Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Dai the Man Slayer]

Kaskade Khaos

SukiKoi

Kaskade Khaos

No, I said some animals. It proves my point. God gave them his word, and they wrote it for him. Jeez, this isn't the laws of physics and the human mind we are talking about here. Anything is possible!

How do you know what god told them wink

Because how else would they know of God. All christians teach that. It's GOD! No, God just said, "Write whatever the ******** you want."

Funny how things get lost in translation. God may not have said, "write whatever" but humans sure did just that.

[Jaaten Syric]

Kaskade Khaos

ROFL! Then what are you doing here? Sure, we were born from a pit of tar. Then... POOF! Human! :O

Which creationist straw man caricature are you parroting?

[linaloki]

Kaskade Khaos

linaloki

Kaskade Khaos

Now you are saying the JW bible is incorrect without reading it. You are being hypocritical. If you go on like this, there is no hope for you. Yeah, cooking. They can eat it now. What's the problem there? There was no food. God would just let you starve. He could have cleansed the animals too. Nothing is indefinite. Rules can change. You are acting ridiculous.

I DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE COOKING THING. How many times will I have to say that before you'll read it?

Secondly, I haven't read the entire JW Bible, no. However, I have read numerous key verses, as well as the Watchtower Magazine. I've read enough to find that I disagree with the translations given, especially with John 1:1.

That's because you have been misguided, I cannot help you. Your opinion, I was just giving mine, and you attack. :O

I attacked nothing but your Bible. You initiated an attack on your first post. If you've forgotten, I could always requote you. I have not been misguided. To be misguided would require a guide, of which I have only had the Bible. If you are claiming that the Bible is wrong, this isn't the thread for you.

Good day.

[Lord Setar]

linaloki

Kaskade Khaos

linaloki

Kaskade Khaos

Now you are saying the JW bible is incorrect without reading it. You are being hypocritical. If you go on like this, there is no hope for you. Yeah, cooking. They can eat it now. What's the problem there? There was no food. God would just let you starve. He could have cleansed the animals too. Nothing is indefinite. Rules can change. You are acting ridiculous.

I DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE COOKING THING. How many times will I have to say that before you'll read it?

Secondly, I haven't read the entire JW Bible, no. However, I have read numerous key verses, as well as the Watchtower Magazine. I've read enough to find that I disagree with the translations given, especially with John 1:1.

That's because you have been misguided, I cannot help you. Your opinion, I was just giving mine, and you attack. :O

I attacked nothing but your Bible. You initiated an attack on your first post. If you've forgotten, I could always requote you. I have not been misguided. To be misguided would require a guide, of which I have only had the Bible. If you are claiming that the Bible is wrong, this isn't the thread for you.

Good day.

I have noticed that most super-evangelical Christians seem to use "You have been misguided" a lot, seemingly as an out. "You've been misguided because what I say is objectively true even though I cannot prove it."

[Kimosabs]

Loki, allow me to provide some insight as to the nature of why Christians do not follow Levitican Law, yet should pay attention to its claims about homosexuality.

Yes, in Acts Peter was allowed to eat unclean animals, and praise God for that it offers much insight to what salvation really means. Freedom from sin is the most important thing any person could ever accept from God. It is the first step to spritutal maturity.

That said, let's take another step towards knowing God.

You referenced 1 Cor 6:12. "All things are lawful unto me..." Paul's statement serves to tell us that even if we sin, we'll still be saved (1 Cor 3:10) But sinning, or not sinning is not what is important here. It is our relationship with God. If we consider every action in relation to God's will we can either sin, or surrender to God's will. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned, yet in a few places it is discouraged strongly. You have attempted to refute this but you ignored a few facts which you may find interesting.

Levitus 18:22(KJV) says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Now Moses makes makes other mentions of things which translate into english as abominations. However, this is a different kind of abomination. "Tô‛êbah" is the word used in Lev 18:22. This word does not appear in Leviticus until the 18th Chapter. It most commonly refers to idolatry. This is different than the other word in Leviticus used for abomination, "sheqets" (Lev 11:10).

