Oh those poor, poor "christians"...

[Retro Rob]

Not a single word.

You'd think that if it was important he would have at least ONE SENTENCE to spare to condemn it.

If you read even the verses in the Torah in Hebrew it's quite clear that the language it's translated into was wrong. Most Jews do not consider homosexuality an abomination because it's never mentioned in the Torah.

Sodom and Gomorrah certainly has nothing to do with homosexuality and yet it's preached in evangelical churches all the time.

Lol "translation errors" is always used when people want to disagree with something.

Look at the many creationists that say "day" was mistranslated from Hebrew to mean anything other than a literal 24-hours day.

Its an easy copout.

Whenever they're ready to reinterpret a text, they always "re-translate" to fit a belief.

It's been done for centuries.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality....nor did he mention pedophilia, beastiality, object sexuality...and the list goes on.

So that catholic chruch, by virtue of Jesus not condemning it, are not wrong for sexually abusing kids.

How dare we use scripture to condemn them. Jesus NEVER condemned pedophiles.

Ah - now I see why people against homosexuality lump in the other things you listed as well.

Nonetheless, they are clearly two different types of sexual acts;
- homosexuality is between two adult (for the most part),.. so, it's consensual, both want to do this
- pedophilia, beastiality and an object is one person, inflicting a sexual act on someone/thing else,.. so both do not want to have sex

 

[kage69]

I'm curious to know the progressive viewpoint as it applies to Mississippi.

I guess you should go ask a progressive then. I was referring to Mississippi's distinction as being the most religious state in the union, a trait I consider germane to the story for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. The state's ranking in education is just icing on the cake really, fits quite well with the story's funny contradiction on discrimination.

In fact, I'd be curious blah blah blah blah

The butthurt is delicious! If you guys are trying to appear unconcerned about this story you are failing miserably. Do continue proving me right though, I'll never get tired of watching you guys basically slapping yourselves in the face, then trying to sound smug about it. Carry on.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah - now I see why people against homosexuality lump in the other things you listed as well.

Nonetheless, they are clearly two different types of sexual acts;
- homosexuality is between two adult (for the most part),.. so, it's consensual, both want to do this
- pedophilia, beastiality and an object is one person, inflicting a sexual act on someone/thing else,.. so both do not want to have sex

Nope, just saying its easy to argue from what wasn't said, instead of grasping the spirit of the entire bible.

You're just filling gaps.

 

[thraashman]

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality....nor did he mention pedophilia, beastiality, object sexuality...and the list goes on.

So that catholic chruch, by virtue of Jesus not condemning it, are not wrong for sexually abusing kids.

How dare we use scripture to condemn them. Jesus NEVER condemned pedophiles.

Actually you make a good point. Though I'm not sure if it's the point you're trying to make. Condemnation of acts like pedophilia should be made by the standards of today's society and not by the standards of the Bible.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Lol "translation errors" is always used when people want to disagree with something.

Look at the many creationists that say "day" was mistranslated from Hebrew to mean anything other than a literal 24-hours day.

Its an easy copout.

Whenever they're ready to reinterpret a text, they always "re-translate" to fit a belief.

It's been done for centuries.

I agree with that but it's reversed when it comes to what yom means, in this case it's actually Christians trying to tell Jews what yom means while Jews protest and say that it CANNOT mean that in the linguistic context.

There is no mention of homosexuality in the Torah.

 

[thraashman]

I agree with that but it's reversed when it comes to what yom means, in this case it's actually Christians trying to tell Jews what yom means while Jews protest and say that it CANNOT mean that in the linguistic context.

There is no mention of homosexuality in the Torah.

I think my favorite mistranslation I learned about recently is that in the original language text of the Bible nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin. My second favorite is that there is no one named Jesus in the Bible, it's Joshua.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality....nor did he mention pedophilia, beastiality, object sexuality...and the list goes on.

So that catholic chruch, by virtue of Jesus not condemning it, are not wrong for sexually abusing kids.

How dare we use scripture to condemn them. Jesus NEVER condemned pedophiles.

Matthew 18:6

I would say that in the days of Jesus paedophilia was common and not illegal in any way.

It's not strange that he didn't object to it then and there are places in this world where it's STILL not condemned.

All that means is that we decide for our society, we as empathic beings do understand this perfectly well if we are rational. It is not strange at all that in the ONLY nations where it's not prohibited now it's declared good by religious figures.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I think my favorite mistranslation I learned about recently is that in the original language text of the Bible nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin. My second favorite is that there is no one named Jesus in the Bible, it's Joshua.

True, in the original manuscripts this piece of information does not appear at all.

If you wanted to pronounce it as a Jew would then Yeshua (the Y is there instead of a J only because it fits the language better) would fit better. It fits better all around.

There was no one named Mary or Josef either.

 

[kage69]

Fact: you posted in the following in your OP

I was quoting the sentiments of others from that thread idiot. If you need to remind someone of a position they've held, how exactly do you do that without mentioning it? That reference was mockery of certain posts in that other thread, surely you can't be this dense? How exactly is someone else being completely wrong supposed to make me butthurt? I enjoy seeing false arguments and positions being put under scrutiny and refuted. Enjoyment != butthurt, not sure if I can make it any more simple than that for you.

