Michael Sams coming out party

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't know whose idea all of this was. I will, for the moment, hold off on completely judging Sams. I know he has advisors and people that don't necessarily have his best interests at heart. Oprah for one is always pushing a political agenda and this is tailor made for her.She recently compared the NFL to slavery essentially calling it a plantation type situation. This all might be his idea or maybe he is feeling pressure to help push something else. It ain't good either way.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I'm all for judging Micheal Sam as a football player. After all, that is exactly what he said he wanted and he added he also wanted his sexuality to be left out of it but that was before the highly scripted kiss of his lover televised on ESPN and replayed ad nauseum for 3 days. He is not exactly being consistent and I am glad the Rams called out the whole reality TV scheme. He didn't exactly light up the NFL combine with his performance there. Seems to me he'll be lucky to make the final roster. I do wonder, however, if the Rams cut him will LGBT community boycott the NFL and call the Rams organization homophobes?

[homersapien 11,396]

Because it is written! Read the bible, or better yet for u to have a visual of where homosexuality comes from, try googling this: baphomet statue. (Make sure u pay close attention to chest area)

In other words, you'd rather worship the bible - at least selected parts of it - rather than God.

Don't try twisting anything I have said, you're not dealing with a rookie! I worship the one who inspired the book, GOD! Understand? But I also know that it is written, u can't get to the father, whom is in Heaven,without JESUS!! Like I've said countless times before; non believers, those that follow mans law, those that worship satan, u can't and will never shake my faith, so quit trying!!

Who's trying? I know a fool's errand when I see one.

You obviously worship a book. Claiming it was "inspired" by God is simply justification for doing so.

I'll ask you the same question: Is every "instruction" - without exception - contained in the bible inspired by God?

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

That didn't address the question. Since you are no "rookie" I am sure you are already familiar with the various examples I can provide. http://pflagdetroit.org/admonitions_in_leviticus.htm

Are they all "inspired" by God?

[Weegle777 78]

Old Covenant isn't in play if you are a follower of Christ. Those old laws don't apply anymore. God Himself even said that the old covenant wasn't good.

[war eagle6 0]

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11:11, 12 KJV)

[AU-24 3,108]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

[war eagle6 0]

Because it is written! Read the bible, or better yet for u to have a visual of where homosexuality comes from, try googling this: baphomet statue. (Make sure u pay close attention to chest area)

In other words, you'd rather worship the bible - at least selected parts of it - rather than God.

Don't try twisting anything I have said, you're not dealing with a rookie! I worship the one who inspired the book, GOD! Understand? But I also know that it is written, u can't get to the father, whom is in Heaven,without JESUS!! Like I've said countless times before; non believers, those that follow mans law, those that worship satan, u can't and will never shake my faith, so quit trying!!

Who's trying? I know a fool's errand when I see one.

You obviously worship a book. Claiming it was "inspired" by God is simply justification for doing so.

I'll ask you the same question: Is every "instruction" - without exception - contained in the bible inspired by God?

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

That didn't address the question. Since you are no "rookie" I am sure you are already familiar with the various examples I can provide. http://pflagdetroit.org/admonitions_in_leviticus.htm

Are they all "inspired" by God?

Whatever is written! We all will be judged before GOD, only then will u and the Michael SAMs of this world will hear it straight from the Mouth of GOD that it is Indeed UNGODLY to sleep with same sex individuals! Understand this,we all have come short of his glory, homosexuality is not the only sin on this earth, and this will not be the only sin judged! I'm just sick and tired of people acting like its greatest thing on earth!

[AU-24 3,108]

Old Covenant isn't in play if you are a follower of Christ. Those old laws don't apply anymore. God Himself even said that the old covenant wasn't good.

Jesus Fulfills the Law

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

Cross References

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

[quietfan 233]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

[NoALtiger 3,868]

My head is spinning trying to keep up, and not in a good way. Wow.

[war eagle6 0]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

Read The book of Revelation, that should explain where I'm coming from.

[Weegle777 78]

Old Covenant isn't in play if you are a follower of Christ. Those old laws don't apply anymore. God Himself even said that the old covenant wasn't good.

