Abortion
-
I think that [in this forum] saying that we need to stop rape to have less abortion it's not "encouraging people to be responsible and exercise self-control"... unless you think that this forum is full of rapist. I guess that what Ravel is saying is that say "dont rape because of abortion" (or have sex) is a superficial thing because it's a simplistic way to take a problem. I don't have problem with your point of view (because deep inside it's a really obvious PoV), but I think that you should show your PoV outside this forum, in your city (and let us know the response you get, and then chat about that). Cheers!
I understand what you're saying, still nobody has made any cogent argument against what I have said. The fact that it is simplistic or obvious (or as some say, naive) doesn't negate or invalidate my statements. I do show my PoV outside this forum as well, in my city and community and most people agree with me.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Last throw. a) I have no idea what your opinion is. b) I've tried to explain - if you still don't understand. Okay, one more time: Making a law changes nothing. If you have a propensity to commit crime you will still have that propensity whether or not there are laws. Here is what I said that appears to have fried your brain: "Simply making laws has not stopped the behaviour; far from it!" In other words making laws, of itself, does not stop crime; rather it simply codifies crimes such that should a criminal (in the context of the laws around at the time) be caught (by whatever means as determined by that society) it is possible for society to mete out a suitable punishment (also in the context of that society). c) I didn't attack you though you are rude and annoying - we're not here at your beck and call and if you don't understand something ask politely. Think about if you were standing in front of me: would you talk that way? Doubt it very much. Now, have a nice day.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
They think that just words (or a slap in the hand) will prevent the crime... The problem here is that every head is a world. If not, then there wouldn't be psychologist or psychiatrist. Unless I'm missing something I didn't see (here) a real solution to prevent rape. Just talking to a teen about the responsability of having sex will not prevent him (at 100%) of doing it. It's really beautiful (and obvious) to say "dont rape, dont have sex, etc etc etc"... the real question here is how? Cheers!
-
I understand what you're saying, still nobody has made any cogent argument against what I have said. The fact that it is simplistic or obvious (or as some say, naive) doesn't negate or invalidate my statements. I do show my PoV outside this forum as well, in my city and community and most people agree with me.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunNobody is disagreeing that it would be nice to see the necessity of abortion removed from society. It is a medical procedure that can have lifelong effects on the person having it done. It is not the destination that people disagree with. It is the journey on getting there that you propose. I have no issues with your goal either. I'm not saying that "teaching" people to be more responsible won't help some, but I suspect it won't work on anywhere near the scale you expect it to. We as humans have developed to the point we have because of or uniqueness as individuals and our ability to make decisions independently of others. It is this same uniqueness and independence that negates the possibility of a catch all solution to any issue that ails humanity.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
So, to be clear, you ARE saying it is wrong for people to try and prevent rape? And by the way, you do not know how to interpret the Bible.
ryanb31 wrote:
And by the way, you do not know how to interpret the Bible.
But, then, neither do you. 1) According to the bible, rape is something god demands that his followers do when he wants them to. Correct. Forcing the woman to have intercourse, even in marriage, is rape, e.g.: Deuteronomy 21 [10] When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, [11]if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. [12] Bring her into your home and make her shave her head, trim her nails [13]and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [14] If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her. 2) According to the bible, the rape victim along with the rapist should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. Correct. (Given that [23-24] appear biased towards an assumption of consensual sex, while [25-27] appear biased to an assumption of rape.) Deuteronomy 22 [23]If there is a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; [24]then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. [25]But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die:[26] but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; [27]for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her. 3) According to the bible, you can sell your daughter into slavery where she is to "please the man who bought her". Some misinterpretation but not far off the mark. Exodus 21:7-11 1. She may be betrothed to her master. If, then, she does not please him, he may sell her to another Hebrew master (not to Johnny Foreigner)
-
ryanb31 wrote:
And by the way, you do not know how to interpret the Bible.