So you can see here that this particular Levitican observation is different than most others.

Romans 1:24-27 is also quite explicit about the unnatural act of homosexual lust/sex, contradictory to your perception of it. Let the reader reexamine the text:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

As far as 1 Corinthians 13 is concerned it does not reference romance. It is talking about love as a virtue, and not as a verb.

You cited 1 John 4:7-12 for the same reason you cited 1 Corinthians 13. You say "These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned."

It is not an attempt to use a straw man because I would think you know better, but these verses do not refer to sexual immorality at all. The context of this verse is to show us that only love can come from God. It does not say that all forms of love come from God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is a different word from the one used in both 1 Cor 13, and 1 John 4, agape. "Philarguria" is the word in 1 Tim.

Scripturally, Homosexuality is still a sin. There is no Biblical evidence to support a homosexual marriage, or relationship, yet there is plenty against it.

As for your post on the other common misconceptions about the Bible, bravo. Especially the bit about the magi arriving while Jesus was older.

[Reinharted]

Kimosabs

Levitus 18:22(KJV) says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Which is why a**l sex is okay. Men don't have v****a's after all. Closest thing this comes to is frot, which isn't as common as a**l sex, mutual masturbation, and many other fun activities between two men. Of course, this doesn't even say a thing about two women, so lesbians are a-okay according to the bible too. wink

Kimosabs

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Homosexuality is completely natural, so you have no arguement here.

Kimosabs

It is not an attempt to use a straw man because I would think you know better, but these verses do not refer to sexual immorality at all. The context of this verse is to show us that only love can come from God. It does not say that all forms of love come from God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is a different word from the one used in both 1 Cor 13, and 1 John 4, agape. "Philarguria" is the word in 1 Tim.

Greed isn't love though, so I don't see your point. Plus, it's quite arrogant to say that you know what forms of love God does and doesn't approve of when it's not scriptually backed.

Kimosabs

Scripturally, Homosexuality is still a sin.

Not really.

Kimosabs

There is no Biblical evidence to support a homosexual marriage, or relationship, yet there is plenty against it.

Again, not really. You've proven nothing.

[No No Raja]

Kaskade Khaos

Lol! It was a guess, it went something like that, I wasn't certain, read before you quote. And if it was, it changed. Maybe he didn't decide to change his rules on homosexuality!? Gasp! surprised

Hasty generalization. Based upon too little evidence or none at all.

[Baby Spoon Ninja]

Reinharted

Kimosabs

Levitus 18:22(KJV) says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Which is why a**l sex is okay. Men don't have v****a's after all. Closest thing this comes to is frot, which isn't as common as a**l sex, mutual masturbation, and many other fun activities between two men. Of course, this doesn't even say a thing about two women, so lesbians are a-okay according to the bible too. wink

Kimosabs

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Homosexuality is completely natural, so you have no arguement here.

Kimosabs

It is not an attempt to use a straw man because I would think you know better, but these verses do not refer to sexual immorality at all. The context of this verse is to show us that only love can come from God. It does not say that all forms of love come from God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is a different word from the one used in both 1 Cor 13, and 1 John 4, agape. "Philarguria" is the word in 1 Tim.

Greed isn't love though, so I don't see your point. Plus, it's quite arrogant to say that you know what forms of love God does and doesn't approve of when it's not scriptually backed.

Kimosabs

Scripturally, Homosexuality is still a sin.

Not really.

Kimosabs

There is no Biblical evidence to support a homosexual marriage, or relationship, yet there is plenty against it.

Again, not really. You've proven nothing.

Your response is all, "given that homosexuality is fine, there is nothing wrong with it." Think much?

[PoeticVengeance]

Kimosabs

Loki, allow me to provide some insight as to the nature of why Christians do not follow Levitican Law, yet should pay attention to its claims about homosexuality.