Jesus Fulfills the Law

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

Cross References

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

If we live by faith in Christ Jesus, WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LAW. The law kills, grace saves. He fulfilled the law because we would never be able to. Fulfill = completed the requirements for. We are free from the law in Christ.

[AU-24 3,108]

Old Covenant isn't in play if you are a follower of Christ. Those old laws don't apply anymore. God Himself even said that the old covenant wasn't good.

Jesus Fulfills the Law

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

Cross References

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

If we live by faith in Christ Jesus, WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LAW. The law kills, grace saves. He fulfilled the law because we would never be able to. Fulfill = completed the requirements for. We are free from the law in Christ.

For the most part we probably agree. We are/were saved by grace. Meaning: the only way to heaven is by the grace of God, not by following the law. In Old Testament days when people sinned (by human nature) they had to do lawful things like animal sacrifices at the temple in-order to be forgiven or saved. Since Christ died on the cross for our sins we no longer have to live in such legalism or be bound by the law.

But of course we can't change scripture. Christ said he came to full-fill the law. Of course that doesn't mean the law no longer applies (10 commandants for example) the sins of the Old Testament are still of course sins today. But if we sin today (Since Christs death and Resurrection) we are saved and forgiven by grace. We have the pleasure of simply asking God through his son Jesus for forgiveness! (kind of nice, that's all it takes)

Some of the people of Corinth asked the same question to the Apostle Paul, (who wrote the book of Romans) Again, Paul said:

Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

[homersapien 11,396]

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11:11, 12 KJV)

Nevertheless, as for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a Possession for ever.” (Lev. 25:44–46)

[homersapien 11,396]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

I am not trying to "win" a debate at all. I am providing a counter to an apparently religious-based argument ultimately designed to restrict the civil rights of a small minority of citizens that are naturally homosexual. Now if you think I am misunderstanding the issue I am certainly open to a different interpretation.

What I don't believe is that anything written in the bible reflects the will or character of God. Beyond that, what I do believe is irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.

[homersapien 11,396]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

Read The book of Revelation, that should explain where I'm coming from.

No doubt about that! :laugh:

[homersapien 11,396]

Old Covenant isn't in play if you are a follower of Christ. Those old laws don't apply anymore. God Himself even said that the old covenant wasn't good.

Jesus Fulfills the Law

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

Cross References

Matthew 7:12

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

If we live by faith in Christ Jesus, WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE LAW. The law kills, grace saves. He fulfilled the law because we would never be able to. Fulfill = completed the requirements for. We are free from the law in Christ.

Perceptive and insightful.

[AU-24 3,108]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

I am not trying to "win" a debate at all. I am providing a counter to an apparently religious-based argument ultimately designed to restrict the civil rights of a small minority of citizens that are naturally homosexual. Now if you think I am misunderstanding the issue I am certainly open to a different interpretation.

What I don't believe is that anything written in the bible reflects the will or character of God. Beyond that, what I do believe is irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.

If you don't believe the Bible reflects the will or character of God, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. What God do you believe in? As far as religious-based arguments...For one, I certainly don't consider what we are doing as arguing?? For two, one can get religion form a golden cow, or nature or wiccan, or just about any other idol.

I am discussing what God considers sin and what he doesn't. He certainly doesn't point out sin because he hates us or doesn't want us to live happy fulfilled lives. Exactly the opposite. Again, it comes down to a belief.

Like millions and millions before me, I do believe in the God of the Bible. If it matters to you so does Tommy Tuberville, Gene Chizik, Gus Malzahn, Jay Jacobs, aprox 85% of Auburn athletes male or female who are active members of Fellowship of Christian athletes. etc, etc...

[homersapien 11,396]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

I am not trying to "win" a debate at all. I am providing a counter to an apparently religious-based argument ultimately designed to restrict the civil rights of a small minority of citizens that are naturally homosexual. Now if you think I am misunderstanding the issue I am certainly open to a different interpretation.

What I don't believe is that anything written in the bible reflects the will or character of God. Beyond that, what I do believe is irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.

If you don't believe the Bible reflects the will or character of God, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. What God do you believe in? As far as religious-based arguments...For one, I certainly don't consider what we are doing as arguing?? For two, one can get religion form a golden cow, or nature or wiccan, or just about any other idol.

