mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 21, 2009 10:50:39 GMT -5
And thus, your religion (as all are ) is based on faith because there is no proof. Lets admit something here. You will never question your faith-the way it should be questioned. You will never ponder why the two accounts of the lineage of Jesus differ ( with very few names matching ). You will never question why your bible advocates incest and fratracide and yet you will gleefully announce that your gad hates fags, all the while turning a blind eye to the blatant homosexual affair David has. You will never think to question just how bassackwards the story of Jesus and Pilate is. How Romans never let any one go who was an insurrectionist. The Romans were just not fans of anyone who didn't see Rome as the be all , end all. You will never question why there are two different accounts of what Mary did after Jesus rose. Look. I think that all 'we' really want is for people to question 'why'. Mags, you will demand proof , with stats, about why Vikes fans say they will win every series with the Pack for the next 20 years. Yet, you will question without hesitation anything that the bible says. All I ask is that you cast a critical eye towards your religion. Every religion for that matter. It is OK not to believe. You may find your life improves because you are no longer paranoid about a mythical sky fairy who has nothing better to do that make sure that the only sex you have is with your wife and only in the missionary position-that being said, ever find it ironic that the majority of the sex fiends are fundies?? I find it interesting that you, who claims to hate the judgment cast by "religious" people are now judging me. All you know about me from the very little I post on a couple message boards, but you think you know everything about me and my faith? Get real. How completely insulting. You assume I have never questioned my faith? What are you basing that on? The way it should be questioned, or the way you question it? The truth is, I was brought up in an extremely "religious" and conservative home. I didn't question the faith in which I was raised for many years - not until after I graduated from high school. But believe me, I did. I did what "they" call "leaving the faith." I didn't go to church. I had sex with my girlfriend. I did everything that I was supposed to do to have fun. And it was fun - it was a blast. Things like that are very appealing to our fleshly desires and to say I didn't enjoy it would be a lie. And yet here I am today, thankfully redeemed by God. He brought me back to his family, and I know that I'm forgiven for the wrongs I did during that time (and before it, and after it). Now all I do is try to live life the best I know how as He has commanded - in his man-written God-inspired, Word. You couldn't be more wrong to say I will never question my faith. I'm sorry sir - I've been there and done that. Have you ever questioned your lack of it? I've refused to get in a debate about your so-called errors in the Bible because it's pointless. Like I said - skeptics will always be skeptical. Now we know that quite often they can take a civil discussion and be completely insulting too. |
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 21, 2009 12:17:01 GMT -5
I am sorry you feel I insulted you. I was speaking in generalities. I apologize if it came off as being specific to you. While I did mention 'you' many times, I was try to speak generally. The 'you' was suing was referring to the religious as a whole. I reread what I wrote and I see why you would take it that way. I can assure you it wasn't how I meant it.
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 21, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
I accept your apology, FMC. There's no doubt the things you said apply to some people, but I think in general you'd be surprised how many of the "fundies" you don't respect actually do know the Bible inside and out, have studied it and come to know that it really is the truth. It's not as if everyone simply believes what they were taught blindly - that's more the definition of a cult.
And after thinking about it some more last night, I am willing to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, if you really want to question the book I base my faith on. But if I'm going to do it, we gotta have a couple ground rules:
1. You'll post one "contradiction" or untruth at a time. After I reply to that one, you can post another.
2. Before you post a question, you'll read the passage in 3 different versions of the Bible. First the one of your choice (for instance, atheists.org always quotes the King James version). Next the New International Version, and third, the New Living Translation.
3. When reading those three versions, read the context surrounding the verse(s) in question. I'd suggest reading the entire chapter that the verse is in.
