OT Religious thread do not open if easily offended.

[rzrbk7777]

While lots of folks get all riled up over this stuff, the basic principle is solidly in line with our Constitution. If you have an event based upon a religion, then all religions get treated the same by those public entities. So, is there a Hanukkah or Ramadan or other similar type event? No, then just have a holiday party that covers everyone. Been that way for a long time, & is just basic separation of church and state to treat people equally.

Notre Dame or Georgetown or SMU can have a Christmas party because they are private schools with religious affiliations. Public institutions can't promote a specific religion.

Total BS. Where in the Constitution does it prevent people from celebrating their faith on public land? That is not anywhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is the right to exercise your religious beliefs as your faith dictates. I have never seen Christians try to exclude anybody from Christmas celebrations. Have you? If it offends somebody, they certainly have the freedom to not participate. That is what the Constitution was meant to provide, not the left wing garbage that is nothing more than PC persecution that is going on these days.

Fining Christians and forcing them out of business for not making gay wedding cakes is way more of a violation of the Constitution than having a Christmas party. Were you incensed over that?

 

[geoffhog]

You sure seem to know a lot about us Christians. Its a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. until you have it you cant understand it. Don't judge me or other Christians on your inability to understand our faith.

Well I attended an evangelical school up until the 8th grade. Went to an Assembly of God church till I was 23 every time the doors were open. Attended a Baptist Church for a few years after that. Everyone in my immediate family is an evangelical Christian and almost everyone in my extended family. My uncle is one of the most well respected missionaries in this country. I'm guessing I'm about as well versed as anyone in the mindset of Christians. Really not sure why you're so upset. I haven't been criticizing Christianity, just discussing whether Christmas is still a religious holiday.

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

Total BS. Where in the Constitution does it prevent people from celebrating their faith on public land? That is not anywhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is the right to exercise your religious beliefs as your faith dictates. I have never seen Christians try to exclude anybody from Christmas celebrations. Have you? If it offends somebody, they certainly have the freedom to not participate. That is what the Constitution was meant to provide, not the left wing garbage that is nothing more than PC persecution that is going on these days.

Fining Christians and forcing them out of business for not making gay wedding cakes is way more of a violation of the Constitution than having a Christmas party. Were you incensed over that?

But as a believer in Christ's teachings I acknowledge that not baking a cake for anyone for reasons of sin is directly opposed to the scripture.

How can we show the love of Christ to sinners by excluding them from anything we do. As a matter of US rights I see your point and it is noted. I also will note the failure in the logic of Christians whO do not embrace EVWRYONE the way Christ embraced the world. This gives "Christians" the clear view of hypocrisy and that then can be the message non belivers see as their reflection of Christ himself. That is not what we are called to do.

Sin is sin. No doubt about it. No one's sin is greater than any other. Going to church every Sunday does not make our sin go away, accepting God's grace does. However the next step is to live a life of Christ. Jesus embraced the lowest of the low. Christians, as seen by the public today, don't have the correct image.

Jesus washed the feet of sinners publicly while we openly refuse them publicly. That is not shining the light of Christ. Yes, we are commanded to call out the sin of believers as they represent the body of Christ. We are also commanded not only to NOT judge non believers but embrace every one of them.

Sin is sin and it is wrong. But how will sinners ever come to know the love of Christ and through that love desire to live as he did if we do not live a desirable life that shows them just how good it can be?

Again, I have a long way to go

 

[joe.schmo]

I am self defined bible beating Christian so let's get that out of the way.

Our country was founded on religious freedom and rights to free speech. We are a Christian nation, no doubt about it.

I don't feel threatened by any other religion. And, I have no issue with people attacking my religion. Actually, Jesus teaches that one should expect that and welcome that. It's not easy but it's a foundation of Christianity.

Finally, and this is my opinion only, but I scoff at people comparing the Bible to the Quran or any other book, teaching, or laws. If one reads the New Testament and the Gospels it is a guide to how to live. It's not rules - actually it tells us that rules are of and by man and are irrelevant to our faith and to God. Further it tells us that faith without acts is like a fruit tree that doesn't bear fruit.

So, bring it. I celebrate Christmas. I celebrate my faith in a way that tries to shine a light showing the Grace that Jesus has given me. And, I certainly know that it was not my acts that 'earned' that Grace. It is available to all. It is simple but not easy. By the way, I try really hard and I suck at it. But, I do try.

