Binxly's Top Ten

By
Wed, 10/03/2007 - 20:42 ET

Binxly stated:

As far as facts go, the stories of the bible are often contradictory

I figure that in a book as long as the Bible using "often" would lead to at least 100 contradictions (about 1 every 8 pages?). I figure 10 should be a slam dunk.

You're up Binxly, what are your top ten contradictions?

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

botg

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:17 ET by shawn228

Hi botg,

Can't think of ten off the top of my head but here is one

Is it an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Thought about that one all by myself, but there is a whole website dedicated to bible contradictions

shawn

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:26 ET by

do you want justice or do you want mercy?

I went to the website you linked and found some really feeble stuff Shawn, like 3rd grade level logic. Nonetheless shall we not wait for Binx?

Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE

botg

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:32 ET by shawn228

I never said the site made sense, heck I only googled it and looked at it for a few seconds. My question though. "do you want justice or mercy" is a little vague. Could you elaborate on it?

ps,

I'm sorry for butting in. If this party is reserved for you and binx only, I will bow out:)

Shawn

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:37 ET by Free Stinker

Shawn - I'll start PM-ing you about that "list" I don;t want to derail botg's thread. He was asking binxly to specify what he meant.

fs

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:43 ET by shawn228

I did not see the thread where this was heated discussion. I guess this is why it is in the woodshed huh? Doh!!! Just budding in where I should not as usual. Apologies to all:-)

shawn

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 21:46 ET by

an eye for an eye is justice

turn the other cheek is mercy

which do you prefer?

To have two principles operating within a system is not contradiction. Most of the decisions we all make every day have multiple reasons behind them; some pluses and some minuses. This doesn't mean they are contradictory just competing.

Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE

the new covenent

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 11:41 ET by TruthMonger

you have heard it said...

but I say to you...

the new covenent

if the Bible doesn't make sense, then OBVIOUSLY the Bible must be wrong - it couldn't be me, could it:)?

shawn228...contradictions...

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 12:08 ET by vrwc13

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26

Contradiction? No. Disernment is to be used as to when to respond and when not to. I use this as my basis of responding to blogs or not.

Is it an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Not a contradiction, but simular to the above. Eye for eye meant "let the punishment fit the crime". Murder and petty theft should not have the same "civil" punishment, even though God sees sin as sin.

Turn the other cheek is meant for how we Christians are to respond when we are confronted by others. This does not replace the need or possibility of "civil" authorities proceeding with charges. I am sure you have seen in the news where families/individuals have "forgiven" a criminal for their crime, but they nor the authorities do not stop the legal procedings, as the law would prohibit this.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" or "Render onto Caesar what is Caesars, and render onto God what is Gods" Matthew 22:21. In otherwords, Caesar represents the law, and we must follow the law. God represents, well God, and He says we must forgive, just as He will forgive us.

As in most things, context is important.

Is it an eye for an eye or

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 15:09 ET by dscott

Is it an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Or is it a false dichotomy offered by a person who either 1. understands very little of the Bible or 2. Is a bad person wishing to rationalize his/her lack of accountability before God by proclaiming His lack of existance or authority to judge us.

To a person who understands what makes an action "sin" an "eye for an eye" is about the punishment fitting the crime in the context of the criminal system as outlined in the OT as carried out by the lawful authorities and also bringing people to understand that an offense that causes pain and suffering is "sin".

To a person who understands the concept of "turning the other cheek" is about a personal lifestyle of not taking offense at every slight, not taking the Law into your own hands (revenge) and deciding that there are times when being in the right is not as important as walking around with a chip on your shoulder waiting for someone to knock it off. Nor does turning the other cheek validate victimhood, a dysfunctional lifestyle that says the only difference between the victim and the abuser is who has the upper hand at any given time.

