Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
August 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm (This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm by Drich.)
(August 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Nightfoot92 Wrote: I am not going to cherry pick for you drich. Because if any single of these are contradictions, then a perfect god couldn't have wrote it, as there is imperfection in it. Surely if god made a holy book about how to run your life, he would make sure that it doesn't contradict itself. I want your apologetic answer to every single on up there.
There is a reason "biblical contradictions" rarly come up on this website any more (unless posted by a new guy.) That is because your peers now understand that 75% of supposed contradictions come from the idea that the bible was orginally written in (King James) english, or simply assume that all languages directly translate from one to another with out any loss or additions. Most of them now know that the bible (in most cases) is a direct translation, (as apposed to a contextual translation) meaning a book who's content is written as closly in one language to the orginal language as possiable. Which mean there is sometimes a loss of meaning in idioms, sayings, cultural differences and literary compliations. Unless you study the culture and the writting styles of the Hebrew and Koine Greek. some of these things on the surface may not make any sense.
The other 25% of 'contradictions' come from incomplete passages taken out of context.
I asked for 5 because i know of the web sites that you guys like to cut and paste from. It is Because you simply cut and paste you have nothing vested in the conversation. I used to answer each and every line of supposed contradictions. I went through over 100 with a guy one time. It took a week of my time to look up every single passage he posted. and do you know what he did at the end of it all? He provided me a link the the skeptics annodated bible... He did not want any real answers, he just wanted to see if he could stump me. so what did i do? I provided Him with a link to the "Skeptics annodated bible Answered." It goes line by line and answers each and every one of the supposed contradictions, and answers them. (I wish I did that seach before I waisted my time with that guy.)
Never the less I am willing to put in as much time and effort as you are. Meaning if you can point me to 5 supposed contradictions i will give you 5 earnest and researched answers that will go back into the Greek and or Hebrew if need be. But first you must be vested in this conversation enough to give me 5 condradictions AND the reason you believe these contradictions to be valid. If you give me a list someone elses came up with I will inturn give you a link to a similar list.
If you waist my time I will do what I can to waist yours. If you are serious take a few minutes and pick upto 5 of your favorites and tell me why you think these contradictions are proof of a falliable bible, I will make a similar effort to show you they are not..
Here are the first 5:
Quote:Psalms 149:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
The above section in italic text is is your version of the text. Below (underlined) is what the bible actually says.
Psalms 149:9They will punish those nations as God commanded.
This is an honor for all his followers.
Praise the Lord!http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%20149&version=ERV
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Quote:is the abrahamic god a god of peace or war?
Who says He can not be both?
14 I will make them stumble and fall against each other, even the fathers and sons.’ This message is from the Lord. ‘I will not feel sorry or have pity for them. I will not allow compassion to stop me from destroying the people of Judah.’”
Quote:EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
God is the God of the Just and Unjust, so which is He? God is the God of Men and of Women, so which is He? God is the God of Children and adults, so which is He? In all cases He is the God of Both. What makes you assume Being the God of one procludes Him from being the God of the other?
Quote:now this one is from 2 gospels that were supposedly written by the same person. who was at the tomb?
Mat, is short for Mathew, and Mar was Short for John Mark a student/Scribe of Peter. Mathew and Mark are not the same person. One directly followed Christ himself and the other penned down the account of one who followed Christ himself.
Quote:MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
What the problem is? One account gives a complete list while the other two focoused on what one or both marys did.
Quote:Is Jesus lesser than or equal to God?
Christ explained what He meant in verse 30 in verse 34 in that very same chapter.
34Jesus answered, “It is written in your law that God said, ‘I said you are gods.’[d] 35 This Scripture called those people gods—the people who received God’s message. And Scripture is always true. 36 So why do you accuse me of insulting God for saying, ‘I am God’s Son’? I am the one God chose and sent into the world. 37 If I don’t do what my Father does, then don’t believe what I say. 38 But if I do what my Father does, you should believe in what I do. You might not believe in me, but you should believe in the things I do. Then you will know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Quote:JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
We have been given to an understanding of the relationship between a father and a son. God the Father has a similar relationship with God the Son.
So says Christ.
So in the end being 'one' with the Father simply means being on the same page or in agreement with. It says nothing to how much power one has in relationship with God the Father.
Quote:Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
This is that 25% taken out of context. So let re frame these two verses and see what they actually say.
Pro4:3 When I was my father’s little boy and my mother’s dear son,[a] 4 my father taught me this: “Pay attention to what I say. Obey my commands and you will have a good life. 5 Try to get wisdom and understanding. Don’t forget my teaching or ignore what I say. 6 Don’t turn away from wisdom, and she will protect you. Love her, and she will keep you safe.
7 “The first step to becoming wise is to look for wisdom, so use everything you have to get understanding. 8 Love wisdom, and she will make you great. Hold on to wisdom, and she will bring you honor. 9 Wisdom will reward you with a crown of honor and glory.”
10 Son, listen to me. Do what I say, and you will live a long time. 11 I am teaching you about wisdom and guiding you on the right path. 12 As you walk on it, you will not step into a trap. Even if you run, you will not trip and fall. 13 Always remember this teaching. Don’t forget it. It is the key to life, so guard it well.
The above is a Son's personal account of what his father told him.
What is recorded below is what Soloman personally thought of the degree of wisdom He obtained...
17 I decided to learn how wisdom and knowledge are better than thinking foolish thoughts. But I learned that trying to become wise is like trying to catch the wind. 18 With much wisdom comes frustration. The one who gains more wisdom also gains more sorrow.
In context we have advise, and we have the result of said advise taken to the extreame Soloman was able to reach. Where is the contradiction?
August 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm (This post was last modified: August 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm by Nightfoot92.)
The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Jesus' last words
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
God be seen?
EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
how many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities..[/quote] Simple context. Isa is the last verse of a song about the King of babylon.
[quote]DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sinJesus' last words[/quote]This speaks to how Jewish daddies are not supposed to be killed their sons messes.
[quote]MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."[/quote]Why can't all three acounts have happened?
[quote]Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?[/quote]
This is another continuity issue. (your passage is out of context here.)
10 David felt ashamed after he had counted the people and said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I did! Lord, I beg you, forgive me for my sin. I have been very foolish.”
11 When David got up in the morning, the Lord gave this message to Gad, David’s seer: 12 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: There are three ways you can be punished. Choose the one you want.’”
13 So Gad went to David and said to him, “Choose one of these three: seven[b] years of famine for you and your country, being chased by your enemies for three months, or three days of disease in your country. Think about it, and decide which one you want. I must give your answer to the one who sent me.”
14 David said to Gad, “This is a terrible situation to be in. But it would be better to be punished by the Lord than by anyone else, because he is very merciful.”
15 So the Lord sent a disease against Israel. It began in the morning and continued until the chosen time to stop. From Dan to Beersheba 70,000 people died. 16 The angel raised his arm over Jerusalem and was ready to destroy it, but the Lord felt very sorry about the bad things that had happened. He said to the angel who destroyed the people, “That’s enough! Put down your arm.” The Lord’s angel was by the threshing floor of Araunah[c] the Jebusite.[d]
[quote]I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;[/quote]
Again placed back in context:
8 Then David said to God, “I have done something very foolish. I have committed a terrible sin by counting the Israelites. Now, I beg you to take the sin away from me, your servant.”
9-10 Gad was David’s seer. The Lord said to Gad, “Go and tell David: ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to give you three choices. You must choose one of them. Then I will punish you the way you choose.’”
11-12 Then Gad went to David. He said to David, “The Lord says, ‘David, choose which punishment you want: three years without enough food, or three months of running away from your enemies while they use their swords to chase you, or three days of punishment from the Lord. Terrible sicknesses will spread through the country, and the Lord’s angel will go through Israel destroying the people.’ David, God sent me. Now, you must decide which answer I will give to him.”
