peaches5 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Because Christains (well, some of us) are becoming more and more tolerant/accepting of others - whereas anti theists aren't - they are no different than Westpro baptists... Anti theists are still trying to remove "God" from everywhere they can - so if they don't "believe" in a single deity, then why do they "care" (I use that loosely) to complain so much? They are so against the Bible and what's in it. For example "slavery". I don't see anti theists lobbying to have the following symbols of slavery torn down: The bible is "rewritten" as society changes so new believers can't see what a total load of $&!# it is. The stuff relating gay being a sin will be removed from it just like how the genocide on non believers was removed and in future when people are like remember when the bible said being gay meant you were going to burn in hell and all these people like yourself in the future will be like nope thats not in my bible! My bible says that gays are loved by god and accepted into heaven! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The bible is "rewritten" as society changes so new believers can't see what a total load of crap it is. The stuff relating gay being a sin will be removed from it just like how the genocide on non believers was removed and in future when people are like remember when the bible said being gay meant you were going to burn in hell and all these people like yourself in the future will be like nope thats not in my bible! My bible says that gays are loved by god and accepted into heaven! The Bible is about the relationship between God and man since the creation of Adam. Do you mind telling me how this genocide you speak of fits into that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The Bible is about the relationship between God and man since the creation of Adam. Do you mind telling me how this genocide you speak of fits into that? I suggest you learn a little bit of the origins of the bible and all the goodies it filled with. God sending his believers/followers to kill an entire city full of non believers giving orders to kill everything man, woman, child, and even livestock because they didn't believe in him! Oh we better remove that for the modern version I don't think people will like all the violent things God has his believers do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I suggest you learn a little bit of the origins of the bible and all the goodies it filled with. God sending his believers/followers to kill an entire city full of non believers giving orders to kill everything man, woman, child, and even livestock because they didn't believe in him! Oh we better remove that for the modern version I don't think people will like all the violent things God has his believers do! That was before the death of Christ. Believers in God didn't have the power they do now. War had to be made in the natural, rather than the supernatural. People also used to have to burn offerings to God. Now we don't. Everything changed with Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancouvercanucks2010 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Because Christians are supposed to follow Jesus - and Jesus said - love one another. Love the person, Jesus didn't tell us to love their sin as well. like members of charleston church almost immediately forgave the shooter, but i can hardly see them endorsing the crime itself. Just like many sins that most Christian would commit, lust, lying, unforgiving...etc etc...God loves those Christian who commit those crimes as well, He just didn't like their sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Vance Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 It's cool, cuz you can't tell me there was never no dude on dude buttsex going on with them 12 apostles that hung around with the J man. I mean I'm not gay but ya got dudes hanging around out in the desert and it gets cold in the desert at night. Ya know what I'm sayin'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tortorella Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Its always interesting when something describing the start of life (religion) is so flexible with the times. Its almost like it evolves in the social context and image to continue to have its effects on population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 someone (Heretic I think?) posted a really long article about why the bible actually supports gays.. I remember reading most of it but not all.. maybe he can post it again, or give the cliff notes version of it. Everything is taken literally from the bible until its something they dont like or want to change then suddenly its all "oh no you cant go by the exact text. Its all hidden meanings and metaphors and blah blah blah " twisting the phrasing and words around until they get their angle out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I suggest you learn a little bit of the origins of the bible and all the goodies it filled with. God sending his believers/followers to kill an entire city full of non believers giving orders to kill everything man, woman, child, and even livestock because they didn't believe in him! Oh we better remove that for the modern version I don't think people will like all the violent things God has his believers do! That's still there - there is no "modern" version....There are different versions, yes, but only to make it easier to understand...myself, I prefer the King James... For the record, it wasn't because they didn't believe in Him... 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 4And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. Some see that as not a real event but as a means to show that we must destroy our "inner amalek".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Everything is taken literally from the bible until its something they dont like or want to change then suddenly its all "oh no you cant go by the exact text. Its all hidden meanings and metaphors and blah blah blah " twisting the phrasing and words around until they get their angle out of it. I see all the "hidden meanings" you refer to as God talking to us (individually) through the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Because Christains (well, some of us) are becoming more and more tolerant/accepting of others - whereas anti theists aren't - they are no different than Westpro baptists... Anti theists are still trying to remove "God" from everywhere they can - so if they don't "believe" in a single deity, then why do they "care" (I use that loosely) to complain so much? They are so against the Bible and what's in it. For example "slavery". I don't see anti theists lobbying to have the following symbols of slavery torn down: If you did your research, you would know that the pyramids were built by Egyptian workers, - not Hebrew slaves. Common misconception, but false nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 That's still there - there is no "modern" version....There are different versions, yes, but only to make it easier to understand...myself, I prefer the King James... For the record, it wasn't because they didn't believe in Him... 2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 4And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. Some see that as not a real event but as a means to show that we must destroy our "inner amalek".... So the literal word of god is open to interpretation? Which is of course what Peaches was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 If you did your research, you would know that the pyramids were built by Egyptian workers, - not Hebrew slaves. Common misconception, but false nonetheless. I did - read my followup posts - course, just because there were some "Egyptian workers" doesn't mean there were't any slaves nor if they were "forced labour" as some have suggested. Anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 So the literal word of god is open to interpretation? Which is of course what Peaches was getting at. Maybe - she seemed more fixated on that it was because they didn't believe in God - which wasn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 King James Bible is missing like 7 books when compared to the one Catholics use, and there's a ton of other writings Orthodox Christians include and even more Apocrypha that no one uses....just a bunch of ancient jibber jabber that makes no sense. Trying reading the Book of Thomas sometime...Jesus says some crazy crap in that one. So, how do you know which is the word of God and which isn't? The answer: It doesn't matter. It's just some old scribble with remarkably little historic value. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks and later on , the Romans did a much better job of recording what was going on at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I did - read my followup posts - course, just because there were some "Egyptian workers" doesn't mean there were't any slaves nor if they were "forced labour" as some have suggested. Anyways... Actually, again that's false. Egyptologists have used the evidence to piece together a remarkably detailed description of the conditions. Workers lived in communities and worked specific hours and rotated at different times of the year - generally 3 months at a time. There is very little to suggest the Egyptians employed forced labour. This is a civilization that was remarkably literate - we can read fragments on pottery that are were written by the average Egyptian 5000 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Maybe - she seemed more fixated on that it was because they didn't believe in God - which wasn't the case. Some people dub his word the literal word - what happened happened and to a T. Some open it to interpretation and debate it - God could have meant this or that. Some people flip flop on this and go both ways. But if it's open to interpretation, especially at the reader's choosing, then it's really not god's word and what he meant but the reader's word and their understanding- the reader's perspective. I find the former is particularly convenient to the theist regarding the flood, for example, but the latter is to be taken "metaphorically" regarding slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I see all the "hidden meanings" you refer to as God talking to us (individually) through the text. convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Some people dub his word the literal word - what happened happened and to a T. Some open it to interpretation and debate it - God could have meant this or that. Some people flip flop on this and go both ways. But if it's open to interpretation, especially at the reader's choosing, then it's really not god's word and what he meant but the reader's word and their understanding- the reader's perspective. I find the former is particularly convenient to the theist regarding the flood, for example, but the latter is to be taken "metaphorically" regarding slavery. I think everything is literal in the Bible (although, like the book of Revelation, things are described as they would be in the manner of the time. You're not going to hear the apostle John talk about cars, because he would have no freaking clue as to what a car was. No, he called it a chariot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K. Chesterton Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Given how liberal and wayward the Episcopalians are, I'm surprised it took them this long to actually pass this. Thank God for ACNA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.