I agree completely. P.S. the quote system needs to be changed you can quote anyone to be saying anything. i.e.
That's why the red button is there so you can see what the person really said. The bible says you can't just take the general idea and go with that.
Haha. Fighting fire with fire or in this case, stupidity with stupidity, I see. Now, does or does god not say that homosexuality is an abomination and that the penalty is death by stoning? I'll give you a hint, he does. Stoning is an act that is committed by man, whom is necessarily sinful (according to your theology). So literally the sinful man was casting the first stone, but then god came in human form and commanded that you must be without sin to stone anyone. YET, even though Jesus did not say stoning homosexuals is wrong he did curtail their punishment from man but my question is, why didn't he stone sinners? He was without sin so why did he not act accordingly? Is it not still the law? Did Jesus come to fulfill the law or overthrow it? Now you sit here and tell me that you must be without sin to cast the first stone and it almost oozes as a real, literal interpretation of the phrase and not so much as metaphor. I propose it is, though, and by the act of saying what is said in John 8:7 it would apply to discrimination and all acts of indifference and intolerance. So when Jesus says, "let he who is without sin..." he means, hey, don't tell homosexuals what they can and can not do for it is hypocrisy for you to sin and get off scot free whereas they are suppressed by the masses. So I'd say, that by adhering to the bible you are to be tolerant of homosexuality unless you can show yourself to be blameless and free of criticism in which case you can come out against it as strong as you can. Now, to be a good Christian is to proselytize and walk in the faith. If you are immersing yourself in those with a false interpretation of your religion it is important to correct them. So, it's up to you, end this homosexuality discrimination nonsense. Don't listen to them. It is ALWAYS better to have an idea, rather than infallible belief system. An idea can be changed and readily welcomes the wisdom of others. Keep with it. I respect that.
Law - the compilation of decrees found in the first five books of the Bible. Otherwise known as the Torah. There is more to the Bible than the first five books, you know. Plus, I said I choose to believe in the general idea. You can always add to an idea.. Always. Maybe I should say this once again, the Bible is a story, not an encyclopedia.
Then since its a story by your definition does that mean that it is made up and a work of fiction? Or do you believe its a true story and a non fiction story?
Fiction He's definitely saying it's a work of fiction. He said it's not an encyclopedia, which would be found in the non-fiction section. He says it's a story(fiction) meant to teach lessons. It sounds like he realizes it's a fabrication and not to be taken literally.
Answers Is the bible literal truth meant to be followed to the letter with every verse and every letter to be taken as the word of god? Or is the bible a work of moral fiction written by man and meant to teach lessons and promote positive societal behaviors? I'd like to hear answers from both El Diablo and ERIC0
You know, in the end it's just about being good. Does it really matter whose message it is? We should realize that people already believe what they want regardless of what group they say they are in.
"Now, does or does god not say that homosexuality is an abomination and that the penalty is death by stoning?" How can you command this for thousands of years and then suddenly not mean it anymore. How could you even command it in the first place if you are unchanging?
Question is worded wrongly, the question should be "SHOULD the bible be taken as literal truth" the use of "Is" implies that the answer is concrete and has and always will be, which it is not. That being said, my answer is no. Like all historical documents meant to guide man, The Bible must be adapted to the times. Without being adapted to the times, a document like the bible looses all connection and significance. The bible says that ****'s should be stoned. Is that applicable to our times? No. Where im from we dont stone people. This is where i would like to draw a parallel to the Founding Fathers: like the bible, the US Constitution is a very old document and the Founding Fathers new knew it would be. Therefore the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution as a stretchable template for government so that it could adapt with america and the changing times. The problem with the bible is that it was obviously not written to stretch the 2000+ years of change that has since come to pass. I think it would be impossible for such a document to do as such.
I don't remember this thread ever being a question, but more of a debate, hence being in the 'Debate' section of the forums. You constantly show that you believe in God, even though every frequent visitor of this thread surely knows this by now as you flaunt it excessively. Many of your posts have said what you believe in, but hardly any of them give relevant information to really debate the subject of god. I suggest finding some other topic to debate, because honestly, you've lost in all aspects of this one.
one of the only rules in the debate section is that you dont attack others for their opinions. you just broke it.
When are opinions formulated into debates? I mean, if you were to actually debate something, you wouldn't go in saying "In my opinion..." because it makes your points look invalid. Plus, I never insulted his opinions, I just said he needs to find something other than the frequent "Yes, I believe in God." statement because he's not providing any progress to this topic.
Well, this should be fun.. I'm going to go find all of the "relevant" information I've put into this thread: I'll just leave it at that. : )