But, then, neither do you. 1) According to the bible, rape is something god demands that his followers do when he wants them to. Correct. Forcing the woman to have intercourse, even in marriage, is rape, e.g.: Deuteronomy 21 [10] When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, [11]if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. [12] Bring her into your home and make her shave her head, trim her nails [13]and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. [14] If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her. 2) According to the bible, the rape victim along with the rapist should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. Correct. (Given that [23-24] appear biased towards an assumption of consensual sex, while [25-27] appear biased to an assumption of rape.) Deuteronomy 22 [23]If there is a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; [24]then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. [25]But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die:[26] but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; [27]for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her. 3) According to the bible, you can sell your daughter into slavery where she is to "please the man who bought her". Some misinterpretation but not far off the mark. Exodus 21:7-11 1. She may be betrothed to her master. If, then, she does not please him, he may sell her to another Hebrew master (not to Johnny Foreigner)
1. That is not how the King James version reads. Whatever version you have has changed it. However, you claim that God demands the woman have sex is not even true. Your Bible reads
Quote:
then you may go to her
. May is not a word that implies demand. 2. You contradict yourself. You say that statement claims both parties of a rape should be stoned; however, in verse 26 it reads
Quote:
but to the lady you shall do nothing
. So, yes, they had capital punishment for this. The first one, as you say, is consensual or as we would call this today adultery or cheating and the second one is the guy raped her and it says to do nothing to her. So, where does it say to punish both in a rape? 3. So what is the mark? You admit it was a misinterpretation but you said it wasn't far from the mark. What is the mark then? 4. Another misinterpretation. It is not referring to rape. The main issue; however, is this is old Mosaic Law that applied only to the house of Israel. When Christ came he brought with him the new and everlasting covenant of the gospel and told them to take it to all of the world. He said he was fulfilling the prophets. There was no more eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth (read the Sermon on the Mount) So, even if your interpretations were right, which they are not, that was for a specific people for a specific time. Like I said, you do not understand the Bible.
-
1. That is not how the King James version reads. Whatever version you have has changed it. However, you claim that God demands the woman have sex is not even true. Your Bible reads
Quote:
then you may go to her
. May is not a word that implies demand. 2. You contradict yourself. You say that statement claims both parties of a rape should be stoned; however, in verse 26 it reads
Quote:
but to the lady you shall do nothing
. So, yes, they had capital punishment for this. The first one, as you say, is consensual or as we would call this today adultery or cheating and the second one is the guy raped her and it says to do nothing to her. So, where does it say to punish both in a rape? 3. So what is the mark? You admit it was a misinterpretation but you said it wasn't far from the mark. What is the mark then? 4. Another misinterpretation. It is not referring to rape. The main issue; however, is this is old Mosaic Law that applied only to the house of Israel. When Christ came he brought with him the new and everlasting covenant of the gospel and told them to take it to all of the world. He said he was fulfilling the prophets. There was no more eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth (read the Sermon on the Mount) So, even if your interpretations were right, which they are not, that was for a specific people for a specific time. Like I said, you do not understand the Bible.
ryanb31 wrote:
That is not how the King James version reads.
There you are correct. The newer tranlsation actually waters down the passage. Here is the KJV. The word may does not exist. It simply says if you like what you see, take it and she now belongs to you. The woman is a possession who has no choice in the matter regarding either the marriage or the rape that consumates it. _10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
ryanb31 wrote:
2. You contradict yourself. You say that statement claims both parties of a rape should be stoned; however, in verse 26 it reads
Actually, this is a case where the passage itself is contradictory to some extent. According to the passage, if a woman is engaged and raped, she is to be stoned to death. We won't even deal with the shear stupidity of the "because she cried not" part. The contradiction is that the physical location where the rape takes place sets the precedent of the punishment. Sounds like divine inspiration to me. (Note: The last sentence is meant as sarcasm and I'll note that so that you don't misinterpret that).
ryanb31 wrote:
The first one, as you say, is consensual
Really. I call it forced submission, and that is rape. I suppose that if someone is to gag a woman and force themselves on her, that is consensual because she didn't "cry out", you would be ok with that.
ryanb31 wrote:
The main issue; however, is this is old Mosaic Law that applied only to the house of Israel.
This apologetic silliness is one of the biggest contradictions in the entire book and no one has ever come up with a satisfactory resolution to it. Believers simply play the "that was translated wrong" or "you're just misinterpreting this" crap. Matthew 5: 17-19 17 Think not th_
-
ryanb31 wrote:
That is not how the King James version reads.
There you are correct. The newer tranlsation actually waters down the passage. Here is the KJV. The word may does not exist. It simply says if you like what you see, take it and she now belongs to you. The woman is a possession who has no choice in the matter regarding either the marriage or the rape that consumates it. _10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
ryanb31 wrote:
2. You contradict yourself. You say that statement claims both parties of a rape should be stoned; however, in verse 26 it reads
Actually, this is a case where the passage itself is contradictory to some extent. According to the passage, if a woman is engaged and raped, she is to be stoned to death. We won't even deal with the shear stupidity of the "because she cried not" part. The contradiction is that the physical location where the rape takes place sets the precedent of the punishment. Sounds like divine inspiration to me. (Note: The last sentence is meant as sarcasm and I'll note that so that you don't misinterpret that).
ryanb31 wrote:
The first one, as you say, is consensual
Really. I call it forced submission, and that is rape. I suppose that if someone is to gag a woman and force themselves on her, that is consensual because she didn't "cry out", you would be ok with that.
ryanb31 wrote:
The main issue; however, is this is old Mosaic Law that applied only to the house of Israel.