To those who are Christians, the idea of mercy over justice is not about feeling sorry for someone, it is about forgiveness, personal responsibility for one's actions and not getting what we deserve for our actions from God's own hand.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

Ok, here we go. Now, in

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 13:28 ET by Binxly

Ok, here we go. Now, in preface, let me say that I don not necessarily agree with all (or basically any) of these contradictions as vrwc13 had said, alot lies in the context. However, again, this is not an argument against the bible or God, rather just my distaste of people who will use the bible to defend a hateful heart held for all things 'different' or 'odd.' Again, while I've had the homosexual debate with many here, I do not refer to any of you in my direction of anger, rather, I am upset with such people as bloggers I have stumbled upon who have gone as far as to say God would damn a man for wearing eyeliner or a girl for wearing her boyfriend's/husbands boxer shorts! These people say the book is the infalible word of God. That there IS NO room for 'interpretation.' So, here are just a few contractictions that, again, in context are not so much contradictions, but when looked at from this static, set in stone literal stance, *are* mildly to greatly contradictory.

So goes the list:

1.)

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

2.)

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

3.)

The Order of Creation:

Genesis 1:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Genesis 2

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

4.)

The explaination of Moses' character

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

5.)

Confusion of Jesus' final Earthly speaking:

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

6.)

Can God be seen in a physical manifestation?

Can be:

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

Can't be:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Again, this is just a few things that are mildly distressing, yet, in correct context CAN perhaps be explained.

That said, these 'people' I refer to have no room for such context. They believe the word is and always will be. Then you have those who seem to only hold onto the extremes when it suits their wills. Such as the idea of the ejaculate of a male is sacred, and when spent on merely pleasure, is as great a sin as homosexuality. However, I'd love to find out honestly how many of these people who rush to condemn homosexuals have ever masturbated, especially at a young age, or ever engaged in 'protected sex' or even sex merely for pleasure and not mere enjoyment. Again, I'm not advocating such a STRONG stance, I see no sin in masturbation, protected sex, nor sex for pleasure with your spouse or mate. What I DO find *funny* though is many of these overzealous people I have run into in life will conveniently *forget* these *other* rules and stick to only preaching the ones who support their right to be prejudice.

That said, again, as a libertarian who believes in complete personal freedom, you should be free to hate whomever you want. Just as I have a right to ignore or debate someone for said hate. I don't believe in the homosexual agenda that wishes to FORCE its lifestyle upon people anymore than I support people like Jessie jackson who claim things like 'gangsta rap' and 'hood culture/life' is somehow inheirent 'black culture' that needs to be spread as well. I simply believe if we just treated each other like equals and dropped our baggage at our door, or at least kept it in tow (or toe, crap I forget!) then I think we'd all be better off. Then again, it's a free country so whether you choose to do so is your choice.

I have no qualms with people having their own feelings on such things as homosexuality but, as a friend of many people who are 100% NORMAL, HATE the homosexual agenda, and just so happen to be homosexual (one is transexual) it just pains me to see things like this. Many of them will not even bat an eye to someone's comment of 'fag!' or 'drag queen!' or 'f***in' homo!' etc. They are used to such ignorance, and sadly, it will never be 100% gone. What DOES affect them however, one in particular, is when they ARE religious people who are *good* christians, yet have people left and right tell them that they are 'wrong' and that 'God will punish them' that somehow they are seen unclean in God's eyes.

That is the equivalent of saying the father of all fathers is not only ashamed of you, but wants nothing to do with you. I can't even imagine how I would feel if I felt such a feeling :(

Here you go binx:)!

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 15:01 ET by TruthMonger

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

How is this contradictory? Peace and war are a part of the universe - and God created everything in the universe.

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Two different scenarios - do this for one - do that for the other - you don't always do the same thing for everything do you?

3.)

The Order of Creation:

Genesis 1:

Genesis 2

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How is this contradictory? God can do anything.

4.)

The explaination of Moses' character

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

How is this contradictory? Differnet moods? I can be passive and later aggressive - it's called anger management.

5.)

Confusion of Jesus' final Earthly speaking:

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

How is this contradictory? Ever heard the one about the 3 witnesses of the same crime telling 3 different stories?

6.)

Can God be seen in a physical manifestation?

