Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[THEWULFMAN]

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible philosophies/faiths/etc. You have to stick with one side or the other.

Exactly the point. So-called "theistic evolution" is a contradiction in and of itself. You cannot have both.

God damnit. Why do you have to say such stupid ass things, you know it only makes me want to post. I really want to stay out of this topic. I don't have this kind of time on my hands, ugh.

Let me just roll a few things out here. EPICLY LONG POST ACTIVATE

Christianity and Judaism are based on the Bible. The Bible is flawed. Very, VERY flawed. If you follow the Bible to a fault, you come out sounding like an [derriere orifice]. In other words, these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

If the Bible is flawed, it's completely open to interpretation and criticism. My interpretation is that at best, most of it was simplified for the people of its time and creation. You simply can't explain to people in 1000 BC that the Universe is ever expanding, and has trillions of stars, planets, black holes, and nebulae. You can't explain how evolution works to someone of that time period. If the Bible is flawed, not everything in it is correct, simple as that. It can't be depended on.

We've grown a lot in the past 1000 years, as a species, as a society. We can learn how the universe works now, we have that privilege. There's heaps of evidence pointing towards Evolution. No evidence pointing towards God. If what you two say is true, and Evolution and Faith can't co-exist, then I'm honestly surprised anyone with an IQ of say, 80, hasn't become an atheist. Good thing you're spouting nonsense.

Here I am sitting on an IQ of a measly 115, and I can clearly see Faith alone doesn't make sense. So rather than go the Atheist route, I go to what I think is the smartest choice and choose Theistic evolution. If you're going to take the stand that Theistic evolution doesn't even exist, well then M-kay you.

It takes a lot Faith to believe in God nowadays. Now more than ever. And it's only going to get worse for people who don't believe in Evolution. Yet I'd rather die than say God or his son Jesus don't exist.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
##################################################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As for the naysayers and atheists out there I have to bring up a simple argument. Pascal's Wager. What if you're wrong and God does exist? That's a helluva-lot worse than believing in God when he doesn't exist.

No Faith + God does exist = Hell.
No Faith + God doesn't exist = No afterlife.
Faith + God does exist = Heaven*.
Faith + God doesn't exist = No afterlife.

*Assuming you're not an [derriere orifice] in life.

The choice is clear to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
##################################################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Now onto another random point: Homosexuality.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Right.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

A lot of you need to go kill your kids.

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

So [m'kay] the Beatles and their evil haircuts.

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Anyone here got a kickass cross tattoo? Well [m'kay] you.

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Check your shirts, got a Polyester/Cotton blend? [m'kay] you, next stop Hell.

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

Yep.

But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.

Anyone here have lobster? Shrimp? Crab? Oysters? Scallops? Well [m'kay] you.

Here's a favorite of mine.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

So if you're deformed in any way shape or form, GTFO.

And another gem.

If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

Yep. You'll eat your babies if you disobey the old [poo] testament God.

Leviticus is [poo] and I don't give a lily livered [m'kay] about anything in that book. The Old Testament is kinda [poo]. I'm sorry, my Jewish ancestors, it is. While we're on the subject of [poo] Old Testament books, Deuteronomy. That [poo] is [m'kay] up too.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

A woman has sex in her parent's house and she's not married? Death to her. Paris Hilton is [m'kay].

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Cross dressers are screwed. And everyone wearing unisex clothing is [m'kay]. QUICK, ALL THE WOMEN TAKE OFF YOUR JEANS AND PUT ON A DRESS! RUN!

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Yo Niterunner! If you see your husband fighting with another man, whatever you do, do NOT attack the other man by grabbing his balls painfully or we'll have to cut your hand off? Mkay? Mkay.

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

What does this mean you ask? It means if your penis or balls are crushed, cut off, stabbed, whatever, you can't go to church. Really loving and understanding, the old testament God was wasn't he?

NEXT.