This apologetic silliness is one of the biggest contradictions in the entire book and no one has ever come up with a satisfactory resolution to it. Believers simply play the "that was translated wrong" or "you're just misinterpreting this" crap. Matthew 5: 17-19 17 Think not th_
Wow, you judge me harshly, and quite incorrectly. You do not know the first thing about me. You actually admitted it was consensual. Your views are wrong. I respect your right to have those opinions, but they are wrong. This is not arrogance, it is simply stating a fact.
Quote:
You think yourself some ultra intelligent being with some extraordinary god-given skills.
I say the same to you.
-
Wow, you judge me harshly, and quite incorrectly. You do not know the first thing about me. You actually admitted it was consensual. Your views are wrong. I respect your right to have those opinions, but they are wrong. This is not arrogance, it is simply stating a fact.
Quote:
You think yourself some ultra intelligent being with some extraordinary god-given skills.
I say the same to you.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Your views are wrong. I respect your right to have those opinions, but they are wrong. This is not arrogance, it is simply stating a fact.
:rolleyes: This OBVIOUSLY is not arrogance... it's irony.
-
The irony or hypocrisy is that he is calling me arrogant because he claims his view is right and mine is wrong. I simply stated the same thing back.
Pot, meet the kettle. At least almost everyone else have been giving you extended explanation of their PoV... while you just respond putting words in their mouths and then demanding explanations (that they already gave you). The sad part is that you are ruining a perfectly fine topic of Ahmed Zahmed, where everyone was debating civically by just trolling everyone who don't share your opinion (i.e. everyone) But, hey, good job, I guess. Your stubborness reminds me of he who shall not be named. What happened to him btw?
-
I have to correct you on this one. According to the bible, sex is acceptable for more than just procreation. It also has god's stamp of approval in the form of rape :doh: Since ryan will likely tell me I'm misinterpreting the bible again, then I would suggest he read the following biblical passages: Judges 21: 10-24, Numbers 31: 7-18, Deuteronomy 20: 10-14, Judges 5:30(this was is really awesome), Zechariah 14:1-2.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Once you start quoting the bible and god and involve religion I withdraw from the conversation. As an agnostic I refuse to get involved in what I consider complete drivel.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
So if I'm sterile (vasectomies do work) then I can basically have sex with anyone.
None of what I said implies that at all. You're twisting my words. I didn't address the "pleasure" aspect of sex at all.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
What utter moralistic bullsh*t.
So being responsible for one's actions, exercising self-control and self-restraint is moralistic bullshit? Wow, thanks for your enlightenment.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
You stand does not take into account the way people are
Actually it does. I am saying people need to be more than they are and act more responsibly.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
assumes that sex has only 1 function - procreation
No it doesn't assume that. You can have sex for pleasure, but you must also be cognizant of the consequences of said pleasure-taking: the possibility of creating life. If you're unwilling or unable to be responsible for that possibility, then do the responsible thing: abstain until you are willing and able.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunTrue I was twisting your words, we are after all in the soapbox! However expecting personal responsibility from all humanity is just not realistic. While I think a rather high % has a reasonable moral (within their culture) stance it only takes a few aberrants to pollute the population. Then you have the cultural abberants, the fundies who by their own standards are moral but most of us find disgusting or disturbing.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
The irony or hypocrisy is that he is calling me arrogant because he claims his view is right and mine is wrong. I simply stated the same thing back.
ryanb31 wrote:
he claims his view is right
Please show me where that is the case. I am just making observations, no claims to "fact".
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
1. That is not how the King James version reads. Whatever version you have has changed it. However, you claim that God demands the woman have sex is not even true. Your Bible reads
Quote:
then you may go to her
. May is not a word that implies demand. 2. You contradict yourself. You say that statement claims both parties of a rape should be stoned; however, in verse 26 it reads
Quote:
but to the lady you shall do nothing
. So, yes, they had capital punishment for this. The first one, as you say, is consensual or as we would call this today adultery or cheating and the second one is the guy raped her and it says to do nothing to her. So, where does it say to punish both in a rape? 3. So what is the mark? You admit it was a misinterpretation but you said it wasn't far from the mark. What is the mark then? 4. Another misinterpretation. It is not referring to rape. The main issue; however, is this is old Mosaic Law that applied only to the house of Israel. When Christ came he brought with him the new and everlasting covenant of the gospel and told them to take it to all of the world. He said he was fulfilling the prophets. There was no more eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth (read the Sermon on the Mount) So, even if your interpretations were right, which they are not, that was for a specific people for a specific time. Like I said, you do not understand the Bible.