Can be:

Here are my concerns with contradiction:

1. I am a lowly human with very limited powers of understanding - we can not even begin to understand God completely - like a 2 year old can not grasp astrophysics at first

2. God can do anything

3. These seeming contradictions could simply be a test of faith. I want to believe the Bible is true. Do you? Everyone lives solely based upon belief. Forget contradictions - try believing that you can walk on water, or raise people like Lazerus from the dead.

...these 'people' I refer to have no room for such context. They believe the word is and always will be. Then you have those who seem to only hold onto the extremes when it suits their wills. Such as the idea of the ejaculate of a male is sacred, and when spent on merely pleasure, is as great a sin as homosexuality. However, I'd love to find out honestly how many of these people who rush to condemn homosexuals have ever masturbated, especially at a young age, or ever engaged in 'protected sex' or even sex merely for pleasure and not mere enjoyment.

The Bible is full of IDEALS - the Bible also says WE ALL FALL SHORT. Does that mean we should not still strive for our ideals? Failure to live up to one's ideals is not necessarily hypocracy - it is often just weakness...

Then again, it's a free country so whether you choose to do so is your choice.

I hear this alot - but then how do you explain laws against pedophilia and murder? Shouldn't they be abolished under that logic too?

Why should they care about evil like this? Do they harbor some guilt inside about their behavior? Why if it is truly not wrong?

That is the equivalent of saying the father of all fathers is not only ashamed of you, but wants nothing to do with you. I can't even imagine how I would feel if I felt such a feeling :(

I have expressed God's love for your "gay" friends, Binxly. And yet I am a supporter of Godhatesfags.com in some respects. I agree with their Biblical foundation - I do not support their methods. But God does hate fags. He hates heterosexuals like me, too...

Hate the sin and love the sinner. Hate is a form of love.

Keep em coming please!

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

TM, at first I believed you

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 15:20 ET by Binxly

TM, at first I believed you were possibly one of those who ascribed to the book as homosexuals being damned across the board. Don't get me wrong, even I can agree with the godhatesfags.com in a certain sense. Nothing bothers me more than someone who is homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) and becomes a bar hopping, person-using, permiscuous person who cares only about which 'hottie' they are going to bag that night. In that sense, I do agree the homosexual agenda is hurting and possibly ruining our next generation by setting the wrong moral standard, ie. no morals at all. I think you actually understand where I'm comming from in regards to my defense of the homosexuals I know as they are *not* these club going, permiscuous, perpetual children who believe their sexual orientation opts them out from being any kind of adult.

I have since passed on God's love through you to said friend(s) and I am glad to hear such things as, even something as small as a stranger saying such things, it means alot to them I could definately tell. Ashlee had even mentioned to me that its things like that which give her hope that God doesn't resent her and who she is. I enjoy your posts as well TM, and while we may not always see eye to eye, I can tell, at least on educated assumption, that you too indeed try to follow the good word as close as possible but making sure not to damn others along the way. I cant speak for the others in that respect, but I can say I am very glad to have people like you in the world. There's too many spouting the negative and the fire and brimstone. Not enough people explaining that God loves us and only wants us to strive for a moral higher ground because in the end it actually *benefits* us. Sorta like a father who is tough on his kid to get a job almost. :-P

Also, I checked out your

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 15:38 ET by Binxly

Also, I checked out your linked site and I cracked up. Good thing I'm not much for seafood :-P

I did find something tho equally distressing though that was linked through the site. I know the site is a parody to mock how over the top some sites like 'godhatesfags.com' are, but this link bothered me, check it out:

http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/gensem.html

So apparently, by this man's count, the ACT of homosexuality is not the sin, but rather the act of desiring to be, or being effeminate. Lordy I hope that is not the case. If so, I'm screwed! :-X

According to this man's view, because I have long hair, style it, wear smaller, stylish, more fashionable (often equated to 'effeminate') clothes, and happen to be a rather 'small' individual in the realm of physique, because I choose to be such a person, *I'm* the cardinal sin. That's sad. I guess its not that bad though, at least I know if this is true David Bowie will still have it worse than me :-P

Salvation is through faith

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 18:42 ET by Avatar

Salvation is through faith in Christ Jesus, not in works. There is such a thing as a saved homosexual. These homosexuals seek God's strength to resist, and ask God's forgiveness when they faulter.

don't think that we all are like those ridiculous clowns from the south that march from town to town with 'God hates fags' signs.