13 David said to Gad, “I am in trouble! I don’t want some man to decide my punishment. The Lord is very merciful, so let him decide how to punish me.”
14 So the Lord sent terrible sicknesses to Israel, and 70,000 people died. 15 God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But when the angel started to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord saw it and felt sorry for all the suffering. So he said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Stop! That is enough!” This happened when the angel of the Lord was standing at the threshing floor of Araunah[b] the Jebusite.[c]
Now show me the contradiction.
[quote]God be seen?
EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)[/quote]
The word "Face to face" in the Hebrew is: פנים paniym It simply means person to person or spoke to God hearing hearing His own voice. (Not using messengers/angels)
[quote]God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20) [/quote] In Exo even in your own account moses did not see God's face...
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
[quote]how many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:[/quote]
This is a good one.
In 2sa 6 the passage reads Michal had not offspring/"Valad" in the Hebrew, or fruit of the womb. Meaning children of your own.
In 2Sa 21 The passage reads Michal's sons or Michal "ben" youth or young man in her care. (adopted kid, which is what one does when he/she can not have one of their own.)
[quote]
there, those are my 5.
[/quote]Plus the first 5 i did makes 10.
(August 13, 2013 at 11:23 am)Drich Wrote: the attemp to strip the bible of the book chapter and various verses that openly denounce homosexuality and identify it as a sin is nothing new.
Then I'm confused why you are against it if you've heard this argument before. You should know that the Bible never explicitly states anything about God hating Gays or any such nonsense, so why all the bullshit?
Drich Wrote:
Quote:Lot has sex with his daughters...even though he was apparently the most righteous man in the entire city.
lot also lived in a time before the law.
Care to explain the deaths of thousands by the hands of God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah then? So they weren't wicked? They didn't transgress any of God's laws? According to your Holy Babble, they indeed lived before the law of Moses, but I guarantee you that no Christian in his right mind will agree with what you just pooped out of your mouth.
I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time, so this cannot possibly be the translation. Nothing is ever specified as to what "unnatural means", so we can toss out those couple of passages. And how in the fuck can a man lie with another man the same way that man lies with a woman? Homosexual sex is done completely differently.
Okay, so the closest the Bible gets to speaking out against Homosexuality is in Leviticus where Moses openly condemns men lying with other men. I wonder why it doesn't say anything about women lying with women? I'm guessing OT polygamy has something to do with that.
But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking. If you're going to follow the admonitions of Moses, why not also avoid eating Rabbits and Pork still? Those were also part of that law. I mean, you guys preached that Jesus fulfilled the law, and since he never spoke out against Homosexuality, that means anything goes now. Jesus is cool with it.
You see how we can twist and mangle the Bible to say whatever we want? That's why it doesn't take a fucking degree to understand what it says: because what it says doesn't matter when compared to a lot of other stuff that it says. (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear about how Mormonism contradicts the Bible.)
Drich Wrote:beggs the question.
Quote:It doesn't beg any questions.
do you not understand what the logical fallacy 'begs the question' means?
[/quote]
Indeed. And you admitted that you have a soft spot for porn, so I was dead on with my assumption that you have a preference. Even if you think what I was asking was a logical fallacy, you lost a lot of ground by sidestepping the questions about it in the first place. You could have addressed it directly, saying something like, "BWS, I actually don't like porn, so these questions of my preference are irrelevant." You see how easy that could have been? Instead you try to school me on something you believe to be a logical fallacy, even though you make a blatant error later on in admitting that you have what you consider to be a porn addiction.
Now that we're done with that hot mess, can we get on with the porn preference questions? What kind of porn did you prefer? What kind of images come up in your mind from time to time? Do you think it's healthy to feel bad every single time you have what you deem to be a "dirty thought"? I'm serious about this last one, because if there was a ever societal decay, it would be the introduction of the thought police.
Drich Wrote:In your orginal question you asserted that if I did not like gay porn I was only inclined to straight porn. Not allowing for the option of not liking porn at all. The fallacy comes in because you need to provide proof of your assertion that limits me to only two options.
You're right, I left that option out. But the questions of preference were about which types of porn, not if you liked porn or not. But I'm willing to forgive you for trying to pin a logical fallacy on me like this. I conceded the homosexuality reference in the Bible (however attaching the reference to the long-gone law of Moses), so you can do me a flavor and concede that I deliberately formed my questions about porn preference the way I did, purposefully excluding whether or not you liked it.
If you still think I'm proceeding with dishonesty, you don't have to reply to my post.
Drich Wrote:
Quote:I'm just trying to find out how you personally feel about sexual acts because this is very connected to what we're discussing here.
I am for them in the proper context. (A Santified marriage.)
Now I'm going to do something that you think is shifting the goal posts, but it's actually just furthering my line of questioning, since it's related to the topic at hand. I'm warning you now just so you aren't alarmed or act badly in response.
Ahem.
How do you define a Sanctified marriage? Holy Matrimony? Justice of the Peace? Common law marriage okay? Also, if a man and woman get marooned on an island with no hope of leaving, should they not have sex with each other and raise a family simply because there is no Priest to marry them?
Drich Wrote:Look at how quickly homosexuality went from social taboo to a social mandate in this country.
I know! It's incredible that people were willing to do social studies and find out for a fact that Homosexuality is not only perfectly healthy, but it hurts nobody in the process if done with the same love and care that heterosexual relationships are also supposed to be about. Now, I'd like to find a modern society that doesn't see the harm and pitfalls of having grown man marry a 10 year old. Let's see if that old taboo will get approved for common practice too, shall we?
Drich Wrote:
Quote:That can't possibly have anything to do with them coming to grips with reality...
Why is denying your sexually 'reality' in one instance, and in another putting you at risk for mental instability?
I already did the heavy lifting on my past explanation. If you want to rehash it, fine, but my answer isn't going to look any different. I think you know the answer to this, but you're just trying to catch me in a not-so-clever word trap. If you are still confused, I'll answer it in the next post and reiterate everything that I just told you.
Drich Wrote:You can find a psychologist to agree with what ever you think is right.
I can? I can find an accredited psychologist that will agree with me that all people should get plastic surgery to look like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? Man...this is an instance of you disagreeing just to disagree.
Quote:I'm also interested in what you consider to be societal decline. Really. This should be good.
the attack and degradation of the traditional family. History records societal degradation and eventually a fall, when the tradition family model has been corrupted or replaced. Greece, Rome, Korea, china, Japan have all experienced societal decline when the traditional family was compromised.
[/quote]
Are you seriously saying that the coincidence of traditional family values changing in different societies is actually directly linked to the downfall of entire nations? Okay, I can see where you got that logic from. It's right there in Genesis when God destroyed Gomorrah. So did Napoleon fall because of his views on sex? What were they again? Has England fallen? Is it showing any signs of collapse? What about Canada or Australia? New Zealand? GERMANY? You're telling me that the Nazi party failed because it had some kind of non-traditional family thing going on?
You can try again, if you'd like, but I doubt your assertion on this will be any less feasible than it was this time. Decline of the "traditional family" does not equate to societal decline. Not by a long shot. The key to a happy family is a happy home, and gay couples are just as capable of healthy, happy living as heterosexual couples are. Are things always rainbows and gumdrops? Hell no, but a bad home is not ever directly related to the sexual inclinations of the parent(s).
So while you're out there condemning homosexuals based on a law that Jesus rescinded when he drop-kicked the Law of Moses, remember that you need to be consistent and go after ALL the non-traditional families. I'm talking about Single Moms and Dads, Transgender roles, a working mom and a stay-at-home dad, and divorced people that have remarried. (If Jesus did anything for the law, he definitely kept divorce as a no-no).
Speaking of traditional families, since you tried to pin "moving the goal post" on me last time, care to answer my question this time? Are Fathers always right?
Drich Wrote:...some lost sons do not come back.
They find new families that are actually accepting of who they are.
Drich Wrote:You are quick to judge,
A trait left over from Christianity, even though Jesus apparently spoke out against it.
