Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not exactly small oversights. But then the first 5 (depending on which of the three version of the Decalogue you read) are about a narcissistic god saying me, me, me first, and then, oh yeah, here are a few societal rules.
The Code of Hammurabi was MUCH more inclusive.
Maybe those issues (along with homosexuality) were not a major societal problem in His day.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,956,337 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually...both are names that appear in the Bible for God. You really need to study a bit more. You have demonstrated a lack of Biblical knowledge.
I'm very aware both are in the bible, and I separated them on purpose. You ARE aware they do not refer to the same entity, are you not? Or does YOUR bible knowledge not extend that far? I can give you a remedial education on that if you feel it is required.
Quote:
Evolutionists make assumptions all the time regarding the theory.
Tsk, Tsk.
Once again, you pretend you don't know the difference between the vernacular, often fundie, use of the term "theory" and the what it takes to become a scientific theory.
Is this another place a remedial lesson is needed, or is this a temporary memory lapse? I mean, I can't imagine you on purpose being obtuse and attempting to spread misinformation.
Quote:
And people believe in abiogenesis through faith. It definitely has not been observed or proven. Yet....you are willing to grasp the illogical notion that life comes from life...except in the case of abiogenesis. I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.
The precursors to abiogenesis have both been observed and proven. RNA, the requirement and precursor to DNA certainly has been proven to self generate. You are aware of that, right?
I'm very aware both are in the bible, and I separated them on purpose. You ARE aware they do not refer to the same entity, are you not? Or does YOUR bible knowledge not extend that far? I can give you a remedial education on that if you feel it is required.
Chapter and verse please?
Quote:
Tsk, Tsk.
Once again, you pretend you don't know the difference between the vernacular, often fundie, use of the term "theory" and the what it takes to become a scientific theory.
Is this another place a remedial lesson is needed, or is this a temporary memory lapse? I mean, I can't imagine you on purpose being obtuse and attempting to spread misinformation.
The precursors to abiogenesis have both been observed and proven. RNA, the requirement and precursor to DNA certainly has been proven to self generate. You are aware of that, right?
Sorry....what it comes down to is that these things really are accepted in faith. They are not proven, and they have not been observed.
You want to believe them? Knock yourself out. You want to claim them as fact? Prove it. Show me where they've actually been observed.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,956,337 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Chapter and verse please?
To study the etymology of one must go outside of the bible/torah, as it just is not available to interpolate the difference.
That being said, the Hebrew word for God is “el” and the plural is “elohim” for Gods. The first lines of the Bible transliterated read, “Bere****h bara elohim,” which is the correct translation for the phrase, but for a monotheistic religion it is incorrect for its reference to multiple gods. That presents a problem doesn't it, Vizio, for monotheists?
Early Hebrews were not monotheist until Abraham entered the picture and even then polytheism existed in the Old Testament as the tale of the Golden Calf reveals. You KNOW this, right?
When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, the plural elohim is used 2570 times and falsely translated to the singular, making it seem the text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monotheistic, which is not the case.
This Jewish site says much the say... Elohim is plural.
• The "–im" ending denotes a plural masculine noun. Most of the time, however, when the noun is used for the true God it has singular masculine verbs. This is contrary to rules of Hebrew grammar.
This is basic bible study stuff, IF you go beyond the theological, and into the reality.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,956,337 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
............You want to believe them? Knock yourself out. You want to claim them as fact? Prove it. Show me where they've actually been observed.
Lots of stuff available, and here, I'll save you looking it up.
Self replicating RNA (self replicating is necessary for life and evolution) is created in the lab. Abiogenesis. The stuff you don't want to acknowledge.
It really happened. Five years ago, this is not new.
Why is it that people want to take a statement of an ideal and make it into a law? Didn't Jesus say that God allowed a variation from that ideal? The point being that it would be BEST to work out an appropriate relationship rather than just abandon it. May not be doable, depending on the situation.
The two Revelation quotes in no way refule or make moot the perception of a paradigm shift, unless you think that the people described:"But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars--their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." and "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" are acting in loving or caring ways as described by that "new standard."
Jesus did not say that God allowed a variation from that ideal.
The words of Jesus from Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 21:8 and Revelation 22:15 testifies that some so-called exemption for those on left is just not so.
Jesus said:
John 5:28-30
“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."
which what Jesus said is in agreement from the OT
Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
Jesus defined rather clearly as the Word of God teaches:
Marriage definition Matthew 19:4-6:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male
and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.”
Jesus quotes the OT for the definition of marriage:
Jesus was NOT giving a 'command' here. He was addressing a question asked of Him by His opponents about divorce. Since both male and female were involved in the question Jesus would naturally have responded in the way He did. If you really want to get pedantic about that passage of scripture you would best aim it at all of those divorced and remarried couples that sit in church pews every week because this passage is FOR THEM ...NOT for gay people!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin
Gen. 1:27 ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,’[a]
Gen. 2:24 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]
Jesus' word is very clear so that all can understand
"a man" ... male \ singular
"his father and mother" " ... male \ singular --- female \ singular
"be united" ... sexual relationship
"unitedto his wife" ... female \ singular
Thus the Word of God defines being sexually immoral as sexual relations as adultery and anything other than a married 1 male \ 1 female[indent]Hebrews 13:4
[i]Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
You DO realize that you're being extremely selective with those Bible passages, don't you? You appear to have forgotten to mention that a male could have as many wives as he could afford. God appears to have embraced polygamy but yet you emphasize monogamy as being the order of the day. Clearly, that isn't true. The woman (the wife) appears to have had little to no say as to who took her to be his wife. She was the property of the male ...certainly not his equal in the marriage. So, why do you use scripture, i.e. "God's word". to make a definitive point as to what constitutes an ideal marriage?
Since they lacked newspapers, the Internet and many other means of discussing topics, maybe homosexuality didn't come up as often.
I don't think that this is what the OP had in mind. The OP is asking - and rightly so - why Jesus would not have addressed an alleged sin (homosexuality) that was punishable by death and supposedly brought about the destruction of nations. Jesus spoke of future events but never breathed a word about a so-called 'sin' that would bring about serious divisions within the future Christian Church as it has.
So, yes ...if homosexuality HAD been such an important matter for then and for the future one would expect Jesus to have addressed it.
I believe Christ did not have to address homosexuality. He did say I would plant my laws in our hearts and mind and with the holy spirit as our guide. For Christ the two most important laws are to love Godand your neighbor as yourself. Question is who is your neighbor? Homosexuality is no greater sin than adultery, theft, lying, cheating, loan sharking etc. As Jesus said at the stoning of the adulteress "he who has no sin let him cast stone." What I am trying to say all behavior contrary to the will of God should be condemned equally. Evangelist singling out one over the others, I see as a sign of the adversary seeking to divide the church. those who are adamant with this type of rhetoric seek to separate us from God. As we know the great deceiver takes a grain of truth and twists it into a lie, seeking to divide Christians and separate from God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
