Will Jesus return on a white horse?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's likely he never even read the verse. Most of them don't even read the book they model their lives after. They simply listen to some blowhard behind a pulpit and assume it's all true. Just the kind of sheep every god needs.

Mark 9:1/ Matthew 16:28 commentaries:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm
The two main interpretations are thus:
1. The "kingdom" Jesus refers to is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus meant his transfiguration, which immediately follows this verse.

Needless to say, no one is going to throw away their faith based on one verse they don't entirely understand--especially when the only condemning interpretation fails to involve any spiritual thought. When Jesus says "now" has he ever really meant that instant as his 12 disciples would experience it? No, he means now, universally, in the spiritual sense. That's what makes Jesus different. He talks on another layer. If you ignore that layer, you miss everything.

Why should we be expected to take a book seriously that relies so heavily on 'interpretation'?

If anyone can interpret whatever they want however they want, then what use is it? If words have such a flimsy meaning (eg "now") depending on the reader, then isn't the message behind those words easy to lose?

For example, I've had conversations with Christians in the past who have adamantly denied that the bible is very averse to homosexuality, despite the obvious:

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

&

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

In fact, if you search for these verses on google, the first site that comes up is this:

http://christianteens.about.com/od/whatt...sexual.htm

^^ the above site is written by a women falling over herself attempting to portray the bible as not condemning homosexuality (male homosexuality that is), despite the rather glaring statement from Leviticus that portrays it as a heinous crime punishable by...well...death.

This passage from that site stands out to me:

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin based upon your interpretations of the scripture, there are some issues surrounding the treatment of homosexuals of which Christians need to be aware. While the Old Testament focused on rules and consequences, the New Testament offers a message of love. There are some Christian homosexuals and there are those that desire deliverance from homosexuality. Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on those individuals, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality.

Sounds open minded right? I mean, one could read behind this 'just go with the flow'. Then I read it again, and noted a number of things:

The woman believes that the bible is the word of god (she states as much on the blog/site), but then agrees in a convoluted way that the OT is somewhat contradicted by the NT (OT = laws and rules, NT love and forgiveness as per Jesus which renders the rules of the OT obsolete and so on). So, isn't that a bit confusing? Again, interpretation right?

Then you look at it again, and you notice the little statements that seem to indicate that some Christian teens (??? As opposed to just, teens) desire so called "deliverance from homosexuality" (her words). Now to me, that indicates that actually, she does think homosexuality is a sin, despite the wishy washy statements on the same blog/ site that attempt to create doubt in the biblical view of homosexuals. She continues by saying "Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on those individuals, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality.".

So god will certainly pass judgement (as we assume he does for everyone), but the underlying connotation in this statement is that gods judgement will certainly be bad, again indicating that homosexuality is bad. This is further reinforced through "struggling with homosexuality" in the closing remark. Why are they struggling with it? Could it be because there are people like this women giving out conflicting messages about why homosexuality could be good but is actually bad according to the bible?

Again, just interpretation right?