Oh boy I don't see how, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's take a look at this.

Quote:

Yes, in Acts Peter was allowed to eat unclean animals, and praise God for that it offers much insight to what salvation really means. Freedom from sin is the most important thing any person could ever accept from God. It is the first step to spritutal maturity.

That said, let's take another step towards knowing God.

You referenced 1 Cor 6:12. "All things are lawful unto me..." Paul's statement serves to tell us that even if we sin, we'll still be saved (1 Cor 3:10) But sinning, or not sinning is not what is important here. It is our relationship with God. If we consider every action in relation to God's will we can either sin, or surrender to God's will. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned, yet in a few places it is discouraged strongly.

Nowhere in the Bible is wearing red shoes condoned. Remember something doesn't need to be condoned in the Bible (especially the NT, but even the OT) for it to be okay.

In the Old Testament, YHWH was very much a "no" God. "No" this and "No" that. He didn't condone things. He forbid what was currently forbidden and/or dangerous and left the rest up to you. Only the wicked important "Yes" things were handled, like praising Him and all.

And the one place it is discouraged is Leviticus (and that is strongly debatable, but not by me as I'm not well versed in Hebrew). Since Leviticus was negated and replaced (i.e. Fulfillment in accordance to the prophecies by the Messiah) its possible condemnation of homosexuality is completely and utterly inconsequential and irrelevant.

Quote:

You have attempted to refute this but you ignored a few facts which you may find interesting.

I might find them interesting, but it remains to be seen if any of them backs your assertions.

Quote:

Levitus 18:22(KJV) says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Now Moses makes makes other mentions of things which translate into english as abominations. However, this is a different kind of abomination. "Tô‛êbah" is the word used in Lev 18:22. This word does not appear in Leviticus until the 18th Chapter. It most commonly refers to idolatry. This is different than the other word in Leviticus used for abomination, "sheqets" (Lev 11:10).

So? Unless you actually know what the difference in word means you've made absolutely no leeway here.

Especially since Leviticus was entirely washed away. Idolatry was established as bad in the NT, so the comparison between homosexuality and idolatry does not hold in the NT.

Quote:

So you can see here that this particular Levitican observation is different than most others.

Doesn't matter. All Mosaic Law was fulfilled. Not some that was described by certain key words. All.

Quote:

Romans 1:24-27 is also quite explicit about the unnatural act of homosexual lust/sex, contradictory to your perception of it. Let the reader reexamine the text:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

I'm still seeing homosexuality as a backdrop. Never once does it say that men having sex with men itself is unseemly or unnatural. And the women did unnatural things, but nothing in there gives the idea that they even had sex with one another at all.

The likewise easily designates that the men did unnatural things too, but note the comma and semi colon.

burning with lust towards one another is a side thought, an extra tidbit of information seperate from the unnatural acts. Much the same with burning in their lust for one tward another (keep in mind that lust also is a bad thing, and so he was mentioning that these particular homosexual relationships contained no love due to the lust factor)

Also, the fact that it mentions men with men as a side thought and also mentioned that those men were working things unseemly as the focus shows that men being with men is the backdrop of the situation.

A presence of trees on a murder scene to give you a parallel.

If one said this instead:

Poe's wonderful fake bible verse simulator

Rom adjusted:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom adjusted:27 And likewise also the men, knocking over their candles, burning the floor of their houses; men near candles working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Would having candles, knocking them over, and leaving burn marks on the floor be horrific sins now?

It seems so silly when its candles, but its in the same place, being mentioned in the exact same way.

You're allowing your assumptions about homosexuality (due to Leviticus and your own upbringing) to cloud your judgement.

Quote:

As far as 1 Corinthians 13 is concerned it does not reference romance. It is talking about love as a virtue, and not as a verb.

Do you not equate romantic love and virtuous love? Is not romantic love also a virtuous kind?

But really, this is irrelevant to my justifications and does not support your point at all.

