FaramirK

Agreed, but people assume superiority all the time. It's just natural. And even the most "peaceful" of religions have spilled into violence, Christianity included.

FaramirK, I thought "Christ" was a secular title given to the senior ranking Jewish leader of the time Nope. It is a title of divinity. As for Mary's Gospel, I doubt its validity, and I am confident that it will be disproved in time... But believe it if you will, it's your right after all.

Read the first sentence. The only financial benefits should be to aid raising children, ie Child Benefit payment, or tax cuts per child. There is no reason for a secular society to rank loving heterosexual couples over loving homosexual ones. "Prove it or shut it"? Are you saying that if something can't be proved it can't be spoken about? Put your sword away... You are actually in need of proof that a heterosexual couple are better equipped to raise children of both genders? Surely not... I merely point out that Women understand girls much better than Men do...I think that is obvious. What do two gay men know of growing up as a little girl?

That helped lighten the thread alittle...

Me too. My imagination can fill in the blanks.

Well, its complex. If "Marriage" is simply a public profession of lasting love, symbolised by *insert custom/ceremony/object/paperwork here*, I agree. Why shouldn't Homosexual couples be allowed to do this? However, if "Marriage" is the system in which children are raised to function in their cultural gender role and includes financial bonuses to make it easier to raise a family, why should Homosexuals get married? Is it motivated by financial reasons, or a fear of persecution? If it is the latter, I'd rather have a constitution that protected the right to be homosexual than invent gay marriage, which seems pointless to me...

As a Doctor of Psychology, primarily focusing on the cause of mental disorders and their cures, I am yet to be convinced that people are genetically homosexual. Out of faith, I take the bible at its word when it speaks about the gender roles. I believe it was concieved by an all-knowing God who was not restricted to the moral values of ancient middle-eastern society. I also believe that the Bible continues to be relevent today. I realize that my very conservative view is in the minority, and I would like to make the following clear: 1) I believe that Christianity is a relationship between an individual and their God, and was never intended to be imposed on anyone against their will at a local or national level. I actively vote against any union of any Church and State. 2) Regarding sexual preference in a free society, it is not the right of any governing civil authority to dictate the individuals sexual behaviour. I fully support the Gay and Lesbian community's right to openly live out their lifestyle free from persecution. 3) The financial/civil benefits of marriage should be designed to help families raise children or abolished. As only heterosexual couples can reproduce, and since only heterosexual couples can teach children of both genders their role in society, I see no reason for Homosexual civil union if the first sentence of this point is being carried out. If it is not, than what is true for one sexual preference should be true for the other. 4) Many of the people who oppose my moral values want my religion to be abolished and my Bible to be banned. I desire the freedom to choose my own religion, and the freedom to disagree with and question the beliefs of others. A convinced Christian should be left in peace, as should a convinced Anti-Christian.

A assume you mean the US, and I totally oppose the union of Church and state, as well as the persecution of anyone. But you can't ban the bible, or you are intolerant! You can only choose to disagree with it, which everyone should be free to do.

No, you shouldn't be thrown in prision, but you are still sinning. Yes, and I also had the unpleasent experience of growing up in a country where I was persecuted for the faith of my parents. Humans have no right to punish or attempt to regulate thought like in 1984. But since God made you and is perfect, he can. Well, disagree with the Bible. As for torture, your idea of hell is probably similar to your idea of a concentration camp, which is not what hell is. No one is going to be poking you with a branding iron. Hell is a place of everlasting separation from God, which you choose to exile yourself too or be saved from. And since all the good things in life (like Love, hope, contentment etc.) are from God, you will experience none of them. You are able to express these on earth only because you were made in God's image. Without God, we are all evil, as bad as Hitler or Stalin. Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Therefore, you can't say you are any better or less guilty than anyone else, and no one can say they are better or less guilty than you. He has shown himself. You just refuse to accept him his way. I wouldn't be impressed either, but its non-fiction, so there goes that argument...

You must hate the Science of Biology, then. Are you actually arguing that your sexual organs natural use is not to reproduce? Whether or not you decide to have children is your business...but saying that the male/female reproductive organs are not for reproduction is a little silly... Context: Church at Corinth wrote Paul asking a specific question about a specific situation, and this is his answer. Taking this as a general rule only shows the ineptitude of the reader. I'm not going to bother answering any more of your complaints against scripture until you start looking at the context. Lastly, Homosexuality is contrary to the moral standard that is set forth in the Bible, true enough. So, if you are indeed Bisexual, you simply choose to reject the Biblical take on life, and choose your own path. You are free to do so in your country and mine, and I wouldn't want it any other way - but don't throw a fit because a religion disagrees with your morality, thats just childish.

Have you ever read a partially decent book?

This comic is one of the worst I've ever seen. Somepeople need to be shot...