Drich Wrote:slow to understand
That's better than impossible to understand, so thanks.
Drich Wrote:and wreckless in how you apply your judgments on to other people.
Nothing ventured nothing gained. I would never have found out your affinity for porn had I not prodded you about it. I'm actually proud of you; you're a walking example of how the thought police is not real, but how the thought of them can mentally abuse you. You're so worried about what you think that it pains you whenever you feel like you have lust in your heart. Here's a newsflash for you: attraction to someone is intrinsically linked to lust, so you can't just shove it away, especially when you're trying to find a boyfriend or girlfriend. You wouldn't last long on the dating scene if you didn't care about your attraction towards someone.
Drich Wrote:No basements in my state.
My wager stands, basements or no.
Drich Wrote:This passage speaks to personal judgement, sentencing someone to physical death, and attempting to execute that person. None of these things have anything to do with what is being discussed.
I have judged anyone the warrants a death sentence.
This passage speaks to a few different things. I was discussing the part of it that shows how the woman was a harlot being judged and that Jesus forgave her. We are both correct in how we view the passage. Don't dismiss my use of the passage just because you don't like that it actually fits into my argument.
Drich Wrote:So? Honestly what do I care that I do not measure up to your standards? Isn't that the point of being a Christian? We look to God for instruction and not soceity.
And now we're back to the core issue; belief in a god that has no demonstrable proof of his existence. Congratu-fucking-lations. You see how one little belief actually affects your entire world view? You don't even care that it's a negative world view that hurts others around you because you believe it's what your god wants you to do. Was I too quick to judge? I think I didn't judge your character soon enough. You are indeed scum if you really think a god wants you to act this way towards other people.
Quote:Most of you guys have very limited experience in Christianity and some how believe because you ladled soup in hati after the hurricans or even spend 30 years in a church never having missed a Sunday, this somehow places you in a position to use the bible to rebuke or correct someone who has spent the lions share of their lives studying scripture.
Do you not seeing that you are making a baseless assertion?
Quote:But you being a missionary does... Yeah.
Yes, I had formal training. Now suck my ex-missionary nuts.
YAY!!!! *Gets out the surgery kit to dissect the linked article, to see if Drich was actually able to back up his claim or if this is just another half-assed attempt at proving himself despite there being no evidence to back up the claim.* I would normally channel PeterPriesthood for an undertaking like this, but I think his Atheist Sock Puppet BWS will do just fine.
Quote:Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"
Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity.
So far we have a baseless assertion to break down another baseless assertion. Let's see if evidence is provided later to show how believing in the teachings and divinity of Christ makes someone less of a Christian.
The next line is an attempt at giving the definition of a cult.
Quote:In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from the God’s Word, they are not.
So a religious organization is only a cult if they pervert the word of god. Interesting. Since we're making up definitions, let's see what the Merriam-Webster actually identifies as a cult, since Drich loves using the definitions within it as just as authoritative as his Bible.
cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
So far so good. It's obviously a noun. So what are the definitions?
1 : formal religious veneration
Man...the first definition completely defines even Drich's claim to divinity. Need I go on?
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
It's not looking good for the link Drich gave us. This still describes pretty much any religion out there today. Any Christian denomination so far is looking just as cultish as the Mormon religion.
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
If we don't assume that these extra definitions are given simply as alternatives and are instead trying to narrow down the definition of "cult", then we get a better idea of why Christian denominations refer to the Mormons as a cult. However, this also gives Mormons the same amount of right to claim that any religion that doesn't conform to their teachings is also a cult. We get nowhere with this one.
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
This is a definition put into a different light, taking god out of the equation in some cases. What else is there?
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
The way that all Christians, including Mormons, adore Jesus Christ, God, Saints, Joseph Smith, and any important religious figure indeed makes them all cults by this definition. Whew, I'm glad we cleared that one up.
Quote:Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity.
Smith's mistake here was trying to restore something that was bogus in the first place. Christians should be thanking him for trying to take them back to their roots: polygamy in a patriarchal society!
Quote:Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism [New York, 1861], and Mormonism Unveiled [Painesville, Ohio, 1834]), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.
Jesus' entire background is questionable as his entire childhood is all but left out of the Bible. Why should Smith be viewed any differently? Angels testifying to man is all in accordance with the pattern set forth in the Bible. I mean, the Virgin Mary (or not-so-virgin Mary according to the Mormons) was visited by the Angel Gabriel so that she could know that God spirit-fucked her. Or did the angel appear to Joseph? Ah, fuck it. No one's going to notice a contradiction like that, right? Even Joseph Smith got the name of his Angel mixed up at times, calling him Nephi and Moroni interchangeably.
Quote:The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible. Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthony of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism. These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
And let me guess. Nothing like this has EVER happened with the Bible. No forgeries, no interpolations, no apologetics...no, this book is perfect. This still doesn't explain how it conflicts with the Bible though. It's merely stated that there are theological inconsistencies, but Christianity itself is split into thousands of factions because of their differences. Why beat up on the Mormon Church for doing the exact same thing?
Quote:One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works. This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16).
How does this prove God wasn't a man? If spirits are eternal, and the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit, then how has he not existed for an eternity? The same goes for Christ in Mormon theology. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Christians just don't like to think that God had to earn his God status. Well, who do you think made God? Other gods, duh. This solves this crazy eternity dilemma right there! It seems Mormons are made of smarter stuff than Christians give them credit for. I'm not saying they're any less crazy though.
Quote:Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth. However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).
Except that Jesus states in John 10 that "ye are gods". Oh well, chalk it up to another Bible inconsistency. However, this still puts Mormons in line with the Bible, even if the Bible is not in line with itself.
Quote:Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself. It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).
Silly anti-Mormon literature. They should really learn more about Mormon doctrine before making themselves look silly. Jesus claims his divinity in the Gospel of John, revealing that he is indeed Jehovah of the Old Testament. This is what Mormons actually believe. His father is another god, and they say his name is Elohim. No contradictions as far as I can see, but there's still plenty of bullshit for all to have.
Quote:Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works. While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church and practicing good works in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).
Oh, the great dilemma! Faith vs. Works! Mormons solved this by saying that Faith complements Works, and that both are necessary for entrance into Heaven. How do they justify this? With the Bible! Take a close look at James Chapter 2. This isn't even out of context! (notice how the Christian site conveniently left this passage out of its justification for salvation on faith alone)
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks is dead?
You can read the rest of that chapter and see for yourself that I am not making this up. And, again, I have proven that the Mormon religion is not contrary to the Bible.
Quote:Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church.
Sadly, those who do find out the full doctrine of the Mormon Church are usually too far in to realize that they've drunk too much of the Koolaid by that point. However, with this church and other Christian denominations all being cults, the Koolaid has a very similar taste.
Quote:Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).
So when the Holy Ghost tells them that their Church is true, they're being deceived by Satan? How does on keep this from happening? Isn't there some kind of failsafe? I think GC thinks so, but this article seems to differ on that opinion. I guess Southern Baptists have a whole different flavor of Koolaid from you, Drich.
This was great! Now I'm going to show you how the Bible even testifies of the Book of Mormon! Prepare to be amazed!
"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall be one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the LORD God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will put them with him, even the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand." (Ezekiel 37:15-19)
Mormons interpret this passage to mean that these sticks are synonymous with scrolls, as used in those times, and one contains the record of the Jews (the Bible) and the other contains the record of Ephraim (the Book of Mormon). If one has read the Book of Mormon, they would see that the people described in the account claim descent from Joseph of Egypt and on through his son Ephraim. The Book of Mormon was to account for one of the Lost Tribes if Israel scattered during the destruction of Jerusalem under the reign of King Zedekiah and contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah. Thus, the Book of Mormon, when viewed in this light, is indeed a prophecy of the Bible come true!
(Self-fulfilling prophecy, but, hey, Christians have to make their shit smell like roses somehow.)