The Avatar

I didn't think anyone here

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 08:26 ET by Binxly

I didn't think anyone here was like THOSE crazy people with signs. Those are not the faithful, those are the fearful and shameless. They find something that makes them queasy then goes back to the bible to justify their prejudice. They KNOW they *hate* on their own, they just use the excuse of God to pass the buck.

That said, 'homosexuals' in default don't necessarily need 'saved.' Someone living a life of promescuity in which they are sleeping with multiple mates indiscriminately and throwing all caution to the wind, yes, those people need saved. However, someone who's in a relationship where the only thing different from any other committed relationship out there is that theirs is between two people of the same sex does *not* need saved any more that the heterosexual, monogamous mates do.

"However, someone who's in

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 09:49 ET by Avatar

"However, someone who's in a relationship where the only thing different from any other committed relationship out there is that theirs is between two people of the same sex does *not* need saved any more that the heterosexual, monogamous mates do. "

Scipturally, you are wrong. See my post below.

The Avatar

So you have no qualms about

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:30 ET by Binxly

So you have no qualms about following a God who discriminates not my moral act but by which way your heart works?

I for one do not worship a God who is so awfully prejudice. I say that because as I stated before, I *KNOW* God is not this way. Again, I'm aware I will never change your mind as it seems you ARE convinced God hates homosexuality inheirently and that doesn't bother you since you probably haven't gotten to the level of empathy with someone in such a situation (again not being derogatory here, I just think you haven't the same level of understanding I do of this situation and the people in it.)

I'm simply saying I know of God, i've felt his presence. he is not a man to damn good people because they love a different gender than the 'defined norm.' Again, it's through faith I know this. Some may ridicule that statement, but remember, at one point, eating shellfish was an equal sin. Imagine the first person who felt God would not damn someone for eating Red Lobster, I imagine they were called crazy too. nowadays though, and this is according to the literal sense you believe in the book, eating shellfish will guarentee you passage to hell.

Do any of you enjoy crab legs? ;-P

God IS just. His word IS

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:03 ET by Avatar

God IS just. His word IS truth. what you have done here is taken human reasoning and injected it into God say "God couldn't possibly think that way". It doesn't matter what you think, it's what the Bible says.

CHOOSING to be homosexual, choosing to live a homosexual life in a homosexual relationship IS damning. Everyone is forgiven, not everyone accepts God's forgiveness.

I have no quams about it, because it's not my creation to do with as I please. HE is God, HE makes the rules, HE is the ultimate decision of right and wrong, not me, you, the pope, not anyone else.

The Avatar

The Avatar 1: Please

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 18:40 ET by Avatar

The Avatar

1: Please observe context in Exodus 15. God preserved his promise to Israel and destroyed the egyptians in the red sea. this here is Moses' and Miriam's song, praising the Lord for DELIVERING them and keeping his promise to bring them out of egypt safely. God made us, God can destroy us, which is exactly the case of the Egyptians.

2) Once again, observe context. The Isaiah passage is God announcing his judgement on Babylon for it's wickedness. The Deuteronomy passage is God laying out specific laws for the Israelites. Again, human laws are for us to obey, not God. God cannot contradict God, God does not contradict himself here, READ THE BOOK IN CONTEXT

3) I think what you're pointing to here is God's special garden called 'Eden'. This isn't a contradiction, as the previous passages state that plant life was already exsistant, but God planted this special garden later on. Contradiction? Not even close.

4) I'm not sure what you think you've got here, evidently Moses' command was to exact God's vengeance on the Midianites, which i believe is what he reinforced to the commanders.