A [female dog] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

A [female dog] is someone who was born outside of wedlock, which means you were born before your parents were married. Being born out of wedlock makes you filthy, apparently; so filthy in fact that it takes ten genetic steps down the line to wash how filthy it makes you. Which means that because I was born out of wedlock, and I attended my parent's wedding as an infant, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild can't go to church. Sucks for James Plummer the VIII.

Moving on.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Yikes, that's a little more hardcore than Leviticus. Why don't we save time, get all our rebellious children (which is all of them), dig a huge hole in the Earth, put all the kids in the hole, and then just fill the hole with stones? That should save a LOT of time. Should solve our population problems, I'll give them that. Maybe that's why Catholics are so against birth control? Because we're supposed to be having as many children as possible because we keep stoning them to death?

How the [m'kay] did we make it this far, again? I'm shocked really.

I could even point out couple, few and far between, stupid things in the New Testament. All in all, it's a lot less stupid.

What am I trying to say/prove here? The Bible isn't perfect, follow it as a loose guideline and follow Jesus's teachings. Jesus basically came down and said SCREW THIS OLD CRAP and made everything in the Old Testament null and void. Get it? You can't ignore parts of Leviticus and pick and choose which you believe and follow. Homosexuality isn't a sin. Or Jesus would have sat his 12 disciples down and talked to them about it! He would have been like "Yo, I know it was briefly mentioned in the Old Testament, but I wanted to make it clear, homosexuality is a sin." But he didn't. So shut the hell up and GTFO all you homophobic [derriere orifice].

[Darth Crater]

My problem with Pascal's Wager is this:
1. It assumes the issue is a binary choice. It doesn't take into account all of the other religions. Many faiths claim that just being Christian is enough to damn me. Many more have other forms of afterlife, based on different criteria.
2. It assumes that God is stupid enough that he can't distinguish true and false faith. This is what every Christian who brings this up is in fact implying. Here's a more accurate assessment: If I'm judged on belief, it won't matter what I did, because I don't truly believe. If I'm judged on actions, whether I pretend to believe or not is also irrelevant.

[THEWULFMAN]

My problem with Pascal's Wager is this:
1. It assumes the issue is a binary choice. It doesn't take into account all of the other religions. Many faiths claim that just being Christian is enough to damn me. Many more have other forms of afterlife, based on different criteria.
2. It assumes that God is stupid enough that he can't distinguish true and false faith. This is what every Christian who brings this up is in fact implying. Here's a more accurate assessment: If I'm judged on belief, it won't er what I did, because I don't truly believe. If I'm judged on actions, whether I pretend to believe or not is also irrelevant.

Pascal's Wager! That's what it's called. I had forgotten. Thank you.

I understand, and agree. I'm not saying you should fake believing in God. My point was there is simply no reason not to. I was echoing Pascal, saying you should believe in God regardless of the fact we can't be certain of his existence.

[Darth Crater]

I cannot modify my brain to believe something without being provided evidence. If I could, I would not want to. Nor do I want to worship a being who discourages rational thought.

[theavengers85]

Somewhat long post warning.

Wulfman, those are Old Testament regulations, and if you think those are restrictive, try reading the Koran, which says that non-muslims should be put to death, for example.

Jesus never said that the OT was wrong, it was just a shadow of the NT effectively (ceremonies pointing to concepts in the NT).

Those things that are you pointing out as being extreme were considered extreme at that time in that culture. The culture has changed, and, for example, wearing jeans is not being a transvestite.



Also, let me ask you a question: name one archeological finding that has negating a single passage in the Bible. And no, not an INTERPRETATION of a finding, but the finding itself. The Bible, particularly the OT, is the best, most reliable historical record of a very long time span in existence.

