Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[YeShallTread]

Yes, I know the history.

I was just commenting on what the majority of biblical scholars agree on. The bible has many different authors, with different writing styles and some are anonymous, even though the powers at be attached names to them.

Should you not then question what the "majority of learned scholars" think when you yourself read the Bible? You should notice that there are no discrepancies even though they were penned by various men through a long, long period of time.

There are "Bible scholars" that are atheists. Why would anyone believe them?

 

[bhsmte]

Should you not then question what the "majority of learned scholars" think when you yourself read the Bible? You should notice that there are no discrepancies even though they were penned by various men through a long, long period of time.

There are "Bible scholars" that are atheists. Why would anyone believe them?

No descrepancies? The gospels are filled with them.

 

[NightHawkeye]

There are "Bible scholars" that are atheists. Why would anyone believe them?

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson​

 

[bhsmte]

Should you not then question what the "majority of learned scholars" think when you yourself read the Bible? You should notice that there are no discrepancies even though they were penned by various men through a long, long period of time.

There are "Bible scholars" that are atheists. Why would anyone believe them?

The vast majority of biblical scholars are Christians, which is why they went into the field to begin with.

Now, there have been a biblical scholar or a few, that started out a Christian and when they learned more about the bible through their studies and examined the historicity of the book, they left their faith, because of what they discovered. Bart Ehrman is a good example. He attended Moody bible institute, Wheaton College and earned his Phd under the leading biblical scholar of the 20th century at Princeton Seminary. He was a Baptist minister for a while, he was a conservative Christian, then became a more liberal Christian and eventually he became agnostic as he learned more about the bible.

 

[YeShallTread]

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson​

I needed answers when I didn't believe but wanted to. Then I was called. The answers were then unimportant and now...He provides answers.

Perhaps it's a matter of casting pearls before swine. Why give answers to someone so undeserving that just wants to turn and rend? I questioned with boldness but He didn't answer until....

 

[YeShallTread]

The vast majority of biblical scholars are Christians, which is why they went into the field to begin with.

Now, there have been a biblical scholar or a few, that started out a Christian and when they learned more about the bible through their studies and examined the historicity of the book, they left their faith, because of what they discovered. Bart Ehrman is a good example. He attended Moody bible institute, Wheaton College and earned his Phd under the leading biblical scholar of the 20th century at Princeton Seminary. He was a Baptist minister for a while, he was a conservative Christian, then became a more liberal Christian and eventually he became agnostic as he learned more about the bible.

Then he failed to "learn."

 

[YeShallTread]

No descrepancies? The gospels are filled with them.

Really? Man often sees things man doesn't understand and is quick to blame God.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I needed answers when I didn't believe but wanted to. Then I was called. The answers were then unimportant and now...He provides answers.

Perhaps it's a matter of casting pearls before swine. Why give answers to someone so undeserving that just wants to turn and rend? I questioned with boldness but He didn't answer until....

There is more to it than asking, of course ...

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Man often sees things man doesn't understand and is quick to blame God.

I don't blame a God, I would blame the guys that scribbled the stuff down decades later and couldn't coordinate well enough.

Tons of descrepancies in the NT and some stories were added centuries later as well.

 

[bhsmte]

Then he failed to "learn."

On the contrary, he learned too well.

 

[GarfieldJL]

On the contrary, he learned too well.

Is your personal views on Christianity even relevant to this discussion?

While the argument as to whether or not the Bible accepts Homosexual relations, is applicable, I think you've crossed into an argument that isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[bhsmte]

Is your personal views on Christianity even relevant to this discussion?

While the argument as to whether or not the Bible accepts Homosexual relations, is applicable, I think you've crossed into an argument that isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

The more important question would be; does anyone's personal interpretation of an ancient book, play a role in how we should define our laws?

 

[YeShallTread]

There is more to it than asking, of course ...

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.​

Let him that is athirst come. There is a great deal being said in that small sentence.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Is your personal views on Christianity even relevant to this discussion?