5) Again, what do you have here? The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews of the time, to clearly show each and every prophecy fulfilled from the Old Testament. The book of John however, was written in an evangelical (or outreach) tone, to gentiles seeking the gospel (which is why the Book of John is so much shorter than Matthew or Luke). You see these tones throughout reading them. Matthew begins with the Genealogy of Christ, and John begins with a summary of God's creation, our fall, and the promise of a savior. Keep this in mind.

6) This is really a reach. God can choose to show himself as he pleases or remain hidden physically to all of us. that's not contradiction, that omnipotence.

Bottom line, use scripture to interpret scripture.

well Binx

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 21:22 ET by

i am not sure what to say as you don't agree with your examples. But i will address them

1) a contradiction? no it is foolishness and thinking people know better

2) two different situations thus different judgements (do you not believe that God knows which children will follow the deeds of their fathers and which will repent?) also one is pronounced against the enemies of God's people and the other is for legal dealings within God's chosen

3) perspective, where are the actions viewed from?

4) you mis-characterize meekness, it does not mean Barney Fife

5) different eye-witnesses, these are complimentary rather than contradictory (and one example where Q is a questionable theory)

6) did Moses really or is this simply describing the special relationship that Moses had he could talk directly in conversation, did not Moses write these things?

i will get back to you on your other concerns later, but still think that you do not believe Scripture to be the WORD of God

Support our Troops

Binx

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 21:37 ET by

in answer to your other concerns, yes indeed there are some wackos who go about in God's name condemning. These are not the norm so i think you are overly sensitive for some reason.

There are many ways to fall short of the standard but we can always ask forgiveness and repent. The greater judgement is on those who justify their behavior.

Support our Troops

I just simply fail to

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 08:35 ET by Binxly

I just simply fail to believe God's love and acceptance is conditional on who you love. I am not talking about homosexuals and gender variant people who whore themselves or engage in behavior that causes direct harm to others. However, as I said above, my beef is not neccessarily with the bible, but if you're going to take it literal, take it ALL literal. That means, sadly, as TM said, if you eat shellfish, you better not talk about homosexual sin because that is deemed equally damnable. Most people would say to think eating a food would cause damnation is foolish and I agree. So why is it NOT foolish to think God judges us based on WHO we love, regardless if we are faithful in that?

Do you truely believe a homosexual, committed, monogamous couple is damned before a heterosexual couple with spots of infidelity? Are they damned before a monogamous hetero couple is? If so, why? God judges us in our acts and faith, not whom we love. I know I'll never change the minds of many here but I *KNOW* that God will never damn these people simply for their feelings. Nor would he damn someone living a normal, moral life yet also in a comitted homosexual relationship. Again, its one of those 'outside looking in' things and that was the hardest thing for me to realize. These people I have met and the friends I have who are gay are GOOD people. Probably better than most heterosexual people I've met. That is by no means to say homosexuals are usually better or even as good morally as people, but the ones I know are. That said, you'd sleep well knowing they are damned while you are saved?

If so that's terribly un-Christ like. Just MHO.

Do you truely believe a

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 09:46 ET by Avatar

Do you truely believe a homosexual, committed, monogamous couple is damned before a heterosexual couple with spots of infidelity?

Yes. The difference is a heterosexual couple can seek forgiveness of sins for infidelity. But a homosexual couple is ALWAYS sinful because in being a couple or even wanting to be married is ACTIVELY SINNING. It doesn't matter that they may be good people or that they may even be great people. In CHOOSING to pursue a sinful lifestyle, rather than obey what God has to say, they are walking the line of destruction with the Lord.

The Avatar

Well, as I've said before,

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:33 ET by Binxly

Well, as I've said before, I hope you also never masturbate, use protection, nor engage in sex for pleasure. Also I hope you avoid all shellfish. To participate in such acts is also a sin.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that anyone is 100% committed to the idea of homosexuality being morally wrong PURELY for its religious reasoning. I am 99.9% sure personal intolerance and uncomfort is also an inner, sub-concious driving force for ascribing to such beliefs.

