Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

[chequita guevara]

Re: Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

See my sig, 1st line.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Curt, I can see you're just doing this for laughs, and you have no intention of being serious.

I am deadly serious.

It's you who are backing out.

Like Kenobi, you have no stomach to answer the hard questions.

Care to prove me wrong?

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Please let me know if the situation changes.

Let me know when you have the courage to examine your beliefs.

Answer my 3 questions.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Like Kenobi, you have no stomach to answer the hard questions.

Those stupid hypotheticals you seem so fond of?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Originally posted by curtsibling
Their bible says they have.



Aaaah!!!!!!!!! The Ignorance!!!!! It's blinding!!!

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

Confronted with your own ignorance on the matter,

I am happily blind to your dogma, friend.

And I care not for your cut and pasted quotes of borrowed wisdom.

...you immediately turn to derision, and change the subject.

Good day, sir.

[The Mad Monk]

Re: Re: Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
See my sig, 1st line.

I see it.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Try to imagine, given the political ramifications and the conflict with the Puritans, that the translation paid for by the state was totally without political influence, accidental or intentional. I cannot.

Bottom Line:

Do not rely on the literal word of the Bible.

Look upon Jesus. Understand Jesus from your readings of the Bible. If he were among us today, how would he treat homosexuals? Do you think he would condemn them, and urge persecution?

Looking to the Bible to find snippets of words that justify for your own feelings (of intolerance) seems to me, a sin against God.

you provided some great information about the King James

I completely agree with the above, indeed it is how I try to live my life.

Whether or not the bible was divinely inspired or however it was derived, it was edited by men. And Men unfortunately edit things to reflect their perspective and their goals, even the bible is not immune to this. Synod of Hippo, Synod of Trent, Council of Florence, the Apocrypha, Gnostic texts etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps some religionists here can go to some faith-website and cut and paste an answer to these?

1. Why do people have to pray?

Because God has instructed us to. Christ tells us to come to him, in prayers and petitions, to lay our burdens on him, rather than keeping them to ourselves. It helps Christians in that they know they are not alone, but rather have the help they need when they need it.

2. Tell me how the men who wrote the bible were acting on a god's orders, and not merely deluded.

How?

"The Word of the Lord came upon them."

But a much better question deals with how the Councils of the church decided which books were inspired and which were not. For the Old Testament, most of the books, they followed the Jewish agreement, on which were essential components to faith.

For the New Testament, they went with the Gospels, and the best letters to the churches. They excluded other works, some because of length, such as the Didache.

3. How many of you hold the creation theory as solid truth and not a morality tale?

I hold the former, and I did not shy away from that statement in the last thread.

Like Kenobi, you have no stomach to answer the hard questions.

Dude. You picked the wrong poster to flame with that accusation.

[Ben Kenobi]

So there is only an English Bible? No French, Spanish or Italian translation?

Do I say that?

No. I simply addressed one such case where most of the translations come from the English versions.

"The version we know today" - well, I guess that would depend quite a bit on whether you are Catholic or Protestant, wouldn't it?

Depends on whether you talk about the Old Testament or the New.

The Old Testament has a much longer history of the New, most of it having little to do with the Christians.

most of the Bibles in use have derived from the King James Version.

No. Most modern versions do not rely upon the KJV, because of some of the problems that you have brought up. They have access to older manuscripts unavailable to the compilers of the KJV, so they had the capacity to jump sources, to get closer to the originals.

If you know anything about translation, you know that some words cannot be accurately translated, because synomyms simply don't exist.

Yep. Some of the OT books have problems with this, particularly Job. We have lost some of the meanings of the hebrew words, so we do not know the precise equivalents. Job caused massive problems for the translators of the Latin Vulgate, hence modern versions will avoid the Vulgate when making translations.

However, I would argue that the theological points do not get lost in losing some of the synonyms. We do not need to know what type of wood was used in Noah's Ark, to get the why's and what's.

If you know anything about linguistics, you would know that language evolves to such an extent that in 700 to 1000 years, the SAME LANGUAGE becomes unintelligble

And that is an excellent case against the KJV. Can we really understand what the terms meant?

[The Mad Viking]

OK, so which modern version of the Bible do you use?

[Elok]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Faith is just an excuse to avoid answering the real questions.

A religionist just cannot admit he has not got a clue about the greater cosmos.

But the non-believer can see the obvious.

Religion and it's trappings are inventions to dupe people.

The obvious being...what? That in fact neither of us knows a thing about the "greater cosmos"? If you want an answer, stop being so deliberately antagonistic. Unless you are a prosecutor in a courtroom, getting us irritated is not going to produce favorable results in a discussion.

[Verto]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Ben 'Kenobist' managed to evade me in another thread.

Perhaps some religionists here can go to some faith-website and cut and paste an answer to these?

1. Why do people have to pray?

2. Tell me how the men who wrote the bible were acting on a god's orders, and not merely deluded.

3. How many of you hold the creation theory as solid truth and not a morality tale?

No quotes from 'bible.sheep.com' please.
I appreciate answers garnered from your own minds, you are educated, so show it!

Thanks for enlightening a poor heathen!

Despite your participation in that idiotic 'religionist' fad, I will attempt to answer as best I can your questions.

1.) Not only because we have been 'commanded' to, but because direct communication to God is very important; questions can be asked and answered; through prayer, we can ask for forgiveness and begin repentance. Comfort can be received through prayer.

2.)The men who wrote the Bible - you mean, the actual writers of the books, or those who compiled them into a single book? I will assume you mean the numerous authors of the various books. I suppose that, besides the archaeological and other evidence found that collaborates some scripture, one would need faith.

3.) I believe that Christ, acting under God, literally created this planet, as well as countless others, and all contained therein. I do not believe it literally took 168 hours, however.

[yavoon]

how about the fact that leviticus is a pretty useless document to derive present day morality from?

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but we might as well get our scientific theory from alchemists.

[Verto]

Originally posted by yavoon
how about the fact that leviticus is a pretty useless document to derive present day morality from?

Not if you are Christian, or obviously Jewish.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Verto


Not if you are Christian, or obviously Jewish.

I would be hard pressed to find a christian who still followed leviticus. that doesn't mean they don't believe anything in leviticus(their views could come from elsewhere and merely coincide w/ some leviticus views). but that the document is not an authority on what they should believe.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

its a different hole, so its totally different.