{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Spilled Milk:
2/2/2013 10:07:12 PM
6
If you want to vote for same sex marriage, go ahead.
But I do have issue with this.
[quote] an affirmation recorded in a surviving copy of a copy of an amateur copy of an amateur copy of a version of a translation of a 40 year old non eyewitnesses spread around via word of mouth account of something apparently said by an itinerant apocalyptic prophet 200 decades ago[/quote]
Ok, if he is referring to Jesus, he is messed up on multiple accounts. First (though this is a bit petty) He was not 40, He was 30 when He began his ministry. (which lasted about 3 years) Second, it was based on eyewitness testimony. If the Gospels are considered unreliable, all of Socrates' writings should all be thrown out, as well as many "reliable" old documents. According to our way of measuring authenticity, the Gospels are more reliable than most documents we trust.
Finally, yes, I do trust what He has said. Is it not a right to have an opinion? I am not going to try to harm any homosexuals, or act violently if it is legalized. However, I am not about to change my views to make someone else happy.
English
-
Dude. I agree with you don't worry. I've tried putting my input on The Flood/Bnet when I started and here and there. Gave up. Not worth fighting on here. All opinions in the end. Not saying DON'T PROCLAIM, just on here it's not worth sweating over.
-
It was based on word of mouth for eyewitness testimonies, and the only author who we actually know wrote any part of the Bible was Paul, who was not involved in the Gospels, nor did he ever actually meet Jesus first-hand.
-
Socrates focused more on philosophy while jesus was just telling people to be good christians and telling them about gods, angels and all that crap. Even if socrates writings are unreliable they make a better point. And for what reason is being gay wrong?
-
Why is adultery wrong? Why is premarital sex wrong? Heck, even looking at a woman and having lustful thoughts is a sin. They all go against the creation ideal, and even without that, you have to admit that it isn't as natural as heterosexuality. If it was completely normal, wouldn't there be a proper hole? If it is sin, it is sin. I am not going to condemn anyone, but I am not going to pretend that it isn't a sin. I hope I have not worded this harshly, but it is honestly how I feel. And that was, in no way, a real refute to the credibility of the Gospels.
-
Translation: Its wrong because the bible tells me so. None of these things have any reason to be "wrong" lustful thoughts happen because of our sex drives and hormones. Its completely natural and its what drives us to reproduce. And if god created humans he put it in there as well. As long as both people consent or dont mind or care that much pre marital sex isnt wrong as long as you're responsible. As in you use protection and are mature and responsible. Humans are designed to mate and breed with as many others as possible. And creation according to genesis has been disproven. What I dont like about christians is that they never think about these things nor research or look into such matters to truly understand. You take the word of an ancient and flawed book written by men not god who didnt even know jesus and has been rewritten many times by kings and popes to harbor power or because they didnt like what they read despite it being true or not. Not to mention alot of it cant be taken literally and it constantly contradicts itself. Think for yourself dammit.
-
Edited by GKR: 2/2/2013 10:20:30 PMAlso, Mark 9 : 14-29 is about Jesus exorcising a demon from a boy that caused him to throw himself into fires, have uncontrollable spasms, and prevented him from speaking. This doesn't immediately suggest that everyone who is mute or epileptic is possessed, and to assume so is foolish. However, I'd agree that the whole Adam and Eve story should be nowadays considered a metaphor, not a literal historical account.
