Gay tendencies

That's one explanation. Another is that they are considered a side point to the main theme of the Bible because of how much they jar with the overall message of the Bible, and people choose not to cite them because they are embarrassing.

The Bible sees a lot of serious sin going unpunished for no apparent reason while minor sins or just errors of judgment get brutal punishment. What's God's deal?

 

Although you've already been posting there and should know where it is, here is a reminder:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=363663&f=467

 

I love how, in that thread, within about five posts you've already refused to answer someone's question on the grounds that you say you've told them the answer somewhere else already. Just like you're doing now.

Tard.

 

If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. As for me these things are not at all embarrassing and do not jar with the message of the Bible at all.

First you "seem" to be under the impression that there is such things as a serious sin and a minor sin. Sin means missing the mark of perfection. Many feel that Adam and Eve eating the fruit was a minor thing, why make a big deal of it but if the story is true, take a look around you, all the terrible things that are happening around you today, hatred, bigotry, war, murder and rape are the fruitage of that one bite.

 

Maybe they should be.

Right. Except that that story is a parable to explain those terrible things, not significantly different from that of Pandora's Box, when all other explanations fail.

 

why because you think so? I think I'll stick with God's thinking on the matter.

That is why I said "if" it's true, because I know you already don't believe it but the "if" asks you to assume for a moment that it is true so we can reason on a Biblical point from that standpoint. Why, because the Bible is written from the standpoint that that story is true and thus to understand what the Bible is saying you have to assume that the story is true. Whether you believe the story to be true or not is up to you but to understand the Bible you have to assume it is true.

 

The simple answer could be that it had already been answered. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to point out which ones they were and I'll show you where they were already answered. But then you wouldn't be able to make another personal attack.

 

what is love? ,, dont hurt me, dont hurt me.. no more... :leaving:

 

Another simple answer is that its a dodge, and when we go back to the place the original answer is supposed to be, we find it isn't much of an answer at all. I couldn't find the answers to my questions on the thread you referred me to, so I posted them again there. If you'd be so kind as to answer them there, I'd be grateful. That way we won't "hijack" this thread.

 

You do like the personal attacks don't you.

If you'd waited just a moment before posting this, you would have seen that your post had been answered in the other thread.

 

Basically yes. I think those parts of the Bible should be really embarrassing to anyone who allies himself to God, because they demonstrate a remarkable lack of compassion and humanity. Saying it's God's opinion is just a way to acquiesce to it. One should deplore violence, inequality and so on, and I don't understand how anyone could justify worshipping a god that doesn't do the same.

Why though? I can understand movies without believing that they're true. It's called suspension of disbelief, the mechanism by which the author makes you care about the outcome of a story. You don't have to believe that it's factually true to do this.

I think you should elaborate on this position though. At the moment it reads as though you think the Bible can only be understood by people who do not think critically, and I don't really see why that would be the case since there is not anything particularly unusual about the book or the words in it.

You might be surprised. I'm very creative. You do like to complain about personal attacks, don't you? I mean, most of these "attacks" are no worse than calling someone an idiot or telling them that they don't understand things. You do those things all the time, and unlike Okie, you rarely do it as part of a more contentious post, but usually just answer intelligent questions that have been put to you with a trite comment about the person lacking understanding and what I'm sure you think is a knowing wink.