While the argument as to whether or not the Bible accepts Homosexual relations, is applicable, I think you've crossed into an argument that isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

I haven't perceived his posts as merely reflections of his own personal views on Christianity, but rather as presenting salient points regarding the Bible and how it is regarded and interpreted by Biblical scholars and Christians, which is indeed relevant to the thread discussion. Differences in hermeneutical interpretations of the six scriptures regarding homosexuality, which have been influenced by the work of Biblical scholars who've studied the scriptures in their original languages and historical context, has led to several denominations altering their stances on SSM. There are also substantial differences in Christian opinions on whether the Bible is inerrant.

 

[GarfieldJL]

The more important question would be; does anyone's personal interpretation of an ancient book, play a role in how we should define our laws?

It really depends on the circumstance, but in this case the answer is yes.

We have a 1st Amendment for a reason, you see the pilgrims left England due to persecution based on religion. The 1st Amendment is there to prevent government from persecuting people based on their religious beliefs.

You see one of the main reason's I was against SSM and am still against it, is because I expected incidents like what happened to the baker, the Christian Photographer, the pastors, and what's happening in Houston to occur.

In fact it was alarmingly easy to predict.


--------------------------------------------------------

I haven't perceived his posts as merely reflections of his own personal views on Christianity, but rather as presenting salient points regarding the Bible and how it is regarded and interpreted by Biblical scholars and Christians, which is indeed relevant to the thread discussion. Differences in hermeneutical interpretations of the six scriptures regarding homosexuality, which have been influenced by the work of Biblical scholars who've studied the scriptures in their original languages and historical context, has led to several denominations altering their stances on SSM. There are also substantial differences in Christian opinions on whether the Bible is inerrant.

Except the only instance I can think where Homosexuality might not have been "condemned" is the Roman Centurion example that I mentioned. The "servant" was more than likely a slave, and would be unsurprising if said slave was a child. God wouldn't condemn a child whom is the victim of sexual abuse. While Jesus healed the "servant," we don't know what happened afterward. It could honestly be that the Centurion no longer did anything to said "servant." Maybe said "servant" was freed. If someone had just been healed by divine intervention, and you believe you're the one whom was responsible for the injuries, you'd likely be very afraid to harm so much as a hair on the head of that person.

 

[YeShallTread]

I don't blame a God, I would blame the guys that scribbled the stuff down decades later and couldn't coordinate well enough.

Tons of descrepancies in the NT and some stories were added centuries later as well.

Your choice of words speak volumes bhsmte. "A God," "scribbled the stuff." Even when I could not yet believe I never treated God or His Word in such a fashion.

You are mistaken on many fronts.

 

[bhsmte]

It really depends on the circumstance, but in this case the answer is yes.

We have a 1st Amendment for a reason, you see the pilgrims left England due to persecution based on religion. The 1st Amendment is there to prevent government from persecuting people based on their religious beliefs.

You see one of the main reason's I was against SSM and am still against it, is because I expected incidents like what happened to the baker, the Christian Photographer, the pastors, and what's happening in Houston to occur.

In fact it was alarmingly easy to predict.

Yes, we do have 1st amendment rights for a reason, to protect free speech and freedom of religion.

Now, anyone who has studied legal interpretations of the same will state; these rights are not limitless and they tend to end, when restricting the rights of others. Especially when the venue is a public business, catering to the public, when people may walk in, who don't share the business owners religious views.

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater and a business owner can not discriminate against a protected class based on religious beliefs. No protection for either exists.

 

[bhsmte]

Your choice of words speak volumes bhsmte. "A God," "scribbled the stuff." Even when I could not yet believe I never treated God or His Word in such a fashion.

You are mistaken on many fronts.

I call them as I see them, based on the best evidence.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater and a business owner can not discriminate against a protected class based on religious beliefs. No protection for either exists.

It seems that the lawyers and the local politicians in this instance disagree ... seeing as how they reached agreement that the ordinance and penalties don't apply ... at least not as originally written.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Yes, we do have 1st amendment rights for a reason, to protect free speech and freedom of religion.

Now, anyone who has studied legal interpretations of the same will state; these rights are not limitless and they tend to end, when restricting the rights of others. Especially when the venue is a public business, catering to the public, when people may walk in, who don't share the business owners religious views.

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater and a business owner can not discriminate against a protected class based on religious beliefs. No protection for either exists.

You're making an assumption that I haven't studied this, but I've actually studied Constitutional History.