Quote:

You cited 1 John 4:7-12 for the same reason you cited 1 Corinthians 13. You say "These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned."

It is not an attempt to use a straw man because I would think you know better, but these verses do not refer to sexual immorality at all. The context of this verse is to show us that only love can come from God. It does not say that all forms of love come from God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is a different word from the one used in both 1 Cor 13, and 1 John 4, agape. "Philarguria" is the word in 1 Tim.

This is not important to my justifications, so I won't bother. It also does not support your point.

Quote:

Scripturally, Homosexuality is still a sin.

False. Since it was not designated as a sin in the NT, it is not a sin. You failed to establish any such designation exists, therefore your argument collapses and your assertion fails.

Quote:

There is no Biblical evidence to support a homosexual marriage, or relationship, yet there is plenty against it.

True on the former and false on the latter.

In response to there being no Biblical support for homosexual marriage and relationships, there doesn't need to be. A lack of condonment does not mean something is forbidden. It must actually be shown as forbidden. Red shoes are not condoned by the Bible, are red shoes evil and against God?

As for the latter, the only part of the Bible that actually could condemn homosexual sex is made irrelevant by the coming of Christ. All those things that are sins were established as such by Jesus' teachings and were made more clear to others by his apostles. (some would say that the writings of his closest compatriots and by people like Paul are not God's Word, but that is a debate for another time.)

If you are Jewish, by all means consider Leviticus valid and oppose male on male homosexual sex only (as that is all it appears to condemn). But if you are Christian, you are blaspheming pretty badly to condemn it due to the Bible.

Quote:

As for your post on the other common misconceptions about the Bible, bravo. Especially the bit about the magi arriving while Jesus was older.

Loki is quite skilled. We do enjoy his time and effort here.

[TrunkstheSlayer]

Kimosabs

Loki, allow me to provide some insight as to the nature of why Christians do not follow Levitican Law, yet should pay attention to its claims about homosexuality.

You mean aside from the fact that you know nothing about Christ?

Quote:

Yes, in Acts Peter was allowed to eat unclean animals, and praise God for that it offers much insight to what salvation really means. Freedom from sin is the most important thing any person could ever accept from God. It is the first step to spritutal maturity.

That said, let's take another step towards knowing God.

You referenced 1 Cor 6:12. "All things are lawful unto me..." Paul's statement serves to tell us that even if we sin, we'll still be saved (1 Cor 3:10) But sinning, or not sinning is not what is important here. It is our relationship with God. If we consider every action in relation to God's will we can either sin, or surrender to God's will. Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned,

Nor is computer use

Quote:

yet in a few places it is discouraged strongly.

Yet you fail to prove it

Quote:

You have attempted to refute this but you ignored a few facts which you may find interesting.

This outta be pathetic

Quote:

Levitus 18:22(KJV) says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Now Moses makes makes other mentions of things which translate into english as abominations. However, this is a different kind of abomination. "Tô‛êbah" is the word used in Lev 18:22. This word does not appear in Leviticus until the 18th Chapter. It most commonly refers to idolatry. This is different than the other word in Leviticus used for abomination, "sheqets" (Lev 11:10).

So you can see here that this particular Levitican observation is different than most others.

Romans 1:24-27 is also quite explicit about the unnatural act of homosexual lust/sex, contradictory to your perception of it

That's funny considering context, nature, and reality say you lie

Quote:

. Let the reader reexamine the text:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

As far as 1 Corinthians 13 is concerned it does not reference romance. It is talking about love as a virtue, and not as a verb.

You cited 1 John 4:7-12 for the same reason you cited 1 Corinthians 13. You say "These verses, properly interpreted and read, not misquote or drug out of context, show that God is behind all forms of love, and that lust and prostitutional fornication are the sexual sins mentioned."

I see no mention of a physical verb in this, how do you?

