[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The gospel, as it’s always been understood by the Christian church, is that in Christ God justifies the wicked. If you want Scripture proofs, just let me know.
You mean that Church that decided everything at a council sometime after Jesus left the mortal plane of existence?
That Church?[/quote]
No. I mean the original 11 apostles that remained after Judas killed himself, and other eyewitnesses that were there.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think I was getting on relatively well with everyone until certain other people showed up. [/quote]
I think you were stirring shit up. I doubt the people you refer to just follow you from topic to topic. Most of the posts you make are down right inflammatory.
But that’s OK. You just make yourself sound like one of those religious people who looks down on everyone, but secretly does all those “sinful” things behind closed doors. Here’s a friendly tip: God can’t see through lead.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No. I mean the original 11 apostles that remained after Judas killed himself, and other eyewitnesses that were there. [/quote]
That’s OK then. As long as you’re reading their word and not a standardized copy mangled by years of re-translation. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
No. I mean the original 11 apostles that remained after Judas killed himself, and other eyewitnesses that were there.
That’s OK then. As long as you’re reading their word and not a standardized copy mangled by years of re-translation. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?[/quote]
Why would anyone mangle it. It’s not like there was anything to be gained by it, after all.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Why would anyone mangle it. It’s not like there was anything to be gained by it, after all.[/quote]
Not on purpose. At least I hope to think so. Organized religion is a pretty good system of control, none more so than the Catholic church. But that’s a different thread.
Years of translation from another language would have left it’s mark.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think I was getting on relatively well with everyone until certain other people showed up.
I think you were stirring shit up. I doubt the people you refer to just follow you from topic to topic. Most of the posts you make are down right inflammatory.
But that’s OK. You just make yourself sound like one of those religious people who looks down on everyone, but secretly does all those “sinful” things behind closed doors. Here’s a friendly tip: God can’t see through lead.[/quote]
Haha. Well, you don’t seem to successful at getting along either. Perhaps you just don’t like what I have to say. It doesn’t really bother.
I’d like to see what’s so inflammatory about what I’ve written, but the term “inflammatory” is pretty relative.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
No. I mean the original 11 apostles that remained after Judas killed himself, and other eyewitnesses that were there.
That’s OK then. As long as you’re reading their word and not a standardized copy mangled by years of re-translation. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?[/quote]
You’re free to go buy a critical copy of the New Testament. It has all the textual variants listed. See for yourself if it’s been mangled.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You’re free to go buy a critical copy of the New Testament. It has all the textual variants listed. See for yourself if it’s been mangled. [/quote]
Of course it’s all similar now. Compare it to the original scrolls containing the words of the disciples. I also find it interesting that the Gospel of Judas is conveniently left out.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
No. I mean the original 11 apostles that remained after Judas killed himself, and other eyewitnesses that were there.
That’s OK then. As long as you’re reading their word and not a standardized copy mangled by years of re-translation. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?
Why would anyone mangle it. It’s not like there was anything to be gained by it, after all.[/quote]
Not according to Mohammed:
Surah 5:47
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’re free to go buy a critical copy of the New Testament. It has all the textual variants listed. See for yourself if it’s been mangled.
Of course it’s all similar now. Compare it to the original scrolls containing the words of the disciples. I also find it interesting that the Gospel of Judas is conveniently left out.[/quote]
If you’ve got the credentials, you can go look at the originals yourself. Buy some plane tickets and have a blast.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If you’ve got the credentials, you can go look at the originals yourself. Buy some plane tickets and have a blast. [/quote]
I like how you escaped that argument.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If you’ve got the credentials, you can go look at the originals yourself. Buy some plane tickets and have a blast.
I like how you escaped that argument.[/quote]
Uh, I was serious. If you want to go look at the originals, they’re in museums. You’re not going to believe anything i tell you.
Edit: Here:
You can try reading that if you want.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Not according to Mohammed:
Surah 5:47
Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.[/quote]
I’m not sure how you get that the bible hasn’t been mangled from this verse. I suspect you aren’t sure, yourself.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Not according to Mohammed:
Surah 5:47
Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.
I’m not sure how you get that the bible hasn’t been mangled from this verse. I suspect you aren’t sure, yourself.[/quote]
I’m pretty certain. The question is, how did Mohammed know since he couldn’t read?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If you’ve got the credentials, you can go look at the originals yourself. Buy some plane tickets and have a blast.
I like how you escaped that argument.
Uh, I was serious. If you want to go look at the originals, they’re in museums. You’re not going to believe anything i tell you.
Edit: Here:
You can try reading that if you want. [/quote]
Which books described therein were written by one of 11 apostles?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So it’s moral to have a high rate of drug abuse and sexually transmitted disease? [/quote]
A shitload more moral than killing innocent people halfway across the world.
And where did you get the idea that Sweden has a “high rate of drug abuse and sexually transmitted disease”?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
makkun wrote:
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that).
Siblings can get legally married in Sweden. And I actually don’t know of any state in Europe that forbids cousins tying the knot.
Gee, that’s a shock, because ordinarily Sweden is very moral and conservative:}
The country’s a helluva lot more moral than the the US. You see, it doesn’t go around bombing and invading other countries.
So it’s moral to have a high rate of drug abuse and sexually transmitted disease?
[/quote]
That depends on your code of ethics.
I go with yes.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So it’s moral to have a high rate of drug abuse and sexually transmitted disease?
How do STDs and drug use relate to morality?
It is not moral to allow or promote this kind of human misery.
So you’re saying that having an STD is immoral, because of the misery it causes?
That is why most countries have laws related to protecting humans from themselves.
Why do you think the law has a speed limit on the highway?
Very often, you hear about a speeder losing control and killing someone else. Someone who is just minding their own business, trying to get from point A to point B.
I’ve never heard of someone walking down the street, and all of a sudden accidentally catching chlamydia. As such, I don’t understand your argument.[/quote]
No, I’m saying allowing or making it easier for someone to get an STD is immoral.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So you don’t think little kids will get confused looking at thier butt holes wondering were babes come from after seeing their dad ridding his boyfriend’s pooper?
That is quite the explanation: “yes son, I know I told you babes come from a man and a woman having sex, but no, Steve will not have a baby out of his butt in 9 months!”
I’m sure that would cause no problems at all for kids growing up.
Riiight!
Unless you went through a similar experience, you’re not really in a position to make that assumption.
Studies have consistently shown that children raised by lesbian mothers behave, for the most part, within normal sex stereotypes. Researchers have observed slightly relaxed boundaries in sex-typed play (dolls versus trucks) and in gender-stereotyped career aspirations among such children.
[/quote]
You think it is normal to have your mother going down on another woman?
[quote]
A related concern is whether or not children raised in same-sex households are more likely themselves to be homosexual as adults or experience gender confusion. Evidence from twin studies suggests that a mixture of biological and environmental factors affect sexual orientation, although there is currently no scientific consensus on what specific environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation. A number of peer-reviewed studies comparing children raised by two mothers and those raised by a mother and a father have not found any relation between same-sex parenting and a greater likelihood of identifying later in life as gay or lesbian.[/quote]
I don’t believe that was ever the issue; if a gay would raise another gay. The issue is emotional and psychological damage to children.
Anecdotally, I have known kids raised by gays and they tend to be very straight and heterosexually. IMO, I think they see first hand how screwed up their mommies or daddies are and so they tend to not want anything to do with homosexually.