I am discussing what God considers sin and what he doesn't. He certainly doesn't point out sin because he hates us or doesn't want us to live happy fulfilled lives. Exactly the opposite. Again, it comes down to a belief.

Like millions and millions before me, I do believe in the God of the Bible. If it matters to you so does Tommy Tuberville, Gene Chizik, Gus Malzahn, Jay Jacobs, aprox 85% of Auburn athletes male or female who are active members of Fellowship of Christian athletes. etc, etc...

I certainly don't believe the bible reflects the will or character of God. In fact, since there is no way of knowing that God exists at all, I am agnostic regarding "belief". I don't believe in what I don't understand or cannot know. I suppose that makes me very conservative in that respect.

You are correct that people can find religion where ever they look. I personally think that is a function of their individual need to have an explanation for the unexplainable.

Humans are more or less programmed with the attributes that got us to where we are as a species. I can easily imagine that religious belief provided a competitive advantage to the success of early societies and cultures by strengthening tribal values. So it's not surprising that religious values as expressed within the context of tribe are obviously very strong. Just look at the Middle East.

But on an individual basis, the need to believe varies enough to include those who don't feel it at all. I put myself in that category.

I was raised as a Christian but I never really "got" it, in terms of actually believing the dogma. I felt that at a very early age but only confronted it as I matured. I just wasn't blessed with the "God gene". I suspect there are a lot more like me that choose (wisely) not to rock the boat with their skepticism.

In the final analysis, we are all naturally what we are. I do not feel homosexuals deserve persecution for being who they are any more than I deserve persecution for being agnostic.

And your examples that clearly put me in the minority don't "matter" to me. I could point out there are more Muslims than Christians (for example), but so what? The numbers associated with religion are determined more by geography, history and politics than they are to some divine truth.

[AU-24 3,108]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

I am not trying to "win" a debate at all. I am providing a counter to an apparently religious-based argument ultimately designed to restrict the civil rights of a small minority of citizens that are naturally homosexual. Now if you think I am misunderstanding the issue I am certainly open to a different interpretation.

What I don't believe is that anything written in the bible reflects the will or character of God. Beyond that, what I do believe is irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.

If you don't believe the Bible reflects the will or character of God, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. What God do you believe in? As far as religious-based arguments...For one, I certainly don't consider what we are doing as arguing?? For two, one can get religion form a golden cow, or nature or wiccan, or just about any other idol.

I am discussing what God considers sin and what he doesn't. He certainly doesn't point out sin because he hates us or doesn't want us to live happy fulfilled lives. Exactly the opposite. Again, it comes down to a belief.

Like millions and millions before me, I do believe in the God of the Bible. If it matters to you so does Tommy Tuberville, Gene Chizik, Gus Malzahn, Jay Jacobs, aprox 85% of Auburn athletes male or female who are active members of Fellowship of Christian athletes. etc, etc...

I certainly don't believe the bible reflects the will or character of God. In fact, since there is no way of knowing that God exists at all, I am agnostic regarding "belief". I don't believe in what I don't understand or cannot know. I suppose that makes me very conservative in that respect.

You are correct that people can find religion where ever they look. I personally think that is a function of their individual need to have an explanation for the unexplainable.

Humans are more or less programmed with the attributes that got us to where we are as a species. I can easily imagine that religious belief provided a competitive advantage to the success of early societies and cultures by strengthening tribal values. So it's not surprising that religious values as expressed within the context of tribe are obviously very strong. Just look at the Middle East.

But on an individual basis, the need to believe varies enough to include those who don't feel it at all. I put myself in that category.

I was raised as a Christian but I never really "got" it, in terms of actually believing the dogma. I felt that at a very early age but only confronted it as I matured. I just wasn't blessed with the "God gene". I suspect there are a lot more like me that choose (wisely) not to rock the boat with their skepticism.

In the final analysis, we are all naturally what we are. I do not feel homosexuals deserve persecution for being who they are any more than I deserve persecution for being agnostic.

And your examples that clearly put me in the minority don't "matter" to me. I could point out there are more Muslims than Christians (for example), but so what? The numbers associated with religion are determined more by geography, history and politics than they are to some divine truth.