I see stuff like this and I don't like it but I do understand and expect it. Have you seen the outpouring of people mocking prayer for the people impacted in San Bernadino? Again, sad but I have come to expect it.

Faith with Acts will always win over words.

Rant over.

Not trying to get too deep here...regarding the statement above, how does do you (and/or the bible) define someone who "acts without faith"?

 

[rzrbk7777]

I'm guessing I'm about as well versed as anyone in the mindset of Christians.

Not if you aren't one. I think that is the point he was making.

 

[geoffhog]

Not if you aren't one. I think that is the point he was making.

You conveniently left off the rest of my post. I was one for many years. I just found it wasn't for me. Not gonna get into specifics cause I'm gonna offend some folks if I do, but like I said, I'm more than familiar with the bible and those that believe it. I have nothing against them and will be the first one to stand up and fight for their rights to follow their beliefs, but I just don't subscribe to them necessarily. If that's disturbs anyone then they should have taken the OPs advice and not opened the thread.

 

[DaxC]

Fair question. Rather than give my interpretation, I will give the words of James. Not preaching here just think it's pretty good stuff.

James 2: 14-22
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Not trying to get too deep here...regarding the statement above, how does do you (and/or the bible) define someone who "acts without faith"?

 

[rzrbk7777]

But as a believer in Christ's teachings I acknowledge that not baking a cake for anyone for reasons of sin is directly opposed to the scripture.

How can we show the love of Christ to sinners by excluding them from anything we do. As a matter of US rights I see your point and it is noted. I also will not the failure in the logic of Christians whO do not embrace all the way Christ embraced the world. This gives "Christians" the clear view of hypocrisy and that then is the message non belivers see as their reflection of Christ himself. That is not what we are called to do.

Sin is sin. No doubt about it. No one's sin is greater than any other. Going to church every Sunday does not make our sin go away, accepting God's grace does. However the next step is to live a life of Christ. Jesus embraced the lowest of the low. Christians, as seen by the public today, don't have that image.

Jesus washed the feet of sinners while we refuse them. That is not shining the light of Christ. Yes, we are commanded to call out the sin of believers as they represent the body of Christ. We are also commanded not only to NOT judge non believers but embrace every one of them.

Again, I have a long way to go

I don't disagree with you except to say that Christians all fall short of the grace of Jesus. We are humans and we are all flawed. Those bakers were not mean or hateful in any way. They were nice and respectful of the lesbian couple who they had done business with before. They simply opted out of making a wedding cake b/c our religion sees homosexuality as wrong. They didn't tell them to get out and never come back or treat them badly in any way. Jesus taught to lover the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus washed the feet of sinners but he did not participate in celebrations of sin. That gay couple set them up b/c of their religious beliefs, pure and simple.

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

I don't disagree with you except to say that Christians all fall short of the grace of Jesus. We are humans and we are all flawed. Those bakers were not mean or hateful in any way. They were nice and respectful of the lesbian couple who they had done business with before. They simply opted out of making a wedding cake b/c our religion sees homosexuality as wrong. They didn't tell them to get out and never come back or treat them badly in any way. Jesus taught to lover the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus washed the feet of sinners but he did not participate in celebrations of sin. That gay couple set them up b/c of their religious beliefs, pure and simple.

So you think baking a cake is the same as being gay and getting married. Jesus washed their nasty feet.... I'd say that's quite a bit more personal than a cake. The message sent is that a part of these individuals was worse than the bakers. This simply isn't true. The bakers sin is just as black as the gay couple An opportunity to serve and love presented itself and it was a failure not to serve and love. Heavy drinking is a sin. I see the local restaurants that serve alcohol full every Sunday at noon. What's the difference but just in reverse? We keep those business alive and well as by your logic they literally dispense sin itself daily. It's no sin to go to those restaurants and it's no sin to bake a cake. In fact how will we ever reach thode individuals if we don't go to them and serve them.

We have to stop following the crowd and simply follow Jesus. Not only do I believe Jesus would have made the cake, he would have blessed them, challenged them with words of wisdom, and prayed for them. He would have placed them on the top of his list for personal attention. Not to chastise but to show so much love they pause and pnder why. Then when the time was right he would explain his love to them.

 

[DaxC]

Good post Boss. The reality is that Jesus would have been much more likely to have dinner with the lesbian couple than the owners of the bakery.

