Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

But you know what? Deciding what to follow and what not to follow in Leviticus is Cherry Picking.

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?

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?

Now your into building straw men...

Not usually. You seem pretty insistent on this, so I'm listening.

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).

http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-marriage.html

More generic Christian rhetoric. I want to know what YOU think about my deserted Island scenario.

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?

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']

---

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.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons-Chri...z2btx1iRpr

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?

---