Craziest Question EVER on the HYPE!

[random_havoc]

It's a little frustrating to read some of these comments because it's obvious that there is very little understanding about even some of the most basic things in the Bible. I don't mean it as an insult, just an observation. I'm gonna try and be brief, let's see how I do:

-BrianWilly: your comments regarding the catholics and episcopalians proves my point, not yours, because both of those groups acknowledge the Bible as the final matter on all spiritual/moral issues. And, in fact, if you were to get them to discuss those issues they would do so exactly by citing Bible verses and debating how they'd be understood.
On the other hand, someone who says "i know this is what the Bible teaches, but I don't care. I just ignore that part" no longer fits into any meaningful, historical definition of being a "Christian", because being a Christian (a Christ-follower) means to follow Christ's teachings.

-BryanSS3: "You can question or disagree with the master and still be a follower". That sounds true because we normally think in terms of other humans, who can be wrong. But disagreeing with God can only mean that you (not you Bryan, whoever is disagreeing with God) is automatically wrong. One of the foundational, most basic beliefs about God is that He is perfect.
Also Bryan, you argue that since homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone then it isn't wrong, but the Bible tells us that God finds it wrong when we have sex outside of marriage, that He finds it wrong when people swear (even if others aren't around to hear it), when people use his name in vain (that's one of the ten commandments even), etc, etc, etc. There doesn't have to be immediate, obvious harm to another person for something to be a sin. It's wrong because God says it's wrong and because He knows what's best for us.

More in a separate post.

 

[random_havoc]

Okay, here's where the "trying to talk about things that you don't really understand" kinda comes into play. A lot of people have opinions on the Bible when they've hardly ever read any of it for themselves, let alone done actual study of it. If they choose not to do those things that's fine, but then they should realize not to try and comment on it.
I've read the Bible through 3 times and have spent my adult life in personal and academic study of it (hoping to complete my masters in theological and biblical studies in a year and a half).

Example of not knowing the basics of the Bible: the examples given below about "well you must pick and choose because you don't follow the old testment".
All you have to do is read the Bible to realize that the laws in the Old Testament were written to apply to ONLY the Israelites of ONLY a certain period. Jesus did away with those laws 2000 years ago. So realizing that we don't HAVE to follow them means that we actually understand the Bible and ARE following its teachings, NOT that we're picking and choosing at all. Some of those laws were given because doing those is inherently sinful (ie murder), and hence they are repeated in the New Testament and they still apply today. Others of those laws were given by God to the Israelites for entire other reasons that it would take me two paragraphs to explain (such as men not trimming their beards, ritualistic washing, etc etc) hence they were done away with because they had fulfilled their purposes and were no longer needed.

That's why I refer to Romans 1 (a new testament teaching) as my main biblical reference regarding homosexuality as a sin. Some people use leviticus, but that's part of the old law, so that isn't the best passage to use.


Uhh, i gotta get to sleep. More tomorrow probably.

 

[Phaedrus45]

I've read the Bible through 3 times and have spent my adult life in personal and academic study of it (hoping to complete my masters in theological and biblical studies in a year and a half).

My only thought on this is that in studying the Bible, you don't come at it with an open perspective. You are a man of faith, and thus your thoughts and beliefs will be skewed in what you are reading. Just as if you were to study the Book Of Mormon, you'd not give it the same consideration as your Bible. This is just as I would read the same text with my own biases.

 

[BrianWilly]

-BrianWilly: your comments regarding the catholics and episcopalians proves my point, not yours, because both of those groups acknowledge the Bible as the final matter on all spiritual/moral issues. And, in fact, if you were to get them to discuss those issues they would do so exactly by citing Bible verses and debating how they'd be understood.
On the other hand, someone who says "i know this is what the Bible teaches, but I don't care. I just ignore that part" no longer fits into any meaningful, historical definition of being a "Christian", because being a Christian (a Christ-follower) means to follow Christ's teachings.

I think you're oversimplifying the thought processes of people who may not take every word of the Bible literally. I may very well be completely wrong on this, but I truly doubt anyone reconciles their lifestyle with the Bible by simply "ignoring" things that they don't like. I mean, I can't imagine that you've stoned any heretics recently, and I doubt it's because you simply "don't care" about that part of the Bible.

The fact remains that, even if different denominations agree that the Bible is the final matter on all spiritual/moral issues, they've still interpreted said authority in different ways. And not just one or two minor points of debate, but dozens of interpretations on various key points. I guess my only real question is, how does this differ from you interpreting the Bible to prohibit homosexuality, and others interpreting it otherwise?