But as a believer in Christ's teachings I acknowledge that not baking a cake for anyone for reasons of sin is directly opposed to the scripture.

How can we show the love of Christ to sinners by excluding them from anything we do. As a matter of US rights I see your point and it is noted. I also will note the failure in the logic of Christians whO do not embrace EVWRYONE the way Christ embraced the world. This gives "Christians" the clear view of hypocrisy and that then can be the message non belivers see as their reflection of Christ himself. That is not what we are called to do.

Sin is sin. No doubt about it. No one's sin is greater than any other. Going to church every Sunday does not make our sin go away, accepting God's grace does. However the next step is to live a life of Christ. Jesus embraced the lowest of the low. Christians, as seen by the public today, don't have the correct image.

Jesus washed the feet of sinners publicly while we openly refuse them publicly. That is not shining the light of Christ. Yes, we are commanded to call out the sin of believers as they represent the body of Christ. We are also commanded not only to NOT judge non believers but embrace every one of them.

Sin is sin and it is wrong. But how will sinners ever come to know the love of Christ and through that love desire to live as he did if we do not live a desirable life that shows them just how good it can be?

Again, I have a long way to go

 

[hpharri1994]

What if Jesus was gay?

 

[rzrbk7777]

You conveniently left off the rest of my post. I was one for many years. I just found it wasn't for me. Not gonna get into specifics cause I'm gonna offend some folks if I do, but like I said, I'm more than familiar with the bible and those that believe it. I have nothing against them and will be the first one to stand up and fight for their rights to follow their beliefs, but I just don't subscribe to them necessarily. If that's disturbs anyone then they should have taken the OPs advice and not opened the thread.

I'm not offended by you or your posts. Intellectual knowledge of the Bible and belief in it are not at all the same thing. That was my point. I left off the rest of your post b/c I wasn't addressing the rest of it.

FWIW, my first wife was the daughter of a pastor who was president of the Southern Baptist Association in Arkansas when we married. She had been in church her whole life. She had intellectual knowledge of Christianity but no faith. She turned out to be a drunk, a druggie, and a serial cheater. She has now been married five times and she cheated on all of them. She knew the scriptures but she clearly had no clue what they meant.

 

[rzrbk7777]

What if Jesus was gay?

Then he wouldn't have been Jesus.

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

What if Jesus was gay?

He was not and the teachings of the New Testimony absolutely does define homosexuality as a sin. No worse than my own sin. Ni doubt about that. Sin is still sin. But thank god for Grace.

 

[geoffhog]

I'm not offended by you or your posts. Intellectual knowledge of the Bible and belief in it are not at all the same thing. That was my point. I left off the rest of your post b/c I wasn't addressing the rest of it.

FWIW, my first wife was the daughter of a pastor who was president of the Southern Baptist Association in Arkansas when we married. She had been in church her whole life. She had intellectual knowledge of Christianity but no faith. She turned out to be a drunk, a druggie, and a serial cheater. She has now been married five times and she cheated on all of them. She knew the scriptures but she clearly had no clue what they meant.

Fair enough, but just to be clear I'm not a drunk, druggie or serial cheater lol.

 

[hpharri1994]

He was not and the teachings of the New Testimony absolutely does define homosexuality as a sin. No worse than my own sin. Ni doubt about that. Sin is still sin. But thank god for Grace.

That can't be said with any amount of certainty. There are plenty of religious scholars that have suggested it. Or at least suggested he may have been bisexual. There wasn't really any concept of sexual orientation at that time though and it wouldn't have been abnormal. Homoerotic relationships were extremely common.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Fair enough, but just to be clear I'm not a drunk, druggie or serial cheater lol.

I know a lot of really good people who are by my faith, lost.

 

[rzrbk7777]

That can't be said with any amount of certainty. There are plenty of religious scholars that have suggested it. Or at least suggested he may have been bisexual.

As I stated earlier, intellectual knowledge of the bible and understanding it through faith are far apart. There are plenty of biblical scholars who lack faith and thus the truths that fall within it. There is nothing in the bible that suggests Jesus had sex with anybody, much less another man. He never married, and His faith dictates that sex is part of marriage, not a recreational act.

 

[hpharri1994]

As I stated earlier, intellectual knowledge of the bible and understanding it through faith are far apart. There are plenty of biblical scholars who lack faith and thus the truths that fall within it. There is nothing in the bible that suggests Jesus had sex with anybody, much less another man. He never married, and His faith dictates that sex is part of marriage, not a recreational act.