This next prophecy is a little easier to understand, concerning the origin story of the Book of Mormon. Voila!
"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Isaiah 29:4
The tribe of Ephraim allegedly wrote their history and prophecies on Golden Plates, which the Angel Moroni (or Nephi) told Joseph to dig up out the ground. This Bible prophecy stuff is easy!
Now for the kicker. A prophecy by Jesus himself! We return to John 10 in order to take a look at it.
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16
Mormons take this as a sure confirmation of the Book of Mormon. How, you say? In the Book of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Zombie Jesus himself makes an appearance in the ancient Americas to the children of Ephraim (and Manasseh...? Yeah, apparently his seed made it to the Americas back then as well). Anyway, Jesus' words in this verse is taken as a prophecy that he will not forget the Lost Tribes of Israel, and said prophecy was fulfilled when he appeared to the lost tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient America. Pretty nifty, eh? He even tells them after his visit that he was going to go visit the other lost tribes, spouting off the same line to them that we saw in John 10. This can't possibly be a plagiarism of the Bible, can it?
Drich, that's all I have for now. I hope you come up with something more concrete next time. I may even bring PeterPriesthood out to play if you do, and that's fun times for everyone!
August 14, 2013 at 12:04 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2013 at 12:11 am by Drich.)
(August 13, 2013 at 6:22 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Then I'm confused why you are against it if you've heard this argument before. You should know that the Bible never explicitly states anything about God hating Gays or any such nonsense, so why all the bullshit?
I did not say God hated Gays. I said there is no sanctified pretext in which homosexual sex is condoned which makes Homosexuality a sin, just like any other sin. This is something I have mentioned 6 times now and appearently you do not know how to answer it otherwise you would not keep trying bait and switch the topic.
Again, just in case you missed it. Even if you strip the bible of all that it says against Homosexuality, you still do not have a sanctified pretext in which Homosexual sex is permitted before God, as Heterosexual sex has been sanctified under the marriage covenant. If there is not a setting in which Homosexual sex is sanctified then ALL HOMOSEXUAL sex is a sin.
Do try and stay on topic this time old sport, and address what has been said rather than defaulting to a position of obstinance and name calling.
Quote:Care to explain the deaths of thousands by the hands of God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah then? So they weren't wicked?
Are you implying it takes a law to be considered wicked?
Not to mention God's law only applied to God's people even after it was given. So even if Lot had the law it would not directly apply to those who live in Sodom or Gomorrah, and yes God will still have found them wicked.
Quote: They didn't transgress any of God's laws?
at that point no. a simple time line would confirm.
Quote:According to your Holy Babble, they indeed lived before the law of Moses, but I guarantee you that no Christian in his right mind will agree with what you just pooped out of your mouth.
-or- Maybe you do not understand the basics of Christianity.
Quote:I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time,so this cannot possibly be the translation
OMG are you being serious right now???
Do you see it yet?
Think about it a second more? I'm sure you figured it out by now, but just in case you didn't NONE OF THE WORDS IN ANY TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE "WERE KNOWN WORDS AT THE TIME!!!!"
That is why it is called a TRANSLATION!!! The Bible was not written in King James English So ALL of the Words are Direct Translations of either Hebrew or Koine Greek Words. Some words translate and in other cases Ideas are described and are translated into single words or word phrases.
Quote:But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking. If you're going to follow the admonitions of Moses, why not also avoid eating Rabbits and Pork still? Those were also part of that law. I mean, you guys preached that Jesus fulfilled the law, and since he never spoke out against Homosexuality, that means anything goes now. Jesus is cool with it.
Quote:Again, stop trying to pretend that I haven't introduced a death blow to your whole argument, and address the points I made about Removing a "Thou shalt not" from the bible is on par with providing you with a thou shalt. For even if you remove everything the bible openly say against Homosexual sex, You still do not have a context in which it is allowed. For the bible Clearly states ALL SEX outside of a sanctified marriage is a sin. Because there is not a provision for same sex marriage in the bible it makes all homosexual sex a sin. Just like any other sexual sin. No greater no worse, but a sin none the less one that requires repentance.
Now sport, I double dog dare you to Man up and stay on topic as to answer my biblically supported argument that all Homosexual sex is a sin because God does not allow a sanctified context in which it is allowed!
[quote]You see how we can twist and mangle the Bible to say whatever we want? That's why it doesn't take a fucking degree to understand what it says: because what it says doesn't matter when compared to a lot of other stuff that it says. (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear about how Mormonism contradicts the Bible.)
This is known as a red Herring Sport. It where a desperate man seeks to address something off topic so as to distract and subvert the primary focous of the conversation away from what is being discussed.
Remember you asked me a question, demanded an answer now here it is. What will you do with it when the answer given was not the one you were taught to expect? Can you think on your feet and address what I have said point by point? (If you could you would have not let it go 6 different times) Can you do a google search and see how smarter people/atheists have attacked my position (Probably not because as far as I know this argument has orginated with me, and no one to date has over turned what I have said biblically.)
So you only have a few options 1) to keep ignoring what I have said and try and flood this thread with various attempts to try and divert the topic (Which will get harder and harder to do because the more you divert the more direct I will get drawing attention to your inability to answer me topically)
2) turn to personal attacks, maybe try and call the mixed race guy a bigot some more and see how well you fare.
3) Admit that your wrong, and concede the argument (Which would earn my respect.)
or
4) simply drop the topic. (Just like every other person on this web site has had to do, and maybe go head hunting some place else.) Because my responses are worded to answer your initial query. If you are satasified then I will have nothing else to say.
Quote:Indeed. And you admitted that you have a soft spot for porn, so I was dead on with my assumption that you have a preference.
Now your into building straw men...
Quote:You're right, I left that option out.
Which is the literal definition of "Begging the Question" and as a logical fallacy can not be answered truthfully.
Quote: But the questions of preference were about which types of porn, not if you liked porn or not. But I'm willing to forgive you for trying to pin a logical fallacy on me like this.
Again begs the question. For If I say I do not like porn, how can I have a favorite?
If you strip a question of any chance of logically or honestly being answered then I will not answer it for I can not answer a baited question logically or truthfully.
I am not here to answer baited questions that you used on your friends in grade school. If/when you grow up and want to a have a big boy talk then let me know.
Quote:How do you define a Sanctified marriage? Holy Matrimony? Justice of the Peace? Common law marriage okay? Also, if a man and woman get marooned on an island with no hope of leaving, should they not have sex with each other and raise a family simply because there is no Priest to marry them?
Quote:Are you seriously saying that the coincidence of traditional family values changing in different societies is actually directly linked to the downfall of entire nations?
Once or twice is a coincidence. I gave you 1/2 a dozen examples of great soceities separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Are you willfully being ignorant here?
Quote: Okay, I can see where you got that logic from. It's right there in Genesis when God destroyed Gomorrah. So did Napoleon fall because of his views on sex?
seriously? Napoleon the Emporer of France? Do you not know your history? Google it.
Quote: What were they again?
Emperlistic monarchy. What are they now a 1/2 hearted republic, in league with several other failing half hearted republics. (all of which btw hold the same contempt for traditional family I am speaking of here.) Is France the same nation as it was when Napoleon ruled? Absolutely not! They share the same language, and that's about it. The great Napolenic empire had been strip of it's lands, wealth, and power long before Hitler marched in and took what remained of Napoleon's legacy.
Again now it is a shell of what it once was, as it has been assimilated into the ECC. Which again itself is failing, and if allowed to go on it's present course will take the western world economy with it.
Quote: Has England fallen?
OMG YES!!! England Ruled the whole World!!! and it's monarchy has also be reduced to nothing but a show piece, with it's lands and power striped from it. It has been reduced from literally holding influence and power over the whole world, to an island nation who has trouble managing it's own affairs. Another former shadow of a great nation. England only shares a Name of what it once was.
Quote:Is it showing any signs of collapse?