As far as creation science goes, I have extensively studied both evolution and creationism (the science, the philosophy, etc) (B.S. in Biological Science) and here are my conclusions:

Everybody has an a priori assumption (before the fact, a faith, a commitentment, whatever) that they usually come to before they "pick" what theory they will support.
(I'm going to simplify here and only take the extremes)
1) I don't believe in God/higher power/etc
2) I believe in the God of the Bible

There are two major scientific frameworks (both entirely reasonable and self-consistent, with their various flaws):
A) Evolution
B) Creation

If 1 is true for you, obviously you can't be a creationist, so you inevitably take position A.
If 2 is true for you, some are intimated by the fact that the majority of highly publicized scientists are A and try to meld 1 and A, which doesn't work when you get down to it (See my earlier post).
The other option is to go with B.

Except for 1,B and 2, A, these are both reasonable positions since no body was there at the beginning of time to see which one actually happened.

Both theories use essentially the same scientific evidence (same planet after all); they just interpret it differently. The science is the same. What is different is the philosophy (i.e. evolution/creation) that drives one's interpretation of the evidence.

Sorry for the long winded post.

[THEWULFMAN]

I cannot modify my brain to believe something without being provided evidence. If I could, I would not want to. Nor do I want to worship a being who discourages rational thought.

Fair enough. I consider myself a rational individual, so I won't try shoving my beliefs down your throat. I can assume you're for LGBT right's since anti-homosexuality is generally based around a religion?

@Cypher

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

Wulfman, those are Old Testament regulations, and if you think those are restrictive, try reading the Koran, which says that non-muslims should be put to death, for example.

Jesus never said that the OT was wrong, it was just a shadow of the NT effectively (ceremonies pointing to concepts in the NT).

Those things that are you pointing out as being extreme were considered extreme at that time in that culture. The culture has changed, and, for example, wearing jeans is not being a transvestite.

So basically you're defending Leviticus, am I right? I'm not going to talk about the Koran because I've never read it. I'm not going to judge a religion that I don't know a lot about.

Jesus did say the OT was wrong when he started contradicting the OT. It's that simple. He just didn't say it outright "The OT SUCKS!" Things he taught went against things in the OT.

There are two major scientific frameworks (both entirely reasonable and self-consistent, with their various flaws):
A) Evolution
B) Creation

If 1 is true for you, obviously you can't be a creationist, so you inevitably take position A.
If 2 is true for you, some are intimated by the fact that the majority of highly publicized scientists are A and try to meld 1 and A, which doesn't work when you get down to it (See my earlier post).
The other option is to go with B.

Except for 1,B and 2, A, these are both reasonable positions since no body was there at the beginning of time to see which one actually happened.

Both theories use essentially the same scientific evidence (same planet after all); they just interpret it differently. The science is the same. What is different is the philosophy (i.e. evolution/creation) that drives one's interpretation of the evidence.

I really don't see how you got the impression Creationism is "reasonable" and scientifically sound, but it's really not.

[Darth Crater]

Fair enough. I consider myself a rational individual, so I won't try shoving my beliefs down your throat. I can assume you're for LGBT right's since anti-homosexuality is generally based around a religion?

Yes, I support treating all people as people, rather than excluding some based on something as trivial as sexual preference.

Cypher - Only literal Christianity conflicts with evolution. Most Christians, intentionally or not, do not follow the Bible literally.

[Ariel]

Oh, Wulfie, if only I had the time...

I must say, you sound like a fairly bitter, mean, unhappy person. How's that atheism working for ya?

It is jackasses like you that give all atheists a bad name, and it is people like you who make me never want to be an atheist, so please leave the conversation before you do even more damage. We were doing fine without you.

@ Darth Crater I just noticed that you never replied to my comments about the DNA/computer code analogy. May I claim victory on that front, then?

[Col. Hstar]

Ok so I just couldn't let all this pass without any defense on it, and I have time :P First and Foremost, the Law Covenant was an agreement between God and the Ancient nation of Israel made shortly after they left Egypt in 1513 BCE. They were given the privilege of being God's special property, with his blessing as a holy nation for his name.

And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel.”

The law was read out loud to the people , and they all shouted in agreement to follow the law.
 