So, Avatar, I assume you don't masturbate, use protection, or EVER hope to engage in sex for pleasure, right? And I assume you don't EVER consume shellfish?

Homophiles

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:37 ET by Sergeant ROCK

The fact remains that ALL sex between homosexuals is for pleasure only.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

So how come...

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:42 ET by sarcasmo

The "turkey baster" technique seems to work EVERY TIME for the lesbians I know who've tried it?? (In fact, both times I know of personally it worked THE FIRST TIME, for some reason!) Females can make babies, males can't, but that has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals of either gender.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Huh?

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:54 ET by Sergeant ROCK

Your apologetic rhetoric aside, the fact remains that copulation between those of the same sex will not yield offspring. Where am I losing you here?

Btw..the contents of the turkey baster comes from a male. Are you tracking now?

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

Srgt. Rock, to be an

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:04 ET by Binxly

Srgt. Rock, to be an 'apologist' their needs to be something you're apologizing for or the *need* for an apology. If I said I see nothing wrong with gay ravers who do various drugs and have sex with multiple people with reckless abandon then YES I'd be an apologist for such immoral behavior. The fact still stands that the only 'logic' you have for this 'homosexuality is a sin' is literally the one time homosexuality is specifically labeled as evil. Plus, 'because God says so' is pretty lame. I agree, he's infalible, but he's certainly not irrational. unscrupulous sex and infidelity harms others as it breaks trust and puts people at physical risk. Monogamous relations are not a sin. You are saying that God is prejuidce for the simple sake of being so. Every other rule he has laid out, for the most part, makes perfect sense spiritually and logically. That he does not wish you to cause harm to others and to love one another and obey his will. His will IS infalible and therefore, it creates a fallibility if such a God were to say 'thats the way it is because I say so.'

I'm not saying homosexuality in the sense of the homosexual sub-culture isn't dangerous, its VERY dangerous. however, someone who lives life just as you, but instead of a wife, has a husband, and that being the only difference, it is *not* a sin. I can respect your aversion and disgust with homosexual acts, as I've said before, the idea of two men doing the nasty is enough to make me a lil queasy. However, so is the thought of mayonase and shellfish. Perhaps I should become an active member of the 'God Hates Shrimp' Movement.

Binxly is sarcasmo?

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:14 ET by Sergeant ROCK

I assume you are the same people since the post you are responding to isn't addressed to you.

First, it appears that you are jumping to conclusions. I wasn't defining what a sin is or isn't, just stating the obvious that some of you, evidently, have a problem with.

Much of what you posted is in response to things I haven't said. Are you new to forums?

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

Dimwitted assumption.

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:16 ET by sarcasmo

But amusing.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

You are the master...

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:25 ET by Sergeant ROCK

.. of dimwitted assumptions. I am but a student.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

A student

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:32 ET by sarcasmo

With 0 proof of his allegation, unlike what's above for me...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Self-Adulator Strikes Again!

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:39 ET by Sergeant ROCK

Can you ever put aside your grandiose visions of self-importance and understand that the jab was against the idiot that can't keep his posts straight?? Of course you can't. So, save your sanctimonious claptrap there, chubby.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

I'll do what I want.

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:41 ET by sarcasmo

Keep trying, you're obviously used to failure by now....
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

As will I, chubby..

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:44 ET by Sergeant ROCK

But do continue on your diversionary track as you have failed to provide anything substantive to counter with other than your self-bloviating.

Jack*ss.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

Binx

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 19:41 ET by

'apologia' (Greek: logical defense; reasoning)

it has naught to do with apologizing or a 'need' for an apology

Support our Troops

No apologies here.