The England of Olde is Gone, Never to return. It no longer shows signs of collapse because it is already gone.
Quote:GERMANY? You're telling me that the Nazi party failed because it had some kind of non-traditional family thing going on?
Did you graduate high school? Did they teach History? Do you have access to the History channel? Do you have access to the internet? Then maybe do a google search, and get your facts straight before you try and represent verifiable data.
I edited out a lot of pointless bickering, and decided not to answer any of it. If I cut something out you honestly would like answered the rephrase the core question minus the bicketry please.
(August 13, 2013 at 10:01 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='492541' dateline='1376428731']
YAY!!!! *Gets out the surgery kit to dissect the linked article, to see if Drich was actually able to back up his claim or if this is just another half-assed attempt at proving himself despite there being no evidence to back up the claim.* I would normally channel PeterPriesthood for an undertaking like this, but I think his Atheist Sock Puppet BWS will do just fine.
Quote:Question: "Are Mormons Christians? Are Mormons saved?"
Answer: Although Mormons profess to be Christians and say they believe the Word of God, there are many of their beliefs that contradict Christianity.
So far we have a baseless assertion to break down another baseless assertion. Let's see if evidence is provided later to show how believing in the teachings and divinity of Christ makes someone less of a Christian.
The next line is an attempt at giving the definition of a cult.
Quote:In fact, Mormonism can be referred to as a cult, which can be defined as “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” Mormons say they are Christians, but because they reject foundational truths from the God’s Word, they are not.
So a religious organization is only a cult if they pervert the word of god. Interesting. Since we're making up definitions, let's see what the Merriam-Webster actually identifies as a cult, since Drich loves using the definitions within it as just as authoritative as his Bible.
cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
So far so good. It's obviously a noun. So what are the definitions?
1 : formal religious veneration
Man...the first definition completely defines even Drich's claim to divinity. Need I go on?
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
It's not looking good for the link Drich gave us. This still describes pretty much any religion out there today. Any Christian denomination so far is looking just as cultish as the Mormon religion.
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
If we don't assume that these extra definitions are given simply as alternatives and are instead trying to narrow down the definition of "cult", then we get a better idea of why Christian denominations refer to the Mormons as a cult. However, this also gives Mormons the same amount of right to claim that any religion that doesn't conform to their teachings is also a cult. We get nowhere with this one.
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
This is a definition put into a different light, taking god out of the equation in some cases. What else is there?
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
The way that all Christians, including Mormons, adore Jesus Christ, God, Saints, Joseph Smith, and any important religious figure indeed makes them all cults by this definition. Whew, I'm glad we cleared that one up.
Quote:Joseph Smith, who referred to himself as “The Prophet,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the mid-1800s. He claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and God the Son, in which they denounced modern Christianity and appointed Smith to reveal and restore “true” Christianity.
Smith's mistake here was trying to restore something that was bogus in the first place. Christians should be thanking him for trying to take them back to their roots: polygamy in a patriarchal society!
Quote:Three years later, Smith alleged that the angel Moroni told him about some golden plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. In spite of Smith’s questionable background and proclivity toward bending the truth (see The Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism [New York, 1861], and Mormonism Unveiled [Painesville, Ohio, 1834]), many believed Smith, and a new “religion” was born. Today, the members of the Mormon Church number in the millions.
Jesus' entire background is questionable as his entire childhood is all but left out of the Bible. Why should Smith be viewed any differently? Angels testifying to man is all in accordance with the pattern set forth in the Bible. I mean, the Virgin Mary (or not-so-virgin Mary according to the Mormons) was visited by the Angel Gabriel so that she could know that God spirit-fucked her. Or did the angel appear to Joseph? Ah, fuck it. No one's going to notice a contradiction like that, right? Even Joseph Smith got the name of his Angel mixed up at times, calling him Nephi and Moroni interchangeably.
Quote:The Book of Mormon is purported to be a new revelation, one that Mormons say is part of the new covenant to Israel and “another witness” to the truth of the Bible. Aside from the many theological conflicts with the Bible and historical and archeological fact, the writing of the Book of Mormon was shrouded in mystery and false claims. For example, Joseph Smith and his associates asserted that one Professor Charles Anthony of Columbia University verified the Egyptian characters on the golden plates. However, this same professor wrote a rebuttal letter soon after, saying that he never did any such thing and had, in fact, found the characters to be a hoax. In addition, many verses in the Mormon scriptures have been changed over the years, as the church leaders attempt to cover up something embarrassing in their past and to defend themselves against criticism. These facts alone are enough to cast much doubt on the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
And let me guess. Nothing like this has EVER happened with the Bible. No forgeries, no interpolations, no apologetics...no, this book is perfect. This still doesn't explain how it conflicts with the Bible though. It's merely stated that there are theological inconsistencies, but Christianity itself is split into thousands of factions because of their differences. Why beat up on the Mormon Church for doing the exact same thing?
Quote:One of the many areas in which Mormons fall short of saving faith is their belief that God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works. This directly contradicts the Bible, which states that God has existed in His position as God of the universe from eternity past (Revelation 1:8; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:15–16; Psalm 102:24–27). God was never a man (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9) and is the holy and powerful Creator of all things (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16).
How does this prove God wasn't a man? If spirits are eternal, and the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit, then how has he not existed for an eternity? The same goes for Christ in Mormon theology. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Christians just don't like to think that God had to earn his God status. Well, who do you think made God? Other gods, duh. This solves this crazy eternity dilemma right there! It seems Mormons are made of smarter stuff than Christians give them credit for. I'm not saying they're any less crazy though.
Quote:Mormons also believe that they themselves can attain the status of gods in the afterlife through their works here on earth. However, no man can ever become like God (1 Samuel 2:2; Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:21–22), despite what the serpent told Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5).
Except that Jesus states in John 10 that "ye are gods". Oh well, chalk it up to another Bible inconsistency. However, this still puts Mormons in line with the Bible, even if the Bible is not in line with itself.
Quote:Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself. It is essential to Christian faith that Jesus is one with God and that He is God’s only begotten Son who became flesh (John 1:1, 14; John 3:16). Only Jesus’ oneness with God would have allowed Him to live a sinless, blameless life (Hebrews 7:26). And only Jesus Christ was able to pay the price for our sins by His death on the cross (Romans 4:25; Acts 4:12).
Silly anti-Mormon literature. They should really learn more about Mormon doctrine before making themselves look silly. Jesus claims his divinity in the Gospel of John, revealing that he is indeed Jehovah of the Old Testament. This is what Mormons actually believe. His father is another god, and they say his name is Elohim. No contradictions as far as I can see, but there's still plenty of bullshit for all to have.
Quote:Those who follow the Mormon faith also believe that they can attain heaven through works. While they claim faith in Christ, they also rely on following the commandments of the Mormon Church and practicing good works in order to achieve salvation. The Bible is very clear on this point, stating that good works can never earn the way to heaven (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5) and that faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way to salvation (John 10:9; 11:25; 14:6; Acts 4:12). Salvation by grace is incompatible with salvation by human works (Romans 11:6).
Oh, the great dilemma! Faith vs. Works! Mormons solved this by saying that Faith complements Works, and that both are necessary for entrance into Heaven. How do they justify this? With the Bible! Take a close look at James Chapter 2. This isn't even out of context! (notice how the Christian site conveniently left this passage out of its justification for salvation on faith alone)
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks is dead?
You can read the rest of that chapter and see for yourself that I am not making this up. And, again, I have proven that the Mormon religion is not contrary to the Bible.
Quote:Sadly, many in the Mormon Church are unaware of the religion’s shady past, amended scriptures, and even the full doctrine of their church.
Sadly, those who do find out the full doctrine of the Mormon Church are usually too far in to realize that they've drunk too much of the Koolaid by that point. However, with this church and other Christian denominations all being cults, the Koolaid has a very similar taste.
