"]

God is not neciceraly against homosexuality. God did not write the bible - men did. They were supposed to be putting forward gods words, but who knows if they did.

And also the bible was copped by hand thousands of times before the printing press was invented and it was coppied on mass - things that are coppied several times get changed. Ever tried playing chinese whispers?? For all we know god might be against men and women having sex. GOD COULD BE GAY!!!!!!!!

jlh47

ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

Proved some of the events happened and the people existed, can't remember if they say much about events like the ressurection, but they don't say anything about the real detail the Bible goes into.

it proves that the Bible was never altered. through all the translations, it stayed the same.

Jesus' birth was actually 6BC, it was a mistranslation by Dennis the Little.

a gay man reading the Bible? Wow that's as ironic as it getsmohfrontline

[QUOTE="Jaks_Secret"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reread what you quoted and noticed that basically anyone having premarital sex is in the same boat.;)jlh47

And as everyone knows, abstinence is wrong.

But anyways, you can't tell that God is against homosexuality. Three of many reasons why; (1) The Bible wasn't written by God, so we can't tell (2) There's a chance Jesus could have been homosexual, and God wouldn't hate his own son if he has the capacity to love everyone (3) God must be fine with homosexualitry because if he created everything, then he made humans be able to love each other. So it can't be that wrong.

to #2 ....um.... what?

Yep. Jesus could have been a homosexual man.