Homosexual Discussion ForumHomosexuality and the BibleThis is only incidental to what we're discussing. I still gave you a valid summation of the origin of the book in it's present form. I'm not trying to get into accuracy of ancient times. That's another whole topic, and quite frankly it's irrelevant. "Mein Kampf" is probably very historically accurate too. This alone doesn't make anything in the book morally correct or factual. It wasn't out of context. I pasted the specific passage of Jesus' words on the subject. This distinction sounds like semantics to me. Your own post just now gives the explanation for the Sabbath. Fine. There's a start. How important is it? Apparently very! Do these look familiar? # Ex.31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death." # Ex.31:15 "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." # Ex.35:2 "Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." So the Old Testament makes it QUITE clear that it is a capital offence to work on that day. So what did Jesus say? Mark 2:27 “Jesus said unto them, the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." So even by your argument, and I'm seeing a LOT of it when doing searches, anything can become conveniently "tradition" laws instead of moral as long as Jesus set an example we can interpret that way. So apparently most true believers assume if he was silent, there was meant to be no change? I think I get the picture... In any event. This is a dead end issue. Since they are arguing incessantly about this on the internet on all different religious sites, it's obviously a hot button topic. I'm simply trying to establish what is very important for the basis of this argument against homosexuality. If I can demonstrate that the Bible has factual errors in ANY way, then it cannot be inerrant. If you do an honest search, you can find many sites that go into unbelievable detail and skewers the Bible from back to front over contradictions and errors. Here's just one for example: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ If someone cannot show these very logical, and well laid out explanations to be wrong, then they are deluding themselves if they refuse to accept it as truth. It's really that simple. It was part of the "sticky" quote from this message board. It was important to include those parts so the responses to it were understood. Even besides that, I said this was someone else's words. I borrowed his rebuttals just to make a point. he's not on this message board. Long story. someone else brought up this board, copied the sticky and posted it. He was responding to it over there. The whole problem with this position is that you are STARTING with the premise that the Bible is authoritative and correct. It's impossible to debate such things if the source material is considered to be infallible. If my initial post is filled with innacuracies, then please trot them out in detail. I would find that quite hard to believe as any direct evidence I brought up would have been specific parts of scripture, but all right. Now where were we? I'm still confused how we never really got into the true issue here..... ok. Let me start over! |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame