Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

I agree. I simply report what it actually says. That is why I do not interpret what it says. I am not the arrogant total fool. Why. Why do we have to choose any interpretations. Why not simply acknowledge that it actually says what it says? Yet you cannot point to any examples that show Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity.Why is that?

Every so often you say something sensible. But you never notice.

There is no such thing as "says what it says." What you think it says is your interpretation. And yours is more wrongheaded than anything I've seen. You don't know how to read at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except that every sect, each believing who knows what has a multitude of counselors. You cannot resolve this stuff by voting.

Even within a "sect" there are many different viewpoints, and I don't confine myself to Reformed believers, I read a whole range of commentaries including from some "sects" I would only join if all the others were nuked off the planet.

None of which is any guarantee of identifying the truth. In fact, the danger in your approach is confirmation bias. You search until something seems true or resonates.Reading a lot is great. But in the end, it must be the text the is decisive.

Which begs the question.Why would an all knowing, omniscient, anthropomorphic deity, give a fallible ape any information that's left up to interpretation?You would think such a deity could come up with something we could all understand without question.

I learn something new every time I read a commentary and certainly every time I read the Bible. Maybe I'm just not as dishonest as you.

What would be the fun of that?

Of course there is "says what it says". It's not a matter of what I think it says but rather the actual words written.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

It's absolutely certain that YOU can't read it accurately so like it or not you have interpretations and in fact the worst possible interpretations.I can't remember one thing you've ever said about what the Bible says that is true.

Yes, we know you keep making that claim, yet it seems I actually post what the Bible actually says so all people can check to see if I have not reported honestly and correctly.For example: Acts 4:32-35 is not about simple charity but rather specifically says that none of the believers claimed ownership of any possessions and those that needed were supplied and those that could support supported.From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s). It describes how they lived and a was one of the sources that inspired Marx.

You just cannot disagree in a civilized fashion, can you?I cannot say that I always learn something when I read the Bible or a commentary, but that is what I endeavor to do.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

most Protestants say about that [Apostolic ] Council... [is that it's decision ] was [only ] asked of them not because it was necessary-- the Gentiles had every right not to obey any of it -- but to show respect for their Jewish brethren ...

​

The passage shows that it ...is not wrong not to obey them at all. It's all easily findable in Protestant commentaries online.
....

​

Again, I have no idea what you are complaining about. What I said is standard Protestant understanding of that Council.

---

First of all, your appeal to authority - being offshoot Roman Empire Christian 'Church' types of sources - isn't going to satisfy me, and you should know better.Here is the King James text of Acts 15:28

quote:

---

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.

---

In scripture, the Law of Christ, according to Galatians 6:2, is to bear burdens. See Romans 15:1 Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.