I think that even you would admit that there are things in the bible that aren't accurate. And there are certainly things that happened in real life that aren't included in the bible.

 

[The Boartender]

Total BS. Where in the Constitution does it prevent people from celebrating their faith on public land? That is not anywhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is the right to exercise your religious beliefs as your faith dictates. I have never seen Christians try to exclude anybody from Christmas celebrations. Have you? If it offends somebody, they certainly have the freedom to not participate. That is what the Constitution was meant to provide, not the left wing garbage that is nothing more than PC persecution that is going on these days.

Fining Christians and forcing them out of business for not making gay wedding cakes is way more of a violation of the Constitution than having a Christmas party. Were you incensed over that?

Its not total BS. That is indeed what the SCOTUS has said as Stew-Man just described it. We as Christians should be pro separation of church and state. I don't want my government or politicians to be able to take my faith and manipulate, misinterpret, and hijack it for their own selfish goals. Anytime I see a politician holding up a Bible, I put my hand over my wallet.
To answer your question, yes....I've seen Christians be exclusive with their events before. I've seen an evangelical preacher refuse to even talk to a congregation member that thought he might be gay. I see and hear them preaching fear and division on TV (usually while stumping for a politician). I see a Christian get mad because Starbucks took snowflakes off a cup.
However, I grew up in Catholic school from preschool through high school and I definitely don't blame Christianity for these guys actions. I love JC, but but organized religion and church is really nothing more than an effective mobilizing tool. It can be used to mobilize people to do great charitable works or it can be used to mobilize people to commit crimes against someone not like them. We've seen that across our world and across our history.
Today, like on that campus, we have too many people that have become so comfortable that anything can annoy or offend them. It's a sign of one spoiled life when we are more up in arms about the details of Christmas or gender identification than we are about hunger and atrocities across the world. This applies to Christians too though. I think too many have forgotten that Jesus wasn't American nor did he adhere to a political or economic ideology. He transcended all the borders that we constantly apply.

 

[rzrbk7777]

I think that even you would admit that there are things in the bible that aren't accurate. And there are certainly things that happened in real life that aren't included in the bible.

So now you are a biblical expert? You are actually using Jesus to promote you gay agenda? You better hope(I won't waste my time adding and pray) Christians are wrong.

 

[hpharri1994]

So now you are a biblical expert? You are actually using Jesus to promote you gay agenda? You better hope(I won't waste my time adding and pray) Christians are wrong.

I'm not promoting anything. I simply asked a question and then responded to you.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Its not total BS. That is indeed what the SCOTUS has said as Stew-Man just described it. We as Christians should be pro separation of church and state. I don't want my government or politicians to be able to take my faith and manipulate, misinterpret, and hijack it for their own selfish goals. Anytime I see a politician holding up a Bible, I put my hand over my wallet.
To answer your question, yes....I've seen Christians be exclusive with their events before. I've seen an evangelical preacher refuse to even talk to a congregation member that thought he might be gay. I see and hear them preaching fear and division on TV (usually while stumping for a politician). I see a Christian get mad because Starbucks took snowflakes off a cup.
However, I grew up in Catholic school from preschool through high school and I definitely don't blame Christianity for these guys actions. I love JC, but but organized religion and church is really nothing more than an effective mobilizing tool. It can be used to mobilize people to do great charitable works or it can be used to mobilize people to commit crimes against someone not like them. We've seen that across our world and across our history.
Today, like on that campus, we have too many people that have become so comfortable that anything can annoy or offend them. It's a sign of one spoiled life when we are more up in arms about the details of Christmas or gender identification than we are about hunger and atrocities across the world. This applies to Christians too though. I think too many have forgotten that Jesus wasn't American nor did he adhere to a political or economic ideology. He transcended all the borders that we constantly apply.

We were founded as a Christian nation that did not force our beliefs on others. That was not ever meant that we were supposed hide our beliefs as Christians while on public property. Far from it.

The SCOTUS has gotten way off the mark with many of their rulings. They are there to obey the Constitution, not re write it. Go study some American history books and especially the writers of the Constitution, this is not what they had in mind.

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

I'm not promoting anything. I simply asked a question and then responded to you.

You say that there isn't proof that he wasn't gay as support of your argument. I can easily say there is no proof saying he was as sippirt of my argument. It's a straw man argument and a weak one at that.