Well, first of all, I am not Marcus Kramer who posted the 4 points[^]: 1) According to the bible, rape is something god demands that his followers do when he wants them to. 2) According to the bible, the rape victim along with the rapist should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. 3) According to the bible, you can sell your daughter into slavery where she is to "please the man who bought her". 4) According to the bible, a rapist must marry the woman if he gets caught. 1.
ryanb31 wrote:
That is not how the King James version reads.
But "King James had many, many men, not prophets, translate the Bible to the best of their knowledge. So, yes I believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. But some of the plain and precious truths have been removed, even some of them were removed intentionally."[^] So I used a different version.
ryanb31 wrote:
May is not a word that implies demand.
"you may take her as your wife" i.e., he is permitted to take her. She has no say in the matter. She has to enter his household, has to shave her head, has to pare her nails, and finally, has to perform her 'marriage duties' as his wife. Rape within marriage. Torah "[10]When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, [11]and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; [12]then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; [13]... thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." 2.
ryanb31 wrote:
The first one, as you say, is consensual or as we would call this today adultery or cheating
No. I said it was biased towards an assumption of consensual sex. Let's spell it out. If t
-
Well, first of all, I am not Marcus Kramer who posted the 4 points[^]: 1) According to the bible, rape is something god demands that his followers do when he wants them to. 2) According to the bible, the rape victim along with the rapist should be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. 3) According to the bible, you can sell your daughter into slavery where she is to "please the man who bought her". 4) According to the bible, a rapist must marry the woman if he gets caught. 1.
ryanb31 wrote:
That is not how the King James version reads.
But "King James had many, many men, not prophets, translate the Bible to the best of their knowledge. So, yes I believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. But some of the plain and precious truths have been removed, even some of them were removed intentionally."[^] So I used a different version.
ryanb31 wrote:
May is not a word that implies demand.
"you may take her as your wife" i.e., he is permitted to take her. She has no say in the matter. She has to enter his household, has to shave her head, has to pare her nails, and finally, has to perform her 'marriage duties' as his wife. Rape within marriage. Torah "[10]When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, [11]and seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; [12]then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; [13]... thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." 2.
ryanb31 wrote:
The first one, as you say, is consensual or as we would call this today adultery or cheating
No. I said it was biased towards an assumption of consensual sex. Let's spell it out. If t
You and the others do not understand God, your relationship with Him, who Christ is, what the Bible is, you are not Christian and we are supposed to go with your interpretation of Holy Scripture? How would you feel if a Project Manager tried to interpret a C# book for you? You have contradicted yourself. We can go on and on but the point is none of you have even the basic understanding of who God is therefore you cannot even begin to understand Holy writ authored by Him such as the Bible. Yes, the Bible was translated by men, not prophets, so we cannot take everything directly as written. We need to also have the Spirit to understand, which is where all of you fail. I have provided plenty of evidence to support my point, you simply refuse to accept it. And if you had any evidence to contradict me, I would refuse it as well because it would be wrong. We are at an impasse. I never expected anyone in this forum to believe what I was saying. I just want you all to remember that not everyone in the world thinks like you. It just seems the loudest people in this forum are the left-wing, liberal, anti-god, atheist, anarchist types. I am simply reminding everyone that there are other people that do not believe the same thing so they are not in a delusion that their opinion is shared by everyone. I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a 3 year old calculus, nor am I going to try and teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel, until you understand the foundation.
-
Purdah, with homosexuality before marriage/significant partnership? :-D
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
That's a different issue. Of course, I think scientists would be extremely interested if a pregnancy occurred in a homosexual sexual union.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
You and the others do not understand God, your relationship with Him, who Christ is, what the Bible is, you are not Christian and we are supposed to go with your interpretation of Holy Scripture? How would you feel if a Project Manager tried to interpret a C# book for you? You have contradicted yourself. We can go on and on but the point is none of you have even the basic understanding of who God is therefore you cannot even begin to understand Holy writ authored by Him such as the Bible. Yes, the Bible was translated by men, not prophets, so we cannot take everything directly as written. We need to also have the Spirit to understand, which is where all of you fail. I have provided plenty of evidence to support my point, you simply refuse to accept it. And if you had any evidence to contradict me, I would refuse it as well because it would be wrong. We are at an impasse. I never expected anyone in this forum to believe what I was saying. I just want you all to remember that not everyone in the world thinks like you. It just seems the loudest people in this forum are the left-wing, liberal, anti-god, atheist, anarchist types. I am simply reminding everyone that there are other people that do not believe the same thing so they are not in a delusion that their opinion is shared by everyone. I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a 3 year old calculus, nor am I going to try and teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel, until you understand the foundation.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have contradicted yourself.