Quote:

It is not an attempt to use a straw man because I would think you know better, but these verses do not refer to sexual immorality at all. The context of this verse is to show us that only love can come from God. It does not say that all forms of love come from God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is a different word from the one used in both 1 Cor 13, and 1 John 4, agape. "Philarguria" is the word in 1 Tim.

Scripturally, Homosexuality is still a sin

Yet you offer no proof that hasn't been refuted a million times over

Quote:

. There is no Biblical evidence to support a homosexual marriage, or relationship

Then why are you on a computer?

Quote:

, yet there is plenty against it.

One fulfilled verse. Yep, that's just a whole lot right?

Quote:

As for your post on the other common misconceptions about the Bible, bravo. Especially the bit about the magi arriving while Jesus was older.

Oh so you really did read it? Then why come in here complaining about something and then failing to even come close to refuting it?

[SapphWolf]

Kimosabs

Now Moses makes makes other mentions of things which translate into english as abominations. However, this is a different kind of abomination. "Tô‛êbah" is the word used in Lev 18:22. This word does not appear in Leviticus until the 18th Chapter. It most commonly refers to idolatry. This is different than the other word in Leviticus used for abomination, "sheqets" (Lev 11:10).

Romans 1:24-27 is also quite explicit about the unnatural act of homosexual lust/sex, contradictory to your perception of it. Let the reader reexamine the text:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Ok, so, according to you the word used in Leviticus is commonly used with Idolatry. Now, if you'll pay attention to Romans 1, what were they talking about right before the verses you posted? Idolatry. So, what have you proven? That homosexual intercourse is bad? Not really, because having heterosexual intercourse while worshiping idols would also be bad now wouldn't it? So all you've managed to do is prove that worshiping idols is bad. Congrats.

[JumpingJebediah]

Taineyah

Kaskade Khaos

SukiKoi

Kaskade Khaos

SukiKoi

Kaskade Khaos

No, I said some animals. It proves my point. God gave them his word, and they wrote it for him. Jeez, this isn't the laws of physics and the human mind we are talking about here. Anything is possible!

How do you know what god told them wink

Because how else would they know of God. All christians teach that. It's GOD! No, God just said, "Write whatever the ******** you want."

But you can't know that god said those exact words.
You can't know that god said anything.

What? You make no sense. It's in the bible. Oh yeah sure. Different people who knew nothing of eachother over a 1500 year period, just HAPPENED to write about the same thing, not contradicting itself. Yeah, that's a nice theory.

Except that the bible is riddled with internal contradictions. Try not to use ideas that are easily disproven as your proof, okay, sweetie?

:0 It's not proven that easily! I see no internal contradictions. It IS from Old Hebrew though. I could be right. I understand it as it is now. There are no contradictions. sad It is easily misinterperted by the misleaded.

[JumpingJebediah]

linaloki

Kaskade Khaos

linaloki

Kaskade Khaos

Now you are saying the JW bible is incorrect without reading it. You are being hypocritical. If you go on like this, there is no hope for you. Yeah, cooking. They can eat it now. What's the problem there? There was no food. God would just let you starve. He could have cleansed the animals too. Nothing is indefinite. Rules can change. You are acting ridiculous.

I DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE COOKING THING. How many times will I have to say that before you'll read it?

Secondly, I haven't read the entire JW Bible, no. However, I have read numerous key verses, as well as the Watchtower Magazine. I've read enough to find that I disagree with the translations given, especially with John 1:1.

That's because you have been misguided, I cannot help you. Your opinion, I was just giving mine, and you attack. :O

I attacked nothing but your Bible. You initiated an attack on your first post. If you've forgotten, I could always requote you. I have not been misguided. To be misguided would require a guide, of which I have only had the Bible. If you are claiming that the Bible is wrong, this isn't the thread for you.

Good day.

I am claiming the bible is wrong!? LOL! YOu have not read a word have you? I initiated no attack. And if I did, you WOULD have quoted it. You HAVE been misguided. You don't know what you are saying. You will regret it in the end. And yes, GOOD DAY to you too. lol

[linaloki]

Kaskade Khaos. You have made the following claims.

