241 replies to this topic

[Tetiel]

Yes it is. When he said you will die, he ment that you will die of the soul. End of story, it's a widely accepted idea. When the devil said that, he was trying to emphasize that they really would DIE. Just stretching the words of God even more.

However you know what God meant... how? You are merely interpreting what he said And for all you know you could be VERY off. And that my friend is the problem with the bible and why you cannot always take it literally... or if you DO... don't take it literally in some areas but not in others And I am relating this right to homosexuality by the way. A man shalt not lay with another man can also be twisted as well just as you did with God's saying of "die". Again... HOW do you know that is truly what God meant? He did not clarify, did he?

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

1) Why would God lie?

God has a plan. What if the only way to inspire us to act in accordance with his plan is to lie? I don't know that of course, I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.

2) What is your evidence (if any) that God did lie?

What is your evidence he didn't? (that isn't the bible) I can predict what you'll say to this because I've had this argument with others before, but we'll wait and see

[Tetiel]

Well I didn't mean to say it was factual. Put it this way, why would God lie? It's really obvious if you closely examine everything that happened. God said they would die if they ate the fruit. They ate the fruit, and became a corrupted creature. There soul was corrupted, and no longer perfect, therefor it is like dieing. I'm almost positive that when ever God reffered to death in the Bible, he ment death by the soul, or going to hell. I don't think He ever reffered death to the death of the flesh, which proves my point even more.

So, your turn:

1) Why would God lie?
2) What is your evidence (if any) that God did lie?

You are almost certain. How do you know for sure? The proof that he did lie is right there but YOU are interpreting it so that he did not lie and meant something different. It is very clear what he meant. And you "don't think" so it proves your point anymore? Honestly... you're ignoring my point. You either take the bible literally all the way through or you don't take it literally. You are twisting whatever words of God that you wish, actually. Why would God lie? To prevent man from doing what he didn't want them to do. And my evidence again... is right where I showed ya, hun.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

How can you argue that without using the Bible?

Indeed

[Tetiel]

I'm not twisting it to fit my belief. What do you say to my other evidence? About God never reffering to dieing as a fleshly manner. Would that not also mean the same thing when he says it there?

Again that was no evidence that was interpretation

[Ives]

By human standards, it's libel. But by God, it's not. God doesn't have sin because God doesn't have such evil around him.

[Tetiel]

Yes it was, because people in the Bible would say things like "If you do aduletry, you will
goto hell." God says it like, "The fool who shall engage in adultery will surely die". How can
you confuse something like that?

Why yes... the fool who commited adultry DID die under God's law. He got stoned to death

[Tetiel]

You just comptely ignored my other quote. Your saying that the two quotes cannot be compared?

*yawns* that's because both happen. They are stoned to death and go to hell. Honestly... do you just not think that God doesn't recognize the death of flesh? You don't think he ever means it that way? C'mon Alias... have you ever really spoken to God? Has he TOLD you that's what he means?

And you're still not getting the lesson I'm trying to teach you... you can't interpret SOME parts and then just take others literally. You have to go all the way with one or the other. You, however, are doing both.

[Tetiel]

What's the point in sarcasim then? If someone put sarcasim in a paragraph. Am I supposed to take it all sarcastically, or take it all seriously, OR am I supposed to use both?

Was I being sarcastic? I meant everything I said.

[Ives]

I ment how come we have to either take the Bible literally, or interpret everything. How come we can't do both?

You're missing the point.

Edited by Reeshu, 15 May 2006 - 08:09 PM.

[Tetiel]

I ment how come we have to either take the Bible literally, or interpret everything. How come we can't do both?

Because it is in a lot of ways hypocritical... ooooookay... you'll take that not literally but you won't take "a man shalt not lay with another man" without even taking that into context itself? There are reasons for each sin. One needs to search their hearts for the reasons behind the sin. In otherwords... you need to actually take things in context which is what you very well did in my quoting of the bible and yet you won't look at the reasoning behind the homosexual quote! Basically by doing that you are almost twisting God's word to fit your OWN beliefs and however you want it to be. That is exactly what you have done by doing both. God has reasons for each sin... one has to search their hearts to find them. I firmly believe that God does not make a sin just for it to be a sin.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Alias... you say some is literal and some is metaphorical... but how do you know what is literal and what is metaphorical? It doesn't say in the bible...