3Then Moses came and related to the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judicial decisions, and all the people answered with one voice and said: “All the words that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do.”

As far as the law being strict, yes it was strict, being that the people would be representing themselves in God's name, he wanted his people to remain clean in his eyes, and stand apart from the rest of the world at that time.

Now for the scriptures you cited: My responses in red

Now onto another random point: Homosexuality.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Right.
It was detestable back then to God, it still is now. But today, your suppose to hate the act of homosexuality not the person committing it.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

A lot of you need to go kill your kids.
In that time, cursing someone or calling down evil upon them showed a hateful, vicious spirit. that kind of spirit was as bad as murder in God's eyes. - See 1 John 3:15

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

So [m'kay] the Beatles and their evil haircuts.
This law was given to prevent the Jews from trimming their beards or hair in a way that would imitate certain pagan practices. Cutting hair was not against the law, the bible even made mention of times where people had not attended to their hair or mustache. - See 2 Samuel 19:24

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Anyone here got a kickass cross tattoo? Well [m'kay] you.
Actually Leviticus 19:28, either way this was another example of setting his special people apart from the rest of the world. It was a ritual for Baal worshipers to lacerate and cut themselves to gain approval from their god 

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Check your shirts, got a Polyester/Cotton blend? [m'kay] you, next stop Hell.
The linens portion of the scripture was directed at the non-priestly Israelite clothes. Mainly to set the priest apart since they were allowed to mix linens. See - Exodus 28:6,8,15 for the required attire of a priest.

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

Yep.
Keep in mind that execution back then were done by way of the sword and stoning. afterwards the body was buried, or burned, depending on how detestable the crime was. I underlined the word priest to show why it was a detestable thing

But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.

Anyone here have lobster? Shrimp? Crab? Oysters? Scallops? Well [m'kay] you.
This was a law for sanitary purposes. Giving those parameters a lot of the sea creatures like catfish, eels, lampreys, rays, sharks, and the lobster were left off. Many of these live off of sewage and decaying er, and are contaminated with bacteria. For example the blood of the eel has a toxin which prevents coagulation. Not allowing them to be eaten guarded the people from sicknesses and death.


Here's a favorite of mine.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

So if you're deformed in any way shape or form, GTFO.
This segment refers to those who were acting as the head priest before God. Going into the Most Holy section of the tabernacle. God set a high standard for those who represented him in the priesthood, it foreshadowed the coming time when Christ the great High Priest would offer his perfect body as a sacrifice for all of mankind


And another gem.

If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

Yep. You'll eat your babies if you disobey the old [poo] testament God.
Hardly. The begining part of Leviticus 26 speaks of what blessing the isrealites would enjoy if they followed the God's laws, this scripture points out the consequences that would arise if the left off and abandoned following God. He would abandon them. This happened in 607 BCE when God abandoned Israel. When the city came under seige by the Babylonians this cause a great famine, peopel inside resorted to cannibalistic ways. Disgusting yes, but not God's doing. It was the result of Israel breaking the Convent they had with God


Leviticus is [poo] and I don't give a lily livered [m'kay] about anything in that book. The Old Testament is kinda [poo]. I'm sorry, my Jewish ancestors, it is. While we're on the subject of [poo] Old Testament books, Deuteronomy. That [poo] is [m'kay] up too.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

A woman has sex in her parent's house and she's not married? Death to her. Paris Hilton is [m'kay]-ed.
God's laws are that sexual relations are between a married couple. Here the sanctity of marriage was emphasized by the law that punished with death a girl who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, having committed fornication secretly.