Quote:Many Mormons who have discovered these things have left the church and come to a true saving faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, we must treat Mormons with love and understand that they are among those deceived by Satan himself (1 Peter 5:8). Satan’s goal is to distort the truth, produce false assurance of salvation, and extend a deceptive hope of godhood (2 Corinthians 4:4).
So when the Holy Ghost tells them that their Church is true, they're being deceived by Satan? How does on keep this from happening? Isn't there some kind of failsafe? I think GC thinks so, but this article seems to differ on that opinion. I guess Southern Baptists have a whole different flavor of Koolaid from you, Drich.
This was great! Now I'm going to show you how the Bible even testifies of the Book of Mormon! Prepare to be amazed!
"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall be one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the LORD God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will put them with him, even the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand." (Ezekiel 37:15-19)
Mormons interpret this passage to mean that these sticks are synonymous with scrolls, as used in those times, and one contains the record of the Jews (the Bible) and the other contains the record of Ephraim (the Book of Mormon). If one has read the Book of Mormon, they would see that the people described in the account claim descent from Joseph of Egypt and on through his son Ephraim. The Book of Mormon was to account for one of the Lost Tribes if Israel scattered during the destruction of Jerusalem under the reign of King Zedekiah and contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah. Thus, the Book of Mormon, when viewed in this light, is indeed a prophecy of the Bible come true!
(Self-fulfilling prophecy, but, hey, Christians have to make their shit smell like roses somehow.)
This next prophecy is a little easier to understand, concerning the origin story of the Book of Mormon. Voila!
"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Isaiah 29:4
The tribe of Ephraim allegedly wrote their history and prophecies on Golden Plates, which the Angel Moroni (or Nephi) told Joseph to dig up out the ground. This Bible prophecy stuff is easy!
Now for the kicker. A prophecy by Jesus himself! We return to John 10 in order to take a look at it.
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16
Mormons take this as a sure confirmation of the Book of Mormon. How, you say? In the Book of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Zombie Jesus himself makes an appearance in the ancient Americas to the children of Ephraim (and Manasseh...? Yeah, apparently his seed made it to the Americas back then as well). Anyway, Jesus' words in this verse is taken as a prophecy that he will not forget the Lost Tribes of Israel, and said prophecy was fulfilled when he appeared to the lost tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient America. Pretty nifty, eh? He even tells them after his visit that he was going to go visit the other lost tribes, spouting off the same line to them that we saw in John 10. This can't possibly be a plagiarism of the Bible, can it?
Drich, that's all I have for now. I hope you come up with something more concrete next time. I may even bring PeterPriesthood out to play if you do, and that's fun times for everyone!
[/quote]
So if you were a Mormon then why did you identify as being a former Christian?
August 14, 2013 at 2:35 am (This post was last modified: August 14, 2013 at 2:38 am by Bad Writer.)
(August 14, 2013 at 12:04 am)Drich Wrote: I did not say God hated Gays. I said there is no sanctified pretext in which homosexual sex is condoned which makes Homosexuality a sin, just like any other sin. This is something I have mentioned 6 times now and appearently you do not know how to answer it otherwise you would not keep trying bait and switch the topic.
Actually, your ESV translation...erm...interpolation spoke out against Homosexuality. But should we really dwell on this? It seems to be driving you mad to the point of trying to cover the problem by attempting to call me out on fallacies, moving goalposts, strawmen, red herrings...oh boy, I've stayed on topic this entire time, and you simply don't like it. If you're squirming this much, I must have struck a nerve. I can always stop if you need me to.
Quote:Again, just in case you missed it. Even if you strip the bible of all that it says against Homosexuality, you still do not have a sanctified pretext in which Homosexual sex is permitted before God, as Heterosexual sex has been sanctified under the marriage covenant. If there is not a setting in which Homosexual sex is sanctified then ALL HOMOSEXUAL sex is a sin.
Oh, I'm following you pretty close on this one. Notice how I never tried to refute this point? The point I was making was one specific to homosexuality. The reaction and repugnance towards the idea of it by the Christian community is disconcerting, and I'm merely attempting to get the bottom of it with you using my "baited" questions. However, you're evading the probes like a Russian MIG with an American F-16 on its tail. I think you're being a good little Christian liar, and you are trying your hardest not to tell me what you really think, what your own morals look like when not put in the context of religion. This is something that's hard to watch, as I've been through it myself.
Quote:Care to explain the deaths of thousands by the hands of God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah then? So they weren't wicked?
Are you implying it takes a law to be considered wicked?
[/quote]
Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.
However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.
So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.
Quote:I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time,so this cannot possibly be the translation
OMG are you being serious right now???
[/quote]
Time to get serious.
Ahem.
NIV
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"
KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
Aramaic in plain English
"Or do you not know that evil men do not inherit The Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; no fornicators, neither worshipers of idols, neither adulterers, neither sexual molesters, neither males lying down with males,"
Homosexuality is the inclination, not the act. This only describes the act, which is in definitely in line with what you're saying about sexual sin as the Bible describes it, but these translations certainly have something lacking in them...what could it be...? Oh yes. The word homosexual, that the ESV so lovingly adds.
ESV
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"
At least it doesn't go the route of some Bibles and actually omit the fact that the homosexual has to be practicing in order to be considered sinful.
So then. Here's a "strawman" for you that I want answered truthfully (because it's not really a strawman and very much so has to do with what you think about sexual sin as far as your god is concerned). Did Mary the mother of Jesus have to be married to God in order for her to conceive of the Holy Spirit? Does this law not apply to God?
Quote:Do you see it yet?
Yes I do. I absolutely see your point, and I do sound kind of silly. I knew the point I was making, but it came out kinda screwy, and you got me fair and square on it.
Quote:Think about it a second more? I'm sure you figured it out by now, but just in case you didn't NONE OF THE WORDS IN ANY TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE "WERE KNOWN WORDS AT THE TIME!!!!"
Yeah. But you know now that I was talking about direct translations of the words on the page, not equivocation. Homosexuality, an umbrella term that didn't not exist in any form back in those times, is still considered an interpolation since it has been equivocated to what, for example, the Aramaic states. The ESV isn't at all right to use the word, but it's also not exactly wrong.
Drich Wrote:
Quote:But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking.
Quote:Again, stop trying to pretend that I haven't introduced a death blow to your whole argument.
Have I ever refuted that the Bible claims to say that sexual sin is bad bad bad in the eyes of god? All I said is that Jesus was okay with homosexuals since he never spoke out against them. In fact, according the Bible, men can love other men; they just can't act on it. Are you trying to convince me that this is not what I'm saying?
Quote:This is known as a red Herring Sport. It where a desperate man seeks to address something off topic so as to distract and subvert the primary focous of the conversation away from what is being discussed.
Not all tangents are red herrings, and these points we're hitting upon all seem pretty close in the realm of what we're discussing. Why are you upset about that?
Quote:Now your into building straw men...
Not usually. You seem pretty insistent on this, so I'm listening.
Quote:Again begs the question. For If I say I do not like porn, how can I have a favorite?
That's actually where the questioning would have stopped. Forgive me for not first asking if you like porn, but I felt preference would be something more apt to talk about in the realm of what we were discussing, that is, sexual orientation and such. Still, my hunch was correct that you do have an inclination towards porn at times. You're stuck in a guilt trap, which is a psychological burden put on you by your "loving god". Excuse me for using a baited question to get you to this point, but I think the benefit outweighs the shady way at which I arrived at this point with you. I can see that not only do you believe in sin, but you're letting it affect your emotions. A loving god would have given you a way to escape this trap, but he's about as good at psychology as he is at astrophysics, so he's no good for you there. Try asking yourself a hypothetical such as, "If there is no God, is sexual intercourse before marriage still a bad thing?" "Is porn a bad thing?" Weigh the pros and cons. They're there even if there isn't a god. Let me know what you come up with because I'm actually really interested to know, and this is kind of what I was aiming at from the beginning with this line of questioning. If you try to pull a Statler Waldorf and squirm out of the hypothetical, then there's no reason to continue talking to you if you can't even put yourself in the shoes of the person with whom you're having a discussion (which means this is an out should you decided to take it).
