Can you quote the sentences which I alledgedly ADDED ?
Can you indicatee what I suggested should not be considered written in it ?
If you cannot then you should admit a false accusation of my adding or subtracting from the Bible's text.
I can see your point. But what you seem to be doing (addressed below) is implying that when God does something awful (such as the Fluod) that he is actually doing good and that he is doing good because anything he does is by definition good.
That is special pleading.
A fuller picture of truth does not count the former words impure.
A fuller picture? How is this not qualifiying the bible based on your interpretation of what the bible means? As far as I can see if God says to kills gays they should be killed (from a loving Christian perspective).
The mother tells her child at age two "Eat the food. Pick it up with your fingers." Latter as the child advances to age five she may say "Use your FORK."
The latter fuller word does not render the former word impure.
This is not a good analogy. God does not change his mind: what is righteous is always righteous (unless God decides it is not; so again special pleading).
Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting;
and his truth endureth to all generations
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true
from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall
stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall
not pass away.
Truth does not change. If it's okay to eat with your fingers it is ALWAYS alright to do so.
You are showing us that you can hunt through the Scriptures for passages. See, you too could find Jesus Christ there is you really had an open heart to the Lord and Savior Jesus.
When you say open heart what you mean is to rationalise the bad bits. When I read the bible I read all of it, not just the bits you like.
Where did I say the counsel of the Lord does not stand forever ? Would you quote me?
quote:
The level of the disclosure of God's purpose and nature renders somewhat different speakings as the word of God progresses.
Pretty clear cut.
I think your complaint is over interpretive matters. If you think I am interpreting wrongly, then tell me why you think that.
You go out of your way to handwave the bits where your god is a psychopath.
Along with the death penalty in Leviticus was the trespass offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings. These were all types and symbols of the Son of God to come as the all-inclusive final offering for the sin of the world.
Lets think about this: the sin of the world is down to him rigging the game so that sin was inevitable. Good planning omniscient one!
I would suggest that you go about your objection by pointing out WHERE the homosexual or blasphemer was specifically forbidden to avail himself of one of the other offerings should he repent of his ways - ie. the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering, even the consecration offering.
You miss the point entirely: IT IS NOT WRONG TO BE GAY. You do not need to repent for being how God made you. God decides on a whim that being gay is bad but he sets the rules. He could say "no it's fine, go to heaven when you die". Don't forget that God is not constrained by anything. If one says he has traits which he cannot change then these traits can be accurately described as homophobic and distastefull.
I am out here on a limb now. Maybe I need correction. You do the work. WHERE does the Old Testament say the "gay" man could not repent and perhaps offer a sin offering to the priest for his atonemen ?
Again you miss the point: IT IS NOT WRONG TO BE GAY. Only your god has decided it is wrong.
That's like telling ginger people that they must dye their hair otherwise they will be forced to live in a ghetto. They can easily dye their hair so what's the problem. Would that fly? of course not.
What if you reject His merciful kindness ?
What if ginger people don't dye their hair?
What if instead of praising the Lord you choose to arm yourself with accusations and blasphemies against the Lord ?
What oif instead of dyeing your hair black you left it ginger. It is the same argument. It is morally wrong to force your views on other people with the threat of punishment for motivation.
Are you drunk with excessive Humanism? Many many acts of God reveal His kindness and mercifulness to created man. These do not mean that He will forever tolerate the sins of man.
Sin is just what your god has decided is wrong. Like someone deciding red hair is wrong. Sin is what your god has decided he does not want people to do (after creating each individual with an insticnt to sin). What perverse reason could he have had to rig the game in such a way? Madness.
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Genesis 6:3)
I'm not going to put up with gingers flaunting their ginger hair forever. Can you see a pattern here?
Your foolish god created this whole problem by deciding for no good reason that some harmless things are sins.
All creation then exists because of the will of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God. It is no wonder that His WORD concerning His will is more stable than the universe itself. It will outlast heaven and earth.
So he created sin: nice move.
So we should believe into Christ and quite making clever twisted excuses from the handy dandy "Do-it-yourself" skeptical pocket Christian refuter.
Not true. God should be held to account for not being good by rigging the game to force us to do it his way to avoid eternal torment. That's no different from gentically engineering people to express ginger hair and then punishing them if the don't dye it.
Your quotes are nice. But the way in which you intend to use them is no more clever than Satan's quoting of Scripture to tempt Jesus to jump of the pinnacle of the temple to show off in Matthew 4:6
Nothing like it at all.
You may think you are being clever. "Look I too can thump on the bible and make it look like the teaching of Jesus is against the word of God."
Jesus and God are the same. The best that on could say is that Jesus is God in disguise so that people can conveniently forget what a psychopath God is.
You're not being clever. If you selectively quote as the devil quoted, I will also say to you "Again, it is written ..." .
It is then impossible to use bible quotes at all. By your logic if one does not quote the whole bible one is selectivley quoting.....
Does God want gay people to be killed or not? If not then he has changed his mind and his eternal unchanging character traits are incorrect.
2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
quote:
"All scripture" is the operative phrase there.
Selective usage to try to nullify the New Testament salvation is not clever.
Correct. All of it. So Lev 20:13 is just as relevent (and morally repugnant) now as it was back then.
quote:
You are not allowed to rewrite the Bible to fit with your individual notion of what it really says. it says so in the Bible, for God's sake
If I was unclear here, I appologise. What I meant was that you twist the meaning of the bible to suit you moral relativism.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
™ Version 4.2