Nope, the book contradicts itself. You just choose to apologize those contractions away.
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes, the Bible was translated by men, not prophets, so we cannot take everything directly as written.
Exactly... So, how exactly do you receive these interpretive revelations from the Spirit. How does it relay it's information to you? Do you hear his voice in your head? Do you just "know" when he speaks to you? If so, how can you possibly know the difference between the spirit and your own thoughts?
ryanb31 wrote:
I have provided plenty of evidence to support my point, you simply refuse to accept it
On the contrary. You have ignored and insulted anyone who provided evidence against or questions to your way of thinking? The only evidence you have provided it "You can't possibly know because you don't have the spirit?" There is nothing concrete in anything you have said.
ryanb31 wrote:
I just want you all to remember that not everyone in the world thinks like you.
And thank god (pun intended) that not everyone thinks like you.
ryanb31 wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a 3 year old calculus, nor am I going to try and teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel, until you understand the foundation.
Bad-a-bing. Parting with another insult. Very unchristianlike, don't you think? By the way, how long have you spent studying the bible in a place of higher education? Have you gone to bible college and study to become a minister? If you did, you would certainly temper your comments a bit. This last comment "teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel" is only insulting to yourself because I pretty much can guarantee you I know as much about these things as you do. I was a fundamentalistic christian for the better part of my life which mean I was a christian for longer than you probably have been alive. That's why I do not throw insults out at other believers when they make comments. That is why I treat people with respect. It is not the christian upbringing that achieved this, it is because I understand how the delusion works in a much deeper way than you understand at this time. As you grow older, you may understand that, but for now I also understand th
-
That's a different issue. Of course, I think scientists would be extremely interested if a pregnancy occurred in a homosexual sexual union.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunThat would open a can of worms, wouldn't it? :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
That would open a can of worms, wouldn't it? :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
LOL. Eww
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ryanb31 wrote:
You have contradicted yourself.
Nope, the book contradicts itself. You just choose to apologize those contractions away.
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes, the Bible was translated by men, not prophets, so we cannot take everything directly as written.
Exactly... So, how exactly do you receive these interpretive revelations from the Spirit. How does it relay it's information to you? Do you hear his voice in your head? Do you just "know" when he speaks to you? If so, how can you possibly know the difference between the spirit and your own thoughts?
ryanb31 wrote:
I have provided plenty of evidence to support my point, you simply refuse to accept it
On the contrary. You have ignored and insulted anyone who provided evidence against or questions to your way of thinking? The only evidence you have provided it "You can't possibly know because you don't have the spirit?" There is nothing concrete in anything you have said.
ryanb31 wrote:
I just want you all to remember that not everyone in the world thinks like you.
And thank god (pun intended) that not everyone thinks like you.
ryanb31 wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a 3 year old calculus, nor am I going to try and teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel, until you understand the foundation.
Bad-a-bing. Parting with another insult. Very unchristianlike, don't you think? By the way, how long have you spent studying the bible in a place of higher education? Have you gone to bible college and study to become a minister? If you did, you would certainly temper your comments a bit. This last comment "teach you the advanced concepts of the gospel" is only insulting to yourself because I pretty much can guarantee you I know as much about these things as you do. I was a fundamentalistic christian for the better part of my life which mean I was a christian for longer than you probably have been alive. That's why I do not throw insults out at other believers when they make comments. That is why I treat people with respect. It is not the christian upbringing that achieved this, it is because I understand how the delusion works in a much deeper way than you understand at this time. As you grow older, you may understand that, but for now I also understand th
I was not insulting you and I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply making a comparison that I hoped you would understand. Just because my points of view are different, they are not insults and they are not arrogant. You continue to insult me and to put me down and then cry when you feel I have done that to you. Seems a bit hypocritical.
Quote:
So, how exactly do you receive these interpretive revelations from the Spirit. How does it relay it's information to you? Do you hear his voice in your head? Do you just "know" when he speaks to you? If so, how can you possibly know the difference between the spirit and your own thoughts?
As I stated, you do not understand the Spirit so you cannot understand anything regarding this. "
Quote:
I pretty much can guarantee you I know as much about these things as you do
" This is laughable. You have no idea who I am. However, as I stated before, you cannot begin to pretend to understand anything about God until you understand who He is and your relationship with him. This is not an insult, but my 3 year old knows more about this than you do because he understands he is a child of God. He understands the nature of God. Since you do not, you have nothing.