1. I look for mistakes in the Bible.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=74#1091320338]You

Alright, you look for little mistakes and make a large deal out of it.

2. The Catholic Bible is fallacious and sent by demon spirits to trick.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=74#1091320338]You

First off, PLEASE DON'T READ THE CATHOLIC BIBLE! It's antichrist. Demons trick you that way!

3. Through insinuation, the Jehovah's Witness Bible is the correct translation and interpretation of the original Biblical texts.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=74#1091320338]You

Read the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible.

4. I have changed the Words of the Bible.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=74#1091320338]You

I looked in those scriptures, you changed some of the words, let me research it for myself.

5. That prior to this post, you mentioned animals during our discussion.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=85#1093590021]You

All I said was God allowed them to eat animals as they learned to cook and kill the diseases inside the animals.

6. That you provided a link to the Watchtower website.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=89#1094857741]You

YOu can't look at the watchtower online? I provided it.

7. That I have changed my own words.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=95#1096445272]You

Now you are changing your words.

8. That I have not read the Jehovah's Witness Bible.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=96#1096720946]You

Now you are saying the JW bible is incorrect without reading it.

9. That I am a hypocrite.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=96#1096720946]You

You are being hypocritical.

10. That I am misguided, when all I have been guided by is the Bible.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=96#1097077508]You

That's because you have been misguided

11. That I have not read a word of your arguments.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

YOu have not read a word have you?

12. That you initiated no attack.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

I initiated no attack.

13. That I did not quote your previous posts.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

And if I did, you WOULD have quoted it.

14. Again, that I have been misguided.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

You HAVE been misguided.

15. That I don't know what I'm saying.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

You don't know what you are saying.

16. That I shall regret this interaction.

[url=http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22055569&page=97#1097990745]You

You will regret it in the end.

Now. Prove every last point, or concede to each one you cannot. If you fail to do so, if you attempt to use wit, sarcasm, or ad hominem attacks, or if you attempt to brush this off, you will be banned from this thread.

[Taineyah]

Kaskade Khaos

Taineyah

Kaskade Khaos

SukiKoi

Kaskade Khaos

Because how else would they know of God. All christians teach that. It's GOD! No, God just said, "Write whatever the ******** you want."

But you can't know that god said those exact words.
You can't know that god said anything.

What? You make no sense. It's in the bible. Oh yeah sure. Different people who knew nothing of eachother over a 1500 year period, just HAPPENED to write about the same thing, not contradicting itself. Yeah, that's a nice theory.

Except that the bible is riddled with internal contradictions. Try not to use ideas that are easily disproven as your proof, okay, sweetie?

:0 It's not proven that easily! I see no internal contradictions. It IS from Old Hebrew though. I could be right. I understand it as it is now. There are no contradictions. sad It is easily misinterperted by the misleaded.

There are more where this comes from:

[url=http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm]A Site with 101 of These

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)





In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)

(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)




How many fighting men were found in Judah?

(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)

(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)




God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)

(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)




How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)

(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)




How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24: cool

(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)




How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

(a) Three months (2 Kings 24: cool

(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)




The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23: cool

(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)




When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)

(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)




How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)

(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)




When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)

(b) Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)




How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

(a) Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)

(b) Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)




In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

(a) Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16: cool

(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)




How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

(a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)

(b) Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)




Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)

(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)




Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

(a) Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)

(b) Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)




How many were the children of Zattu?

(a) Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2: cool

(b) Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)




How many were the children of Azgad?

(a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)

(b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)




How many were the children of Adin?

(a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)

(b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)




How many were the children of Hashum?

(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)

(b) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)




How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:2 cool

(b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)




Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

(a) 29,818 (Ezra)

(b) 31,089 (Nehemiah)




How many singers accompanied the assembly?

(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)

(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)




What was the name of King Abijah’s mother?

(a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)

(b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)




Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

(a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)

(b) No (Joshua 15:63)

Shall I keep going or do you concede?