More generic Christian rhetoric. I want to know what YOU think about my deserted Island scenario.
Quote:Once or twice is a coincidence. I gave you 1/2 a dozen examples of great soceities separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Are you willfully being ignorant here?
So you personally did some case studies on these societies and found that their downfall is intrinsically linked to their breakdown of what you consider to be the traditional family?
Quote:OMG YES!!! England Ruled the whole World!!! and it's monarchy has also be reduced to nothing but a show piece, with it's lands and power striped from it. It has been reduced from literally holding influence and power over the whole world, to an island nation who has trouble managing it's own affairs. Another former shadow of a great nation. England only shares a Name of what it once was.
The England of Olde is Gone, Never to return. It no longer shows signs of collapse because it is already gone.
Actually, it's better than it ever was. Equivocating could get Esquilax on your ass.
Metamorphosis does not mean collapse. England grew up a bit, as it needed to do with a changing world, but thanks for not noticing. So I suppose it's only a matter of time before Canada comes crashing down, right?
[quote='Drich']
Quote:
YAY!!!! *Gets out the surgery kit to dissect the linked article, to see if Drich was actually able to back up his claim or if this is just another half-assed attempt at proving himself despite there being no evidence to back up the claim.* I would normally channel PeterPriesthood for an undertaking like this, but I think his Atheist Sock Puppet BWS will do just fine.
So far we have a baseless assertion to break down another baseless assertion. Let's see if evidence is provided later to show how believing in the teachings and divinity of Christ makes someone less of a Christian.
The next line is an attempt at giving the definition of a cult.
So a religious organization is only a cult if they pervert the word of god. Interesting. Since we're making up definitions, let's see what the Merriam-Webster actually identifies as a cult, since Drich loves using the definitions within it as just as authoritative as his Bible.
cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
So far so good. It's obviously a noun. So what are the definitions?
1 : formal religious veneration
Man...the first definition completely defines even Drich's claim to divinity. Need I go on?
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
It's not looking good for the link Drich gave us. This still describes pretty much any religion out there today. Any Christian denomination so far is looking just as cultish as the Mormon religion.
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
If we don't assume that these extra definitions are given simply as alternatives and are instead trying to narrow down the definition of "cult", then we get a better idea of why Christian denominations refer to the Mormons as a cult. However, this also gives Mormons the same amount of right to claim that any religion that doesn't conform to their teachings is also a cult. We get nowhere with this one.
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
This is a definition put into a different light, taking god out of the equation in some cases. What else is there?
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
The way that all Christians, including Mormons, adore Jesus Christ, God, Saints, Joseph Smith, and any important religious figure indeed makes them all cults by this definition. Whew, I'm glad we cleared that one up.
Smith's mistake here was trying to restore something that was bogus in the first place. Christians should be thanking him for trying to take them back to their roots: polygamy in a patriarchal society!
Jesus' entire background is questionable as his entire childhood is all but left out of the Bible. Why should Smith be viewed any differently? Angels testifying to man is all in accordance with the pattern set forth in the Bible. I mean, the Virgin Mary (or not-so-virgin Mary according to the Mormons) was visited by the Angel Gabriel so that she could know that God spirit-fucked her. Or did the angel appear to Joseph? Ah, fuck it. No one's going to notice a contradiction like that, right? Even Joseph Smith got the name of his Angel mixed up at times, calling him Nephi and Moroni interchangeably.
And let me guess. Nothing like this has EVER happened with the Bible. No forgeries, no interpolations, no apologetics...no, this book is perfect. This still doesn't explain how it conflicts with the Bible though. It's merely stated that there are theological inconsistencies, but Christianity itself is split into thousands of factions because of their differences. Why beat up on the Mormon Church for doing the exact same thing?
How does this prove God wasn't a man? If spirits are eternal, and the Bible clearly states that God is a Spirit, then how has he not existed for an eternity? The same goes for Christ in Mormon theology. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Christians just don't like to think that God had to earn his God status. Well, who do you think made God? Other gods, duh. This solves this crazy eternity dilemma right there! It seems Mormons are made of smarter stuff than Christians give them credit for. I'm not saying they're any less crazy though.
Except that Jesus states in John 10 that "ye are gods". Oh well, chalk it up to another Bible inconsistency. However, this still puts Mormons in line with the Bible, even if the Bible is not in line with itself.
Silly anti-Mormon literature. They should really learn more about Mormon doctrine before making themselves look silly. Jesus claims his divinity in the Gospel of John, revealing that he is indeed Jehovah of the Old Testament. This is what Mormons actually believe. His father is another god, and they say his name is Elohim. No contradictions as far as I can see, but there's still plenty of bullshit for all to have.
Oh, the great dilemma! Faith vs. Works! Mormons solved this by saying that Faith complements Works, and that both are necessary for entrance into Heaven. How do they justify this? With the Bible! Take a close look at James Chapter 2. This isn't even out of context! (notice how the Christian site conveniently left this passage out of its justification for salvation on faith alone)
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks is dead?
You can read the rest of that chapter and see for yourself that I am not making this up. And, again, I have proven that the Mormon religion is not contrary to the Bible.
Sadly, those who do find out the full doctrine of the Mormon Church are usually too far in to realize that they've drunk too much of the Koolaid by that point. However, with this church and other Christian denominations all being cults, the Koolaid has a very similar taste.
So when the Holy Ghost tells them that their Church is true, they're being deceived by Satan? How does on keep this from happening? Isn't there some kind of failsafe? I think GC thinks so, but this article seems to differ on that opinion. I guess Southern Baptists have a whole different flavor of Koolaid from you, Drich.
This was great! Now I'm going to show you how the Bible even testifies of the Book of Mormon! Prepare to be amazed!
"The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall be one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the LORD God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his companions, and I will put them with him, even the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand." (Ezekiel 37:15-19)
Mormons interpret this passage to mean that these sticks are synonymous with scrolls, as used in those times, and one contains the record of the Jews (the Bible) and the other contains the record of Ephraim (the Book of Mormon). If one has read the Book of Mormon, they would see that the people described in the account claim descent from Joseph of Egypt and on through his son Ephraim. The Book of Mormon was to account for one of the Lost Tribes if Israel scattered during the destruction of Jerusalem under the reign of King Zedekiah and contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah. Thus, the Book of Mormon, when viewed in this light, is indeed a prophecy of the Bible come true!
(Self-fulfilling prophecy, but, hey, Christians have to make their shit smell like roses somehow.)
This next prophecy is a little easier to understand, concerning the origin story of the Book of Mormon. Voila!
"And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Isaiah 29:4
The tribe of Ephraim allegedly wrote their history and prophecies on Golden Plates, which the Angel Moroni (or Nephi) told Joseph to dig up out the ground. This Bible prophecy stuff is easy!
Now for the kicker. A prophecy by Jesus himself! We return to John 10 in order to take a look at it.
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16
Mormons take this as a sure confirmation of the Book of Mormon. How, you say? In the Book of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Zombie Jesus himself makes an appearance in the ancient Americas to the children of Ephraim (and Manasseh...? Yeah, apparently his seed made it to the Americas back then as well). Anyway, Jesus' words in this verse is taken as a prophecy that he will not forget the Lost Tribes of Israel, and said prophecy was fulfilled when he appeared to the lost tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient America. Pretty nifty, eh? He even tells them after his visit that he was going to go visit the other lost tribes, spouting off the same line to them that we saw in John 10. This can't possibly be a plagiarism of the Bible, can it?
Drich, that's all I have for now. I hope you come up with something more concrete next time. I may even bring PeterPriesthood out to play if you do, and that's fun times for everyone!
So if you were a Mormon then why did you identify as being a former Christian?