Still, funny that you get your panties in a twist over me asking questions and providing support for my views, yet when someone takes a position that they refuse to substantiate, acting like a brat in the process - well that's just fine!

Still swinging and missing Londo, sorry. Why not try to prove you aren't some butthurt reactionary by addressing the subject of the thread? Making multiple posts regarding me and not the subject isn't really helping the narrative you're desperately trying to illustrate here, at all, it's just confirming what I've already said. Are you going to continue this slapping yourself behavior, or are you capable of manning up and addressing the news that has you so defensive?

 

[boomerang]

I'm feeling pretty proud right now, I've got to tell ya. I'm part of the "you guys" crowd. I hear this a lot. You guys this and you guys that. Sounds like a position of importance.

 

[Scotteq]

LOL Fundies

 

[smackababy]

I'm feeling pretty proud right now, I've got to tell ya. I'm part of the "you guys" crowd. I hear this a lot. You guys this and you guys that. Sounds like a position of importance.

'You guys' is okay, but once it turns in 'You people', I am getting the torch! Time to burn some racists at the stake, after a steak is what I've always said!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I was quoting the sentiments of others from that thread idiot. If you need to remind someone of a position they've held, how exactly do you do that without mentioning it? That reference was mockery of certain posts in that other thread, surely you can't be this dense? How exactly is someone else being completely wrong supposed to make me butthurt? I enjoy seeing false arguments and positions being put under scrutiny and refuted. Enjoyment != butthurt, not sure if I can make it any more simple than that for you.

Still, funny that you get your panties in a twist over me asking questions and providing support for my views, yet when someone takes a position that they refuse to substantiate, acting like a brat in the process - well that's just fine!

Still swinging and missing Londo, sorry. Why not try to prove you aren't some butthurt reactionary by addressing the subject of the thread? Making multiple posts regarding me and not the subject isn't really helping the narrative you're desperately trying to illustrate here, at all, it's just confirming what I've already said. Are you going to continue this slapping yourself behavior, or are you capable of manning up and addressing the news that has you so defensive?

Doesn't upset me in the least. Just showing how you had to include " how controlling and butthurt atheists are" in your OP in this thread. Which could be a Freudian slip showing that you were butthurt by their comments. This thread reminds me of a little pouting, butthurt child trying to get even with those "evil Christians" for saying bad things about atheists.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think my favorite mistranslation I learned about recently is that in the original language text of the Bible nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin. My second favorite is that there is no one named Jesus in the Bible, it's Joshua.

I would need several lines of evidence for this, and multiple cooberating sources.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I would need several lines of evidence for this, and multiple cooberating sources.

Are you kidding?

There is only one set of known original manuscripts, how the hell would there be corroborating sources to that?

Go research the original manuscripts, it's what you base your beliefs in and it should matter enough for you to put in the effort to read it on your own.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm feeling pretty proud right now, I've got to tell ya. I'm part of the "you guys" crowd. I hear this a lot. You guys this and you guys that. Sounds like a position of importance.

When someone uses the term "you guys" it's a generally a tip-off of the type of mentality you're dealing with.

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you kidding?

There is only one set of known original manuscripts, how the hell would there be corroborating sources to that?

Go research the original manuscripts, it's what you base your beliefs in and it should matter enough for you to put in the effort to read it on your own.

Youre terribly misinformed -- the orginals have yet to be found. Papyrus is perishable material, and the originals are no longer in existence, perhaps.

All we have is copies. We can look at the first copies, bit I've studied this, and the originals are either gone, or are yet to be discovered.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you kidding?

There is only one set of known original manuscripts, how the hell would there be corroborating sources to that?

Go research the original manuscripts, it's what you base your beliefs in and it should matter enough for you to put in the effort to read it on your own.

Wow...I learn something new every day!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Youre terribly misinformed -- the orginals have yet to be found. Papyrus is perishable material, and the originals are no longer in existence, perhaps.

All we have is copies. We can look at the first copies, bit I've studied this, and the originals are either gone, or are yet to be discovered.

I applaud your patience with these clowns who have no idea as to the sheer depth of their ignorance.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Youre terribly misinformed -- the orginals have yet to be found. Papyrus is perishable material, and the originals are no longer in existence, perhaps.

All we have is copies. We can look at the first copies, bit I've studied this, and the originals are either gone, or are yet to be discovered.

Of course it is, that is the point, there is no verified manuscript that says that Jesus was god even, but even in the earliest copies you cannot find any mention of Mary being a virgin.

That came 1200 years later.

 

[Retro Rob]

I applaud your patience with these clowns who have no idea as to the sheer depth of their ignorance.

Ingorance is in no short supply, I guess....

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course it is, that is the point, there is no verified manuscript that says that Jesus was god even, but even in the earliest copies you cannot find any mention of Mary being a virgin.

That came 1200 years later.

Evidence, please. I've never read this.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I applaud your patience with these clowns who have no idea as to the sheer depth of their ignorance.

And i applaud you for being so stupid that you cannot get a point. By earliest original manuscripts i do mean that, but the earliest writings (that were not copies, they were also original manuscripts because it's the FIRST time it was written, before that the information was passed by oral tradition) also do not mention the virgin mother.

1200 years later, she suddenly appears out of nowhere.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Evidence, please. I've never read this.

Of what? Do you want me to quote the entire thing in Greek? Have you no ability or wish to gain knowledge regarding your own religion?