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Cross dressers are screwed. And everyone wearing unisex clothing is [m'kay]-ED. QUICK, ALL THE WOMEN TAKE OFF YOUR JEANS AND PUT ON A DRESS! RUN!
They didn't have jeans back then  This is another safeguard in place for God's people. This one safeguarding them from the practice of immorality and sodomy

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Yo Niterunner! If you see your husband fighting with another man, whatever you do, do NOT attack the other man by grabbing his balls painfully or we'll have to cut your hand off? Mkay? Mkay.
Wrong and way out of context. This was a section of the part concerning lawful retaliation. When retaliation was decided unlawful, the punishment was "eye for eye." This scripture though was an exception to that rule. instead of her reproductive organs being destroyed, her hand was amputated. It demonstrates God's regard for the reproductive organs, and the husbands right to have children by his wife.

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

What does this mean you ask? It means if your penis or balls are crushed, cut off, stabbed, whatever, you can't go to church. Really loving and understanding, the old testament God was wasn't he?
Wrong, this is not describing a case of personal injury in an "accident." In this translation the word wounded actually means castrated or crushed, a deliberate action, not accidental. Hath his member cut off is also a deliberate  action. God is very understanding and loving. But as you saw from the last scripture explanation, he hold the reproductive organs in high regard.

NEXT.

A [female dog] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

A [female dog] is someone who was born outside of wedlock, which means you were born before your parents were married. Being born out of wedlock makes you filthy, apparently; so filthy in fact that it takes ten genetic steps down the line to wash how filthy it makes you. Which means that because I was born out of wedlock, and I attended my parent's wedding as an infant, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild can't go to church. Sucks for James Plummer the VIII.
Sorry wrong again. This was a purposeful law that protected the inheritance rights of legitimate sons and their offspring. It deterred break down of the family arrangement and prostitution. Another thing worth mentioning is that it does not express any eternal judgement. As for today, well you yourself know we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law

Moving on.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Yikes, that's a little more hardcore than Leviticus. Why don't we save time, get all our rebellious children (which is all of them), dig a huge hole in the Earth, put all the kids in the hole, and then just fill the hole with stones? That should save a LOT of time. Should solve our population problems, I'll give them that. Maybe that's why Catholics are so against birth control? Because we're supposed to be having as many children as possible because we keep stoning them to death?
Yikes is right. Mainly because you think that it's referring to a child, or teenager. If an occasion arose where a son became absolutely rebellious and incorrigible after repeated warnings and the necessary discipline, a more harsh measure was taken. The son was brought before the older men of the city, and after testimony from the parents that he was an irredeemable offender, he suffered capital punishment by stoning. This arrangement evidently had reference to a son way beyond the age of what is considered a young child, since the scripture describes the man as “a glutton and a drunkard.”


How the [m'kay] did we make it this far, again? I'm shocked really.

I could even point out couple, few and far between, stupid things in the New Testament. All in all, it's a lot less stupid.

What am I trying to say/prove here? The Bible isn't perfect, follow it as a loose guideline and follow Jesus's teachings. Jesus basically came down and said SCREW THIS OLD CRAP and made everything in the Old Testament null and void.No he didn't. When asked what the greatest commandment in the law was he summed up the entire Mosaic Law by quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. He used your two favorite bible books from the Hebrew scriptures to say what the greatest commandment was. That doesn't sound like SCREW THIS OLD CRAP to me. Get it? You can't ignore parts of Leviticus and pick and choose which you believe and follow. Homosexuality isn't a sin. Or Jesus would have sat his 12 disciples down and talked to them about it! He would have been like "Yo, I know it was briefly mentioned in the Old Testament, but I wanted to make it clear, homosexuality is a sin." But he didn't. So shut the hell up and GTFO all you homophobic [derriere orifice].

The Bible clearly condemns fornication, which includes homosexual relations. - Romans 1:26, 27
But Genuine Christians are not Homophobic. 1 Peter 2:17

[The Master]

Give it a rest guys. You all have way too much time on your hands.

I'm still recovering from surgery. Lots and lots of time to kill. Your always camping around in the forums so what's your excuse

You're not better yet,whays wrong with you

@Haas I do understand stuff here sort of. I just wanted shorter postings so they can actually be responded to.

And I'm not always camping around. But it is summer vacation so I can do what I want.