Immoral want

[The Grand Nudger]

Roger roger roger, mean atheists. We're bastards, you should take your ball and go.

[downbeatplumb]

The LORD knows our thoughts before we think them, this is not surveillance, an all knowing God has this ability without sneaking around. Time has nothing to do with it, it's when the desire manifest itself in ones heart. You have confused a passing thought with a true desire, they are not the same.
There is no minimum time required when a thought becomes a desire it becomes a sin. Once a sin is committed the only way to get rid of it is ask for forgiveness from God, that is if you are a christian, and repent (which means not to take up that sin again). No one is being set up, that kind of thinking comes from guilt.

You write as though you know this stuff for certain and are not just making stuff up.

None of what you posted above is in the bible, which is the one and only way of interpreting this fictional character known as god, much like the works of arthur conan doyle are the only way to know sherlock holmes.

What you are saying is 'this is what I think, ergo fact' without anything to base it on but your opinion.

[Godscreated]

The LORD knows our thoughts before we think them, this is not surveillance, an all knowing God has this ability without sneaking around. Time has nothing to do with it, it's when the desire manifest itself in ones heart. You have confused a passing thought with a true desire, they are not the same.
There is no minimum time required when a thought becomes a desire it becomes a sin. Once a sin is committed the only way to get rid of it is ask for forgiveness from God, that is if you are a christian, and repent (which means not to take up that sin again). No one is being set up, that kind of thinking comes from guilt.

You write as though you know this stuff for certain and are not just making stuff up.

None of what you posted above is in the bible, which is the one and only way of interpreting this fictional character known as god, much like the works of arthur conan doyle are the only way to know sherlock holmes.

What you are saying is 'this is what I think, ergo fact' without anything to base it on but your opinion.

What I have stated is all through the scriptures, you do not recognize it for two reasons 1st you do not know what's in the Bible and 2nd you do not know where to go in scripture because I did not give you the books, chapters and verses to read. There is so much in the scriptures that I am not about to look up these things, my suggestion to you is to study the Bible and not just read it, the Bible was never meant to be a book of literature it is a study book about God and our relationship with Him.

[Epimethean]

[Some guy wrote] the bible, which tells man all truths [because in the book, the dudes who wrote it said that god said those things] and is never wrong [even though it was written by dudes who often did not get along and whose translators and interpreters have cut and pasted the book to suit their very human requirements].

The fact that you believe this horseshit, GC, is the most compelling truth you can offer.

Rubbish and a sad fantasy for weak minds ....

[downbeatplumb]

What I have stated is all through the scriptures, you do not recognize it for two reasons 1st you do not know what's in the Bible and 2nd you do not know where to go in scripture because I did not give you the books, chapters and verses to read. There is so much in the scriptures that I am not about to look up these things, my suggestion to you is to study the Bible and not just read it, the Bible was never meant to be a book of literature it is a study book about God and our relationship with Him.

Not it isnt, it is one of many different interpretations that could be made from the oh so ambiguous bible.
I have read the bible, (what torture that was) and conclude that you can get it to agree with any point you wish to make.
A: because of its amiguity.
b: because it contradicts itself on many many occasions.
c: there have been many translations each put their own slant on ceratin aspects, (the king james bible is probably the most guilty of this, in a lot of cases it amounts to a rewrite of critical passages)

Example.

Remember what Jesus says in the King James Version: "It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." This translation is found in the English and several western European translations that took their Bible from the Greek text. But many other Bibles including the eastern church --which lives more with the old Aramic language than Elizabethan translators- translate the Arabic word "gamla" correctly as "rope" instead of "gamla" camel.
And some great sermons have been used about the camel and the eye of a needle --- some preachers going so far as to say that a gate once existed called "The eye of a needle" and camels
had to bow to enter through it therefore we must bow and untie all our belongings to enter that gate. When I hear these sermons, I always wanted to say, "Certainly, if the gate was such a bother, why did travelers use it?"

[Godscreated]

What I have stated is all through the scriptures, you do not recognize it for two reasons 1st you do not know what's in the Bible and 2nd you do not know where to go in scripture because I did not give you the books, chapters and verses to read. There is so much in the scriptures that I am not about to look up these things, my suggestion to you is to study the Bible and not just read it, the Bible was never meant to be a book of literature it is a study book about God and our relationship with Him.

Not it isnt, it is one of many different interpretations that could be made from the oh so ambiguous bible.
I have read the bible, (what torture that was) and conclude that you can get it to agree with any point you wish to make.
A: because of its amiguity.
b: because it contradicts itself on many many occasions.
c: there have been many translations each put their own slant on ceratin aspects, (the king james bible is probably the most guilty of this, in a lot of cases it amounts to a rewrite of critical passages)

Example.

Remember what Jesus says in the King James Version: "It is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." This translation is found in the English and several western European translations that took their Bible from the Greek text. But many other Bibles including the eastern church --which lives more with the old Aramic language than Elizabethan translators- translate the Arabic word "gamla" correctly as "rope" instead of "gamla" camel.
And some great sermons have been used about the camel and the eye of a needle --- some preachers going so far as to say that a gate once existed called "The eye of a needle" and camels
had to bow to enter through it therefore we must bow and untie all our belongings to enter that gate. When I hear these sermons, I always wanted to say, "Certainly, if the gate was such a bother, why did travelers use it?"

The three times this was written in the gospels it was written in Greek then we should use the word camel (gamla). Either way rope or camel neither will go through the eye of a needle, so the meaning of the verse remains the same.

[Anomalocaris]

Thought - Were it not for the fact that GC might pass on his genes, his existence would have been very funny.

Sin? No. Why? Because 1. It's sincere, 2. It has a good deal of truth in it, 3. Unlike GC, I am not about to go hunt down his offsprings just because no one is watching me, threatening me with yokelishly over-the-top Notions of punishment if i did on the one hand, and enticing me with nauseating effete rewards if I didn't on the other.

[downbeatplumb]

The three times this was written in the gospels it was written in Greek then we should use the word camel (gamla). Either way rope or camel neither will go through the eye of a needle, so the meaning of the verse remains the same.

It is a misstranslation that, in this case, makes little difference the outcome, but if you are saying that a camel and a piece of rope are essentially 'the same' then your margin for error is bigger than mine. Check out the wicked bible which had 'thou SHALT commit adultary' in it.

This completely contradicts a major part of the bible.

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

This means that the bible is not inerrant and errors creep in.

So probably not something you should base your life on.