Mormons are Christians. Ah, jeez, he didn't read the post. And if he read it, then he didn't understand it.
I take it your neglecting of my reply to your post about the Mormons is simply a result of you not giving a shit if the Mormons really are in line with the Bible or not. I guess my enthusiasm for using Mormonism in a satirical manner is not something you wish to confront because you don't think it's something that should be taken seriously.
Think of it this way: if something you know is bullshit (Mormonism) can go toe-to-toe with your religion, then perhaps your Christianity isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Oh, Drich! I completely forgot that you shrugged off the fact that I pointed out how you are cherry-picking from the Bible. Let me re-address this real quick-like.
How do you know which commandments from the OT are ones to keep and which ones should now be ignored? A "Thou shalt not" and a "Thou shalt" shouldn't make a whole lot of difference: should we no longer multiply and replenish the earth? Many Christians argue on this point. Should the Sabbath day still be observed in deference to god's day of rest (which makes no sense that an omnipotent being had to take a day off)? Should it have been moved from Saturday to Sunday? Does it matter which day it is, or does it really matter to have it at all? The Christians who came after Christ took a shit all over circumcision, so were they right to also discard the Abrahamic covenant, which was never supposed to end?
On a different note, but still in the realm of what we were discussing:
If all sex outside of marriage is so bad, why stress the importance that gays not be with each other (specifically gay men; there is hardly a reference that calls out two women for having sex...this is probably due to how much fun the old patriarchs had with Polygamy)? If someone gets married outside of a religious setting, is it still valid in god's eyes? My marriage vows had nothing to do with god's supposed will, so am I doomed anyway, or am I saved on a technicality?
You may think of some of these questions as moving the goalposts, but that's a cop out from this discussion. Points are conceded, and some are unresolved. You should know better. We're essentially still playing on the same field, but new matches have arisen.
(August 14, 2013 at 2:35 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Actually, your ESV translation...erm...interpolation spoke out against Homosexuality.
Identifying sin is not the same as hating the sinner. The problem your having is you have combined sinner with the sin making the sin the sinner's identity.
Instead of seeing two men guilt of sexual sin (as we all are to one degree or another) you see or will identify two Homosexuals. Then when the bible (as with the ERV) identified homosexuality as a sin you assume God hates All Homosexuals because God hates sin. You and the westbro Baptist have more in common than you think.
God clearly seperates Man from sin. We on the other hand in our pride, wear our sins as personal identifiers to who we are as indivisuals. Homosexual, Liar, Murderer, Gossip, and so on. Know this is a failing in your understanding of how God operates, It is not a 'character flaw of God.'
Quote:Again, just in case you missed it. Even if you strip the bible of all that it says against Homosexuality, you still do not have a sanctified pretext in which Homosexual sex is permitted before God, as Heterosexual sex has been sanctified under the marriage covenant. If there is not a setting in which Homosexual sex is sanctified then ALL HOMOSEXUAL sex is a sin.
Quote:Oh, I'm following you pretty close on this one. Notice how I never tried to refute this point?
what fantsy world do you live in? You have never once responsiably discussed this 'point' let alone refute it.'
Quote:The point I was making was one specific to homosexuality. The reaction and repugnance towards the idea of it by the Christian community is disconcerting, and I'm merely attempting to get the bottom of it with you using my "baited" questions.
even now your avoid talking about it. In this whole paragraph you did not once address any of the points I made, no rather you chose to engage in using and pairing words that tend envoke an emotional response. "repugnance" paired with Christian community, Disconcerting, baited questions.. Dude either you can respond or you can't it time to poop or get off the pot.
Quote:However, you're evading the probes like a Russian MIG with an American F-16 on its tail.
1981 called and they want their analogy back.
Quote: I think you're being a good little Christian liar, and you are trying your hardest not to tell me what you really think, what your own morals look like when not put in the context of religion. This is something that's hard to watch, as I've been through it myself.
and now we ice the cake with the good ole personal attack.. Note not once did you actually address ANYTHING I mentioned. I showed you that How the NT identifies Homosexuality as a sexual sin, and from you, personal attacks, an appeal to pride, and a reference that would make Louis Gossit Jr. perk up in his seat with a little pride.
(It's an Iron Eagle reference... Where migs and f-16's... never mind)
Quote:Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.
However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.
So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.
Since you seem to be too distracted with all of these other minor topics to involve yourself with the primary topic I will cease answering any of them till we finish your QUERy (pun intended) on Homosexuality
Quote:I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time,so this cannot possibly be the translation
OMG are you being serious right now???
[/quote]
Quote:Time to get serious.
Indeed.
Quote:Ahem.
Ahem, Ahem...ahem..
Quote:NIV
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"
Now ask yourself who are the sexually immoral? Paul and Christ identifies them as anyone having sex outside the boundries of a sanctified marriage.
Quote:KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
Who or what is fornication? it is the act of having sex outside the confines of a santified Marriage.
Quote:Homosexuality is the inclination, not the act.
It's both according to Merrium Webster, or have you put that fact out of your mind already?
Quote:ESV
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"
At least it doesn't go the route of some Bibles and actually omit the fact that the homosexual has to be practicing in order to be considered sinful.
The point of identification of sin is repentance. If one is practicing He is not in a state of repentance.
Quote:So then. Here's a "strawman" for you that I want answered truthfully (because it's not really a strawman and very much so has to do with what you think about sexual sin as far as your god is concerned). Did Mary the mother of Jesus have to be married to God in order for her to conceive of the Holy Spirit? Does this law not apply to God?
Marry was a Virgin when she had Jesus. Marriage only applies to sexual/burns with desire relationships.
If Marry was not a virgin it is most likely Joseph and or her would have been stoned. (They checked those sorts of things otherwise at the very least she and her family would have been disgraced.)
Quote:Yeah. But you know now that I was talking about direct translations of the words on the page, not equivocation. Homosexuality, an umbrella term that didn't not exist in any form back in those times, is still considered an interpolation since it has been equivocated to what, for example, the Aramaic states. The ESV isn't at all right to use the word, but it's also not exactly wrong.
Do you know what the word for pizza is in Korean? What about coffie? There isn't one They translated these words by using our own words and have added them to their lexicon, with the addition of a bit of an accent. So instead of Pizza, we have (prounced like) Pea-ja and instead of coffie, we have Cuppy. It's not that these items do not exist in Korea. it's just the word used to describe coffie would have been Cha, which in English translates to "tea" which is it's most common use now, but in the orginal Korean that is not how it was used. Cha describes a hot drink poured over leaves, roots, or some sort of dryed, cooked or otherwise prepared plant matter. to know what you were getting the word cha was pared with another descriptive term like 'omija Cha,' Which directly translated describes a hot drink poured over dried berries. Which could include coffie as the bean is harvested from a berry. So to avoid confusion Koreans adopted 'cuppy' when before that word was not used. The point? Words rarly translate accuratly across cultures. Ideas is what you primarily have to work with.
The idea we are working with is that Homosexuality is called out by name because it falls under "Sexual immorality/Fornication" As All Sexual Activity does outside the confines of a sanctified marriage.
Homosexuality was added because hard hearted people said homosexuality was no a sexual sin.
Quote:Have I ever refuted that the Bible claims to say that sexual sin is bad bad bad in the eyes of god? All I said is that Jesus was okay with homosexuals since he never spoke out against them.
Wow, Didn't you just say that there wasn't a koine greek word for homosexual in the Bible, and now you say because Jesus did not openly condemn Homosexuality specifically/by name, meant that He was ok with it?
Quote:Not all tangents are red herrings, and these points we're hitting upon all seem pretty close in the realm of what we're discussing. Why are you upset about that?
I am getting upset because you are using all of these tangents to skirt the primary issue.
,
Quote:is sexual intercourse before marriage still a bad thing?"
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
I'm sure you figured it out by now, but just in case you didn't NONE OF THE WORDS IN ANY TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE "WERE KNOWN WORDS AT THE TIME!!!!"