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion... There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy? Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> josephus was a jew. he would never refer to jesus as christ. it is a fact. the passage is forged, but it is uncertain to which degree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Josephus does not call him Christ. He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity. I call him Christ out of respect. Saying "It's a fact" and "It is forged" in response to my saying it is not forged is not a valid argument form. I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ. A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

"Every Scholar out there"? None of the ones I know, and my doctorate degree isn't even in Religion... There is no evidence it is forged, only anti-christian wishful-thinking. The oldest remaining copies date back to when Christianity was an illegal sect within the Roman Empire. How did your "Christian conspirators" sneak into the Roman Libraries and change a highlty venerated historical document and then get all the Anti-Christian Roman Scholars to decide to leave the part about the made up Jesus guy? Like I said, believe or disbelieve Christ was God. But don't be naive enough to doubt a valid historical document just because you have an agenda against Christianity...

I always did good first, then tried evil, but I switched, so I can be evil before I get emotionally attached to the characters...

Very funny, keep it up!

Jesus died c29-35 A.D. One hundred years later was 129-35 A.D, 30 years after the death of Josephus (c100 A.D.), who recorded his existence. I agree with your hypothesis...probably a "bum".

Well..I don't like it anymore...I'd rather live in another city at least like :Timisoara How did Bucharest fall from favour with the mighty Baley?

Well, the "Christians" in the US are rather strange, most of them that I've met seem to want to create the United States of Jesus, and burn Liberals and Gays at the stake. Personally, I'd rather live in a place where everyone is free to choose and live without fear of persecution. I grew up in a place where my beliefs could get you tortured and hated, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Yes, you are. A thought/emotion IS the same as an action, because God judges mens hearts, not just they're actions. That should make it easier to forgive someone who physically hurt you, knowing your no better. Because you are a sinner, like the rest of us, in rebellion against God. Stop mis-using "abomination". All sin is an abomination. You are no more or less deserving of hell than a person who lies or steals something. We're all equally bad. You have to have faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. And whether or not you believe it, he gave you the capacity to trust him, and the freedom to reject him. Did you know that the first prophesy of the coming of Christ is in Genesis, right after Adam and Eve sinned for the first time? He's been preparing to die for your sins for a long time. No, Jospeh and Mary had several children after Christ was born, including Jude, who wrote the Book of Jude. Tsk tsk, thats not entirely accurate is it? For the sake of our eyes, you may want to focus on one point, rather than answering every one of my srguments, or PM me, or continue as is. I'll happily continue.

I have no idea what happened to your quotes...it happens to us all. What is your tons of evidence? You do know that the NT is the most supported 1st Century source in history, right? As for your three sources, they are hardly reliable. You also realise, I assume, that the vast majority of Buddist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic Historians/Theologians/Philosophers would laugh you to scorn for actually believing one of the best evidenced people in history didn't exist. Your beliefs are not opposed to Christianity, they are full on anti-christian. The evidence is there. Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), a Jewish-Roman historian makes mention of Christ, albeit only to say that he was a great teacher. There is one source for you. Google up the date of the oldest existing record of some of the other famous ancients. Compare the two. I was hoping you'd ask. :D If Your interested, I can PM or post the scripture referring to this... The purpose of the Law is to show us that we can never measure up to God's standard of righteousness, because we are sinful. Therefore, the OT system involved animal blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, and faith in God's promise to one day send a saviour. He did! He sent Christ (who was God) to live a perfect, sinless life, and die for our sins. His perfect sacrifice pays the debt of the Law, if you trust in his death and ressurection to pay for your sins. The Laws concerning personal holiness (like the pork one) can no longer condemn us, because Christ lived his whole earthly life without ever breaking one. You are right! They were completed, so the American Judges insisting that they be posted in US courthouses do not understand that the Judicial Legal code of the OT has been completed and can no longer condemn us. I don't need my government to think or want to be "under God", as the American one does. The Government should protect freedom of Thought and Speech, and also Action - with the exception of any action towards another against their will. All who oppose my beliefs have the same right as I do to question, verbally attack, and accept or deny it as I do. Total Separation of Church and State. And, as far as I know, the Law still exists in written form in its entirety as a symbol of the fact that we cannot work for our salvation. Don't stop in the Gospels, keep going. As stated above, these were to show mans sinfulness, and have now been completed bythe coming of Messiah. The bondage of the Law has been paid. I didn't know you had the qualification to edit the divinely conceived sola scriptura.

I concur...

You buy a ticket and a tourist visa and go. Then you apply for permission to stay and work, I guess. 10 years? Or 1?

To believe Jesus didn't exist is to reject historical fact. There is abundant evidence to show he did exist. Whether or not you believe he was God is up to you, but for the sake of your argument, I suggest you bite the bullet and admit he was a historical person. Do you believe in Julius Ceaser? How about Alexander the Great? How about Buddha? Sun Tzu? Mohammad? No, he said he "came to fulfill the Law", ie complete it. You can't pick up a bible (or any book for that matter) and find one verse you like and then misquote it. What "Abominations" are you referring to? Gleefully? Evidence from the text he did it gleefully? What does the text say was the reason he did it? Have you read it? No sin "harder" to forgive than any other. The NT teaches that Lust=Adultury/rape and Hate=Murder. He doesn't "toss" unbelievers into hell. We all deserve Hell, and he died to pay the debt we owe, and belief in his atoning death saves you. Sounds loving to me.... Please show were the Bible clearly demonstrates this. I take the Bible at its word, as do millions of others, and I find no contridiction.

Noted.