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 22, 2009 0:00:32 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot: to make it all easy for you, you can read any passage in any version you want at www.biblegateway.com |
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 8:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 8:32:55 GMT -5
I accept your apology, FMC. There's no doubt the things you said apply to some people, but I think in general you'd be surprised how many of the "fundies" you don't respect actually do know the Bible inside and out, have studied it and come to know that it really is the truth. It's not as if everyone simply believes what they were taught blindly - that's more the definition of a cult. And after thinking about it some more last night, I am willing to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, if you really want to question the book I base my faith on. But if I'm going to do it, we gotta have a couple ground rules: 1. You'll post one "contradiction" or untruth at a time. After I reply to that one, you can post another. 2. Before you post a question, you'll read the passage in 3 different versions of the Bible. First the one of your choice (for instance, atheists.org always quotes the King James version). Next the New International Version, and third, the New Living Translation. 3. When reading those three versions, read the context surrounding the verse(s) in question. I'd suggest reading the entire chapter that the verse is in. Perfect, this sounds like it could be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 8:41:45 GMT -5
I was gonna start with Genesis Chap1, but I thought Lot and his de-sexing stick were are great palce to start
Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly
So, Lot doesn't want the mob to gang bang the sexy angles, but he is OK with offering up his daughters for thier sex crazed antics..
Gen 19.8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man
Gen19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters
So, looks like the writer forgot that just a few verses before, that Lot said his daughters were virgins.
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 22, 2009 9:33:58 GMT -5
There are two possible explanations, I think the second is the more likely answer, but here are them both:
1. Lot had more than two daughters - after all, verse 15 of that chapter talks about the daughers "which are here," meaning that are present. The daughters that were married weren't there.
2. It seems that you didn't read that passage in the versions of the Bible I mentioned. Because modern translations, including the NIV and the NLT, talk about the men being betrothed to his daughters - they were in fact engaged to be married, not married. This stems from the original Hebrew text (remember, any English version is simply a translation) using words that indicate they were not married yet, and that in ancient times, an engagement was far more serious than we view it in today's society.
Next?
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 22, 2009 9:39:03 GMT -5
And I think it goes without saying that Lot was pretty twisted by that point, offering his daughters to the mob instead of his house guests. It's a pretty vivid example of the consequence of sin. Lot should have gone the opposite direction from the depravation he saw in that area, but chose instead to live close to it, and this is what happened.
Regardless of Lot's poor decisions, he was a man who tried throughout most of his life to follow God. Much can be learned from his mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 9:58:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 10:00:27 GMT -5
Why is it that in every scene where there is a sex hungry mob(men), they all want to have sex with the male angels or other men?
|
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 22, 2009 10:04:31 GMT -5
In Gen 19:13, the angels say they will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then in verse 19:24 it is the Lord who destroys both towns.
|
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 22, 2009 23:50:17 GMT -5
Second, Lot may have been a depraved bastard, but a little further on, he is praised as a 'just and righteous man' in 2 Peter 2:7-8 Yes, isn't it great how we can be forgiven of our wrongs and not have them held over us for the rest of our life? |
|
mag7ue
Practice Squad
Guru - Week #3 - 2008, #16 - 2009
Posts: 419
|
Post by mag7ue on Mar 23, 2009 1:05:45 GMT -5
In Gen 19:13, the angels say they will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then in verse 19:24 it is the Lord who destroys both towns. Are you serious? It's pretty obvious the angels are working for the Lord - "we" could refer to them, or them and their boss. Lot himself grasped that in verse 14 when he was warning his family - his words were "the Lord is about to destroy this city." He didn't say the angels were about to destroy it. |
|
|
|
Post by firemancheesehead on Mar 23, 2009 7:04:50 GMT -5
In Gen 19:13, the angels say they will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and then in verse 19:24 it is the Lord who destroys both towns. Are you serious? It's pretty obvious the angels are working for the Lord - "we" could refer to them, or them and their boss. Lot himself grasped that in verse 14 when he was warning his family - his words were "the Lord is about to destroy this city." He didn't say the angels were about to destroy it. Yep, much in the same way we use 'we' when refering to the Pack. |
|