If you ever have any questions, feel free to let me know. I wish you well. War Eagle!

[homersapien 11,396]

But there are many cases in which there are greek or Hebrew words that have multiple meaningslso, there are other formal translations that use different words (ASV for instance). I take it it is your assertion that they are also divinely inspired?

Different Christians might state it a little differently, but orthodox Christianity has held to the original manuscripts being divinely inspired, not the translations.

You are right that different translations use different words in a lot of cases. Like I said, it is complicated. This doesn't even address the issue of which manuscripts do we even use for our English translations. There are literally thousands of fragments of copies of copies of the originals and Bible scholars have to decide which of those are accurate before they even try to translate them!

But, this is why we call it the Christian "faith." By faith we believe that God gets his Word to his people somehow... and sometimes even in spite of us!

But people who use the bible to determine that homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they want to (for example), do so on the basis of "chapter and verse".

WWJD?

2. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "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."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthian 6:9: "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."

And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that's how the men to whom He was speaking understood it.

1 Timothy 1:9:10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

No, actually according to that account, Jesus was simply describing marriage in general terms, he wasn't "defining" anything. From what I know about Jesus, I don't think he would condemn homosexuals in a loving relationship.

But thanks anyway for proving my point with all those references written by humans over 2k years ago.

Jesus does love everyone, no doubt! I am glad he loves me despite my sin. It is more than obvious from what we have posted and what the word of God says that homosexuality is a sinful life style and unless any of us sinners become "born again" we will not go to heaven.

Jesus never said: Do not take thy Heroin or Crack needle and inject it into thyself for this is sin... But from reading the Bible, we know it will harm the human body God made for us so thus, it is sin.

As far as who wrote the Bible, (allot of the Old Testament Moses, and Kings and others allot of the New Testament Paul, MD's, fishermen and many others) you either believe it is the inspired word of God or you don't.

To a Believer it is the infallible, inspired word of God. To the non-believer it is not, but "Believer or not" to say the Bible doesn't condemn and warn us of the sin of homosexuality (and many other sins) is just not good reading comprehension.

John 3:3 Jesus said: his man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him." 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"…

Jesus also said when you become born Again:

Ezekiel 36:26

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

1) There are many things in the bible that are described as sinful that you and every other professed believer routinely ignore as being temporally irrelevant. What makes this particular one worthy of observation?

2) Considering the arbitrariness of it all, who are you to judge anyone based on any particular one of these prohibitions?

3) What exactly is ungodly about two people of the same sex having a loving, romantic relationship aside from the fact wrote it thousands of years ago?

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to have or win a debate?? If you don't believe the Bible to be true and the inspired word of God, it's understandable we won't agree.

Thus the often asked question: Are you a believer? I am a believer, possibly you are not but you are invited and welcome to become one. As I started out saying, it comes down to a belief.

I am not trying to "win" a debate at all. I am providing a counter to an apparently religious-based argument ultimately designed to restrict the civil rights of a small minority of citizens that are naturally homosexual. Now if you think I am misunderstanding the issue I am certainly open to a different interpretation.

What I don't believe is that anything written in the bible reflects the will or character of God. Beyond that, what I do believe is irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.

If you don't believe the Bible reflects the will or character of God, you don't believe in the God of the Bible. What God do you believe in? As far as religious-based arguments...For one, I certainly don't consider what we are doing as arguing?? For two, one can get religion form a golden cow, or nature or wiccan, or just about any other idol.

I am discussing what God considers sin and what he doesn't. He certainly doesn't point out sin because he hates us or doesn't want us to live happy fulfilled lives. Exactly the opposite. Again, it comes down to a belief.

Like millions and millions before me, I do believe in the God of the Bible. If it matters to you so does Tommy Tuberville, Gene Chizik, Gus Malzahn, Jay Jacobs, aprox 85% of Auburn athletes male or female who are active members of Fellowship of Christian athletes. etc, etc...

I certainly don't believe the bible reflects the will or character of God. In fact, since there is no way of knowing that God exists at all, I am agnostic regarding "belief". I don't believe in what I don't understand or cannot know. I suppose that makes me very conservative in that respect.

You are correct that people can find religion where ever they look. I personally think that is a function of their individual need to have an explanation for the unexplainable.