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:06 ET by sarcasmo

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but sperm from a brother, etc. isn't too hard to come-by, and that's how both lesbians did it. And I never said or implied the contents did not come from a willing male. I simply remarked on the shocking "2 for 2 on the first...er...baste" success of this somewhat primative-sounding method.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

So is sex for a woman and

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:57 ET by Binxly

So is sex for a woman and man incapable of procreation. So is sex after a hysterectomy(sp?) or a Vasecdomy( I KNOW I misspelt that one.) That said, that argument fails to hold weight. I understand the bible says sex is for procreation, but again, I ask you Rock, you must never masturbate when you realize that is technically equally damning, same as protected sex. So you've probably had sex, well, hopefully only and I mean *ONLY* when a child was the hopes, correct? Also, again, I take it you refuse all shellfish too, correct?

Another Helmet Sold!

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:03 ET by Sergeant ROCK

Let me dumb it down so that even you can (maybe) understand:

Sex between a male and female can result in offspring.

Sex between a male and a male cannot result in offspring.

Sex between a female and a female cannot result in offspring.

Dispute that, idiot. And save your sodomite apologist claptrap - that's dodging the issue.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

Sgt Rock, as usual, you

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:09 ET by Binxly

Sgt Rock, as usual, you can't debate anything rationally. I leave you to brood over your own inner hate. I pray by the time you are laid before God you find love for things you fear. If not, it shall not matter, God loves you anyways. That said, I consider you as good as gone from this argument. My 'claptrap' is only a trap to you because you have no valid response other than the procreation argument in which I've presented honest fact that the book ALSO states sexual protection, self-pleasure, and even eating of certain sea creatures is EQUALLY sinful.

Guess you better get goin to making those signs to picket outside Red lobster. Have fun arguing with yourself.

The pot scolds the kettle

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:21 ET by Sergeant ROCK

You're hypocrisy aside, I did not bring up the issue of sin - you are seeing what you want to see. What I did was challenge your assertion that sex between homosexuals and heterosexuals are one in the same. The fact that you make excuses for this lifestyle on a religious level though, does indeed make you an apologist. I'm no theologian, but monogamy doesn't make it any less sinful.

So, you keep trying that putting lipstick on a pig tactic all you want.

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

You're missing the point.

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:09 ET by Avatar

You're missing the point. you are describing ACTIONS. Sinful acts are forgiven by God. The difference between sexual immorality and a homosexual lifestyle is this: Sexual immorality is forgiven (as is homosexuality), but there IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOD-PLEASING RELATIONSHIP as far as homosexuality is concerned. God EXPRESSLY forbids it. Therefore, I do things that are sinful, we all do, I ask God's forgiveness and I seek to change my ways. A Homosexual living in a relationship with another homosexual asking for forgiveness is moot, unless they seek God's help to change their lifestyle, which would involve in terminating the sinful relationship. You see the difference now?

The Avatar

Avatar, I do indeed see

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:15 ET by Binxly

Avatar,

I do indeed see your logic, and it is sound. However, I just simply refuse to believe that pure love, God or not, that is felt between two people should not be the defining factor in God's judgement. I am 100% aware I could be wrong, and if I am, I accept hell as my eternal place. I am no martyr nor do I want to be, but I *will not* long for a place like heaven if good people are turned away because of who they loved. I am sure turning away from this is seen as turning away from God, quite possibly the biggest sin out there, but I just cannot in good concience accept salvation while others are damned for eternity.

God is a Loving God, but he

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:26 ET by Avatar

God is a Loving God, but he is also a Just and Fair God. He has said what is and is not sinful, and he will hold sinners accountable at the last day. Open and shut. If you can't wrap your mind around that, then the concept of Law and Gospel is invisible to you. It's a wonder you can believe at all, if you are making God in your own image, according to how YOU would feel. God is not human, God is supreme judge of what is and what is not right. If you would rather burn in hell (as you've stated you'd rather do if people are *sniff* turned away for their unrepentant, deliberate homosexuality), than experience heaven, that's your call.

The Avatar

I am 100% aware I could be wrong, and if I am, I accept hell as

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:31 ET by vrwc13

I am 100% aware I could be wrong, and if I am, I accept hell as my eternal place.

Years of self-gratifying pleasure and "love" in exchange for an eternity in hell?