 

[hpharri1994]

You say that there isn't proof that he wasn't gay as support of your argument. I can easily say there is no support saying he was as my argument. It's a straw man argument and a weak one at that.

I'm not making an argument. I'm not attempting to prove that Jesus was gay. I don't care if he was or not. I simply suggested that the possibility exists.

 

[rzrbk7777]

I'm not promoting anything. I simply asked a question and then responded to you.

BS, you routinely promote your gay agenda on here. Most likely your whole motive of even getting in this thread is to stir up enough crap to get it deleted b/c you don't like it. Got to stifle any beliefs but your own.

 

[hpharri1994]

BS, you routinely promote your gay agenda on here. Most likely your whole motive of even getting in this thread is to stir up enough crap to get it deleted b/c you don't like it. Got to stifle any beliefs but your own.

Please show me where in this thread I'm promoting a gay agenda.

Also, this thread doesn't belong on the board. The rules of the board clearly state that. There is another board for these discussions. I don't understand why the moderators refuse to enforce these rules consistently.

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

I'm not making an argument. I'm not attempting to prove that Jesus was gay. I don't care if he was or not. I simply suggested that the possibility exists.

You pose a question based on a predetermined agenda. The proof of this is that there is zero historical reference or documentation of Jesus having any form of personal love life. The proof of your agenda is that you inserted the idea wherw one does not exist. The closest thing anyone has as it relates to choice of a marriage partner is his reference to the church being his betrothed. The church (the followers) being his bride, as a symbol for how much God loves all of humanity. All of his love is with all of us.

 

[AtlantaRazorback]

That can't be said with any amount of certainty. There are plenty of religious scholars that have suggested it. Or at least suggested he may have been bisexual. There wasn't really any concept of sexual orientation at that time though and it wouldn't have been abnormal. Homoerotic relationships were extremely common.

Actually it was verified that Jesus was not gay. When a group of men simply decided to throw out several books of the bible to fit their desires and we settled on what we have now, we left out much of the Jesus story. Jesus married and had children according to them; now everyone can get real uncomfortable.

Also 777, there is no such thing as divorce. So you are committing adultery daily with your wife since you were married before. Since you like throw so much judgement, perhaps you should look at your own hellbound house.

 

[DaxC]

We can ask provocative questions with intent (intentional or unintentional) of insulting or weakening one's faith.

What matters is the simple teachings - and they are simple. The Beatitudes are a good cliff note version for all of us.

Don't get angry or frustrated for we should recall that we are blessed when insulted or persecuted for beliefs. Don't take the bait. Simply show faith with actions.

By the way, hoping that we get invited to the Music City Bowl.

 

[The Boartender]

We were founded as a Christian nation that did not force our beliefs on others. That was not ever meant that we were supposed hide our beliefs as Christians while on public property. Far from it.

The SCOTUS has gotten way off the mark with many of their rulings. They are there to obey the Constitution, not re write it. Go study some American history books and especially the writers of the Constitution, this is not what they had in mind.

I think you'd be surprised at my historical knowledge and acumen. However, you may disagree with the SCOTUS and not think that's what was intended. I disagree with them on some issues too (like the Citizens United case). However, their rulings apply and Stew-Man's point was simply that.

 

[riverhog2]

Total BS. Where in the Constitution does it prevent people from celebrating their faith on public land? That is not anywhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is the right to exercise your religious beliefs as your faith dictates. I have never seen Christians try to exclude anybody from Christmas celebrations. Have you? If it offends somebody, they certainly have the freedom to not participate. That is what the Constitution was meant to provide, not the left wing garbage that is nothing more than PC persecution that is going on these days.

Fining Christians and forcing them out of business for not making gay wedding cakes is way more of a violation of the Constitution than having a Christmas party. Were you incensed over that?

keep voting for dems. and keep watching your country disapear.

 

[Stew-Man]

We were founded as a Christian nation that did not force our beliefs on others. That was not ever meant that we were supposed hide our beliefs as Christians while on public property. Far from it.

Total BS. Where in the Constitution does it prevent people from celebrating their faith on public land? That is not anywhere in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is the right to exercise your religious beliefs as your faith dictates. I have never seen Christians try to exclude anybody from Christmas celebrations. Have you? If it offends somebody, they certainly have the freedom to not participate. That is what the Constitution was meant to provide, not the left wing garbage that is nothing more than PC persecution that is going on these days.

