Monday, October 25, 2010 5:58:17 AM
You only make a fool of yourself when you try to pretend you're being rational. You`re running on faith, not thought.
We look down on bank robbers, serial killers, rapists, etc, *because they do harm*.
Are you really rendered so stupid by your faith that you can`t understand the difference?
That reference to bigots who do harm in my last post? You`ve just proved that it applies to you.
If someone is cheating on their spouse, what is their first instinct? If someone steals anything ever, what is their first instinct? If someone murders someone else, what is their first instinct? It`s the same as when someone thinks that they are gay. They think "This is bad, I have to hide it." Our first instinct is that these things are wrong, yet some of these things still become socially acceptable. You can call me a bigot if you want, but you can`t argue instinct.
Monday, October 25, 2010 5:47:52 AM
Jude was written in Greek in the late 1st century. Neither the language nor the cultural context is modern. If you want to understand it, you must get an accurate translation that is in context. Yours isn't.
All I`m asking is where I can get and accurate translation of Jude. I quoted from an English Standard Version. I have a New American Standard Bible and a New King James version, if they are wrong too I would like to know. I would also like to know why these translations are wrong.
Monday, October 25, 2010 5:41:34 AM
I asked what standard of manliness they thought applied and stated that it couldn't possibly be the sexist stereotyping common in some countries a couple of millenia later (obviously).
You replied that no standard was high enough.
Therefore you were arguing that every man was going to hell for not being manly enough.
This is the closest you have gotten so far to accurately quoting me. Thank you. And your right, no earthly standard is good enough to get to Heaven. That is why Jesus came here and died for our sins. He died so that we could live.
Monday, October 25, 2010 5:30:30 AM
Unlike me, you haven't looked into it with thought rather than faith.
Can you explain why you think Paul was speaking for Jesus?
Can you explain why you think Paul was using a concept that didn`t exist until about 1800 years later?
Paul called it dishonorable passions, we call it homosexuality. Either way he was talking about women with women and men with men.
So, because I believe what the Bible says I automatically can`t come from a standpoint of thought and faith? I happen to believe that people of faith HAVE to read the Bible thoughtfully and with faith. It`s when you do one or the other that problems start to occur. Maybe that`s why you call me a bigoted a-hole, or patronizing git. Maybe you should go over the Bible again, but this time with thought and faith.