Do you see what you are saying here?

God is REAL clear on how we should live, real clear. We all have to sacrifice some of our fleshly desires, die to self. God, the creator of the universe, including you, has asked us to live a life in certain ways. In return, He offers an eternal life with Him. If not, an eternity without Him. Even sent His only begotton Son to die for our sins. It starts by accepting His Son as Lord and Savior. It's followed by obedience to His ways, not ours.

Come on now!

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 14:34 ET by Sergeant ROCK

Everyone's doin' it!

Indoctrinate-U

Our Education. Their Politics.

Binx

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 19:32 ET by

Did not Peter have a direct revelation from God to arise and eat?

What was the intent of the Levitical Law?

What is the Literal Principle for Biblical Interpretation?

"If your eye offend thee, pluck it out" Jesus (not very Christ-like of him)

Support our Troops

Jabroni

Wed, 10/03/2007 - 22:16 ET by Avatar

Yes, Binxly, let's have it.

The Avatar

Jabroni? I wasn't saying

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 09:23 ET by Binxly

Jabroni? I wasn't saying there were contradictions in the sense that someone like Leon does, I was not trying to fuel the fire. I merely meant that in the bible vs how we live today are not always in direct coorelation, yet, when a socially uncomfortable issue such as homosexuality or gender variance comes up, people point back to the direct word of the bible as damning of such people. We're a bit busy now but we'll die down (at work) I'll explain further what I meant with examples around lunch. Sorry again if I upset you botg, I didn't mean to cause a rukus and I again certainly wasn't trying to de-validate the bible. Just that there are some VERY specific things it says that even the most devout allows some 'bend' room on, yet when it came to issues like the previous mentioned, people run to the bible to explain their intolerance. Far be it from me to say you HAVE to accept people, you don't. I just know too many people personally who are 'creeped out' by anything out of the norm and, their aversion to homosexuals and transgender people is a prejudice that is ingrained in them, nothing really to do with religion, just fear of the 'different' yet they run to the bible to defend their aversion to downright awful treatment of such people. I've even heard that to be homosexual/transgender/transexual and a christian is 'not allowed.' My point was more or less that people overlook certain 'rules' since they don't ascribe to them, yet, when someone who is harming no one but is different comes along, they bust out the big book to accuse when they are guilty too of falling short of grace, as we all are. That also I tried to support with my views that alot of terms, ONLY when taken literal, can be seen as contradictory to *other* terms used in the book if also taken 100% literally. As I said tho, I'll be back around noonish (its 915 here, East Coast.)

As for Avatar, you'll get much more productive discussion when you don't approach conversation in such an aggressive and provoking way. Such an initial post is in league with the baiting and crassness of such posters as Leon. Just my humble opinion tho. Take it for what you will. Be back soon.

Gimme a break, i'd just

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 10:25 ET by Avatar

Gimme a break, i'd just recently finished watching a movie starring 'The Rock'.

The Avatar

haha fair enough, sorry,

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 11:29 ET by Binxly

haha fair enough, sorry, before I pass the 'morning fog' I tend to be testy. That said, I used to love the Rock back in the 'nation' days. I loved rooting for the bad guy back then. Haven't really watched much since that period of time tho.

Just checkin before lunch, wanted to make sure no one also thought I was being a fecitious troll, I can understand how its easy to take such a general statement as I made out of context. Catch you here in about 30 minutes all :)

Here's another good'n too

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 15:47 ET by Binxly

http://www.jesuswouldbeashamedofyou.com/

Binx....the Rock

Thu, 10/04/2007 - 19:01 ET by Blonde

Home town boy does great!

Here's what "the Rock" has done lately.

Nice guy.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

That's awesome blonde! He

Fri, 10/05/2007 - 13:35 ET by Binxly

That's awesome blonde!

He always seemed like a nice guy when they interview him, at least out of character that is. I think my fav movie he was in was his part in Be cool. Just the idea of how out there and strange his character was really cracked me up. Especially that all baby blue suit, I was dyyyyyyying haha