Fining Christians and forcing them out of business for not making gay wedding cakes is way more of a violation of the Constitution than having a Christmas party. Were you incensed over that?

There's not any prohibition on Christians celebrating their faith on public lands, or requiring you to hide your faith. For example, it's perfectly legal for your church to set up a living Nativity at a public park one night. However, the government can't set up a living Nativity at the park. A private company can host a Christmas party, the government is not supposed to do that.

I get that people have really strong feelings about this, but please notice I'm not taking any sides -- merely pointing out where the lines are drawn under the rule of law.

 

[UTRIP UMP]

Moving this to the Grim Bottom in keeping with the board rules. Not taking sides or trying to make a statement. Thank you all for
your beliefs and I also thank you for showing respect and civility to each other.

 

[rzrbk7777]

Actually it was verified that Jesus was not gay. When a group of men simply decided to throw out several books of the bible to fit their desires and we settled on what we have now, we left out much of the Jesus story. Jesus married and had children according to them; now everyone can get real uncomfortable.

Also 777, there is no such thing as divorce. So you are committing adultery daily with your wife since you were married before. Since you like throw so much judgement, perhaps you should look at your own hellbound house.

Actually no. I committed adultery with her b/c she had already been married and divorced. My second wife was actually my first wife biblically speaking and we have been together for 31 years. And I'm not hellbound. I should be, but by the grace of Jesus Christ I am not.

 

[fleckabelly]

We were founded as a Christian nation that did not force our beliefs on others. That was not ever meant that we were supposed hide our beliefs as Christians while on public property. Far from it.

The SCOTUS has gotten way off the mark with many of their rulings. They are there to obey the Constitution, not re write it. Go study some American history books and especially the writers of the Constitution, this is not what they had in mind.

I'm just glad we have you to interpret the Constitution for us so we don't have to listen to that silly Supreme Court.

Not my business, but I think you should probably drop a line to some of the universities on the dos and dont's in regards to the constitution and it's meanings, because I think they got confused.

 

[rzrbk7777]

I'm just glad we have you to interpret the Constitution for us so we don't have to listen to that silly Supreme Court.

Not my business, but I think you should probably drop a line to some of the universities on the dos and dont's in regards to the constitution and it's meanings, because I think they got confused.

You don't need me, just study history and use a little common sense. Had the writers of the Constitution meant it the way the SCOTUS ruled, there wouldn't have been any Ten Commandments or the Lord's Prayer hanging in federal buildings for 200 years. There would have been no national holidays based on Christianity like Christmas and Easter. There would have been no prayer in schools for 200 years. If their intent was the same as the SCOTUS ruling, they would have stopped all of that from the start. And yeah, the far left and often atheist college profs get confused about a lot of things.

 

[rzrbk7777]

I think you'd be surprised at my historical knowledge and acumen. However, you may disagree with the SCOTUS and not think that's what was intended. I disagree with them on some issues too (like the Citizens United case). However, their rulings apply and Stew-Man's point was simply that.

I would be very surprised. Like I just told another guy, if that was the intent of the writers of the constitution, Biblical scripture in public buildings, prayer in public buildings, and national holidays based on Christianity would have been dealt with by them up front. Instead, they embraced Christian beliefs.

 

[fleckabelly]

As I stated earlier, intellectual knowledge of the bible and understanding it through faith are far apart. There are plenty of biblical scholars who lack faith and thus the truths that fall within it. There is nothing in the bible that suggests Jesus had sex with anybody, much less another man. He never married, and His faith dictates that sex is part of marriage, not a recreational act.

That's such a fantastic little paradox.

The basis of faith and Christianity was created from the Bible, yet the attempt to understand it intellectually greatly differs from an understanding of it through faith. A faith that doesn't exist without Bible's creation.

It's like the Star Wars fans that argue with George Lucas on the world of Star Wars. Awesome!

 

[BOSSHOGFREE]

Actually it was verified that Jesus was not gay. When a group of men simply decided to throw out several books of the bible to fit their desires and we settled on what we have now, we left out much of the Jesus story. Jesus married and had children according to them; now everyone can get real uncomfortable.

Also 777, there is no such thing as divorce. So you are committing adultery daily with your wife since you were married before. Since you like throw so much judgement, perhaps you should look at your own hellbound house.

There is a biblical support for divorce. But it is a very narrow window and a final resort.