Another example: ask any two Christians what they think about the death penalty, and you're liable to get two different answers. And this isn't some vague officious detail for the clergy to mull over at their leisure, this is a rather important issue that intimately affects everyone's daily lives! Yet something as seemingly straightforward and bland as "Thou shalt not kill" incites all kinds of varying responses ranging from person to person, era to era. Who has interpreted it correctly?

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Sentry. It'd be hilarious too

 

[MeanLilBonnie]

Watch me get hung, but DC has one primed and ready to go. Robin.

 

[Yodaman]

I always wanted She-hulk and Tigra to be lesbian lovers.

^

I think you speak for every straight male who's ever read Marvel comics.

 

[Sloth7d]

Seriously. You just need to leave.

No dude. This is the discussion now. We changed it.

Yeah, the irony is I think this is far away closer to "trolling" than me posting this thread thinking people might turn the discussion in this direction eventually.

Me trying to keep the discussion on topic? Sure, if you can some how feasibely explain how that makes sense, sure, but either way I dropped this right after BW's post anyway, yet you still won't shut up about it. So who's really trolling and trying to pick a fight here? But it's clear you didn't really want to leave it at that.

 

[Sloth7d]

^

I think you speak for every straight male who's ever read Marvel comics.

Story be damned. This needs to happen.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Sentry. It'd be hilarious too

And why has this turned into a religious/political thread? This is the comics section. Comics is how we get away from all that ****.

 

[iloveclones]

Story be damned. This needs to happen.

Throw in the Black Cat, and I'll reserve it now.

 

[Phaedrus45]

The fact remains that, even if different denominations agree that the Bible is the final matter on all spiritual/moral issues, they've still interpreted said authority in different ways. And not just one or two minor points of debate, but dozens of interpretations on various key points. I guess my only real question is, how does this differ from you interpreting the Bible to prohibit homosexuality, and others interpreting it otherwise?

Another example: ask any two Christians what they think about the death penalty, and you're liable to get two different answers. And this isn't some vague officious detail for the clergy to mull over at their leisure, this is a rather important issue that intimately affects everyone's daily lives! Yet something as seemingly straightforward and bland as "Thou shalt not kill" incites all kinds of varying responses ranging from person to person, era to era. Who has interpreted it correctly?

Very true...and, it doesn't help that the Bible is filled with contradictions. (Hence, it being written by different men, who cannot help but give their own interpretations.) For example:

Is God good and merciful or cruel and destructive?

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

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.


Here are some of my favorites:

What were Jesus' last words?

MAT 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."
LUK 23:46: "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."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Now, how exactly did Judas die?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)


How many times did that cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

 

[iloveclones]

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

I'd LOVE it if they brought back Rom



did I mis-read that?.....

 

[Phaedrus45]

I'm trying to remember Jesus fighting the Dire Wraiths....

 

[iloveclones]

You must have missed the Epistle to the Galatians where they talk about the Neutralizer.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

And why has this turned into a religious/political thread? This is the comics section. Comics is how we get away from all that ****.

Unless you're Nightcrawler

 

[iloveclones]

Unless you're Nightcrawler

Mutant, Catholic, Demon-appearance and now people want him to be GAY? Geez, let's just change him from blue to black and people will be lining up to discriminate against him.....

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Haha, poor guy. I thought it was hilarious that they made Ultimate-Kurt a homophobe.

 

[DACMAN]

No dude. This is the discussion now. We changed it.



Me trying to keep the discussion on topic? Sure, if you can some how feasibely explain how that makes sense, sure, but either way I dropped this right after BW's post anyway, yet you still won't shut up about it. So who's really trolling and trying to pick a fight here? But it's clear you didn't really want to leave it at that.

OH MY GOSH! JUST STAY OUT OF THE THREAD!

You act like you have to come to this thread.

 

[DACMAN]

mutant, catholic, demon-appearance and now people want him to be gay? Geez, let's just change him from blue to black and people will be lining up to discriminate against him.....

haha!:d

 

[random_havoc]

I'm busy over the next couple days. I'll get back to this at some point in the future.

 

[iloveclones]

haha!:d

This isn't a big deal, and I don't want anyone to think I'm picking a fight: But I'm curious why you changed the Capitalizations when you quoted me?

 

[DACMAN]

This isn't a big deal, and I don't want anyone to think I'm picking a fight: But I'm curious why you changed the Capitalizations when you quoted me?

It did that automatically. When you have an entire post with nothing but caps it makes them all lower case for some stupid reason. I didn't notice until just now. That's also why my smiley looked liked this :d. So it looks like it did it to your post as well.

 

[iloveclones]

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too, but figured I just wasn't hip to any new smiley lingo...

 

[iloveclones]

Just in case you're wondering, I figured it meant a smiley with a joint.