...a man told you.

An imperfect, flawed, sinning man, who you have already said is not capable of twisting the perfect words of God in the book.

Any way you spin it, the only end result is that the answers lie within you, because it's the only way you can get a complete picture without the influence of sin, eh?

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Common sense.

What's so common about it? By all means, clarify...

[Tetiel]

Okay, interpret "a man shalt not lay with another man" for me. I'll do it too:

It means a man shall not have sexual relationships with a man. When the Bible says a man and a woman "lay" with eachother, it means they had sex. Preety obvious.

I don't understand why you can't accept the fact that there are some parts you have to take literally, and other parts you can't.
How do I know? Common sense.

Oh man... you're just not getting it... What I meant was the reasons BEHIND that! Why was it there in the bible? You have to look at the history. During that time the Jewish did not have enough people so they needed to increase the population. That is some of the same reasons why polygamy was allowed by God. Now that you have that little history lesson you are free to search your heart for the reasons why homosexuality was viewed as a sin. Think about it... behind every one of God's laws is a reason if you really search for it.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Perhaps the corruption of the Bible is the test on the hearts of Man. Who will, intuitively, be true to God, and who will fall short of expectations.

I LOVE that theory... I'd perhaps expand on it and say all relgion is a test... Not that it doesn't exist, but that we are meant to find the answers on our own, and all of the religions and their texts in the world are mere red herrings...

[Tetiel]

I was heavily trying not to bring the matter of the translation to english. If this is where the debate is headed, i'm going to step aside because it's something I wish not to get into. Not because it proves me wrong, but that I do not know enough to determine accuracy on any document I am presented with.

*Edit*

At this time, I am going to step out of this debate. So don't be offended if I don't respond, but I am WAY to busy to argue with something like this.

*yawns* you completely ignored my post about thinking about the reasons behind sins but oh well

[Slubbz]

homosexuals should be allowed to get 'married', but not call it 'married'. As i remember (i think im right ) 'marrage' is between a man and a woman

from south park: They can get married but should be called 'Butt Budies' xD

[jillian]

See, I told you he ignores points and instead goes to retort to people who don't know what they're talking about (like me ) Cata, EXCELLENT read. You stumped him.

Marriage is not between any specific gender... I can understand a church not wanting to allow it for churchy purposes but state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate like that...

[Jotun]

I support gay marrige or anyother form of it.

[Inside Of You]

Gays have every right to be married.
Seriously, most gays don't fit the stereotype and are just like everyone else.

Besides, the seperation of church and state doesn't apply when it comes to marriage today. The benefits of marriage have grown considerably, well beyond the religious reasons.

I'm a little biased though. I won't say anymore.

[Le0]

We live in a world where the homosexual community has been frowned upon, criticized, and have been humiliated for ages.

People want world peace, however no one is willing to do anything about it. World peave doesn't just involve a war-free world, but a world where people live in harmony. If people allow same sex marriages maybe one day others will one day realize that their perspective on homosexuals in not necessary as they are living people with feelings, and deserve the same rights, and freedom to love another just as the heterosexual community.

Allowing same sex marriages should be allowed not only as two people coming together under the unity of God, but also as a positive step in the direction of world peace.

[Typhoon]

There's no good reason not to allow same-sex marriages. At all. Religion is bollocks anyway.
But personally I'd never marry another guy..

[113]

I just read the entire topic (you know, just to catch up). And I think same-sex marriages should be allowed.

BTW, a few interesting quotes from bible:

Samuel 18:3-4 (TNIV):

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

Samuel 1:26 (TNIV):

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

http://en.wikipedia....id_and_Jonathan

Edited by 113, 25 July 2006 - 12:01 PM.