Humans are more or less programmed with the attributes that got us to where we are as a species. I can easily imagine that religious belief provided a competitive advantage to the success of early societies and cultures by strengthening tribal values. So it's not surprising that religious values as expressed within the context of tribe are obviously very strong. Just look at the Middle East.

But on an individual basis, the need to believe varies enough to include those who don't feel it at all. I put myself in that category.

I was raised as a Christian but I never really "got" it, in terms of actually believing the dogma. I felt that at a very early age but only confronted it as I matured. I just wasn't blessed with the "God gene". I suspect there are a lot more like me that choose (wisely) not to rock the boat with their skepticism.

In the final analysis, we are all naturally what we are. I do not feel homosexuals deserve persecution for being who they are any more than I deserve persecution for being agnostic.

And your examples that clearly put me in the minority don't "matter" to me. I could point out there are more Muslims than Christians (for example), but so what? The numbers associated with religion are determined more by geography, history and politics than they are to some divine truth.

If you ever have any questions, feel free to let me know. I wish you well. War Eagle!

Likewise, and War Eagle!

[quietfan 233]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

Read The book of Revelation, that should explain where I'm coming from.

I have read The Revelation To John. Remember I am a Christian myself (by my understanding). I also grew up as a preacher's son in a home where the Bible was regularly read, and was dragged to almost every service, revival, or Bible School the church held as a child whether I wanted to or not. So I'm quite familiar with the Bible.

I have no problem with you believing and/or interpreting as you see fit. But saying "This book is true because it says it's true" is circular logic by anyone's definition. Such a belief may be powerful and compelling in questions of faith, but such a belief is meaningless in a debate of logic.

Of course the definition of "faith" is belief in things unproven or outside the logical, so this is not an attack on anyone's faith. Faith is of no value in logic, but by the same token, those who would use logic to discuss or debunk faith are also guilty of bringing a worthless tool to the subject.

(Which is of course, why threads of this nature often gone on for so long: It's like two people on the same court, but one's playing basketball while the other is playing tennis...entertaining for a while, perhaps, but ultimately pointless. )

[AUDub 11,158]

...(Which is of course, why threads of this nature often gone on for so long: It's like two people on the same court, but one's playing basketball while the other is playing tennis...entertaining for a while, perhaps, but ultimately pointless. )

Well put.

[war eagle6 0]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

Read The book of Revelation, that should explain where I'm coming from.

No doubt about that! :laugh:/> :laugh:/> :roflol:/>

U may laugh now, but u will be crying in the end! What are u gonna do when he comes for u? We all got a date with death, some will live, others, (non-believers) will most surely die!! Good Luck, but it won't matter if u don't believe!

[war eagle6 0]

God said whomever takes from or have added to the words that HE spake into the BIBLE will be DEALT with!! Ur not dealing with a rookie!!!

I don't wish to argue about your faith or beliefs. I acknowledge and respect your right to them. I also consider myself a Christian, but we certainly disagree on interpretations of many things.

But in terms of reason, not faith, I do feel a need to point out the basic failure of circular logic that says "This book is infallible because it says so in the book, which is infallible."

Read The book of Revelation, that should explain where I'm coming from.

I have read The Revelation To John. Remember I am a Christian myself (by my understanding). I also grew up as a preacher's son in a home where the Bible was regularly read, and was dragged to almost every service, revival, or Bible School the church held as a child whether I wanted to or not. So I'm quite familiar with the Bible.

I have no problem with you believing and/or interpreting as you see fit. But saying "This book is true because it says it's true" is circular logic by anyone's definition. Such a belief may be powerful and compelling in questions of faith, but such a belief is meaningless in a debate of logic.

Of course the definition of "faith" is belief in things unproven or outside the logical, so this is not an attack on anyone's faith. Faith is of no value in logic, but by the same token, those who would use logic to discuss or debunk faith are also guilty of bringing a worthless tool to the subject.

(Which is of course, why threads of this nature often gone on for so long: It's like two people on the same court, but one's playing basketball while the other is playing tennis...entertaining for a while, perhaps, but ultimately pointless. :gofig:/> :rolleyes:/> )

Your opinion!