DMagoh: Summing things Up

[tulc]

When you "give it back"? Like I said, you did a "Fundie" list first.

Well, first in the sense he wrote it 6 months or so before you joined CF you mean?
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

 

[DMagoh]

Well, first in the sense he wrote it 6 months or so before you joined CF you mean?
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

I think that qualifies as having been the first to draw up such a list; inasmuch, he was not "giving back" but really drawing "first blood".
dmagoh(not sure why 6 months matters, first is first)

 

[irateional]

I think that qualifies as having been the first to draw up such a list; inasmuch, he was not "giving back" but really drawing "first blood".
dmagoh(not sure why 6 months matters, first is first)

You've ignored my post along with Zaac. Excellent refutations!

 

[tulc]

I think that qualifies as having been the first to draw up such a list; inasmuch, he was not "giving back" but really drawing "first blood".

Because if I remember correctly his list actually came after someone else posted a "Liberals all believe this" list. The truth is people have been posting these things for a long time. Yours is just one more in a long line.
tulc(never believed those things and think they cause more harm then good)

 

[davedjy]

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! I just found this post and it sums up why so many get caught up in sin as is exampled in this forum.



Liberal Truth #1 The Bible is truth....except when it isnt (and it usually depends on what my favorite sin is; it is definitely not true when it says my favorite activity is sin)

Liberal Truth #2 God no longer cares how we live, he had His Son crucified so we could live as we please

Liberal Truth #3 Despite what James said in James 5:19, if someone sees a Christian brother has strayed from the truth, and tries to bring him back, he is actually JUDGING and is the WORST of all sinners

Liberal Truth #4 The Bible says that Jesus died for us and rose again on the 3rd day; other than that, any other miracles or supernatural acts that are in the Bible are IMPOSSIBLE since science tells us it couldnt happen (we ignore the fact that science tells us someone cant come back from the dead however)

Liberal Truth #5 Despite the fact that the word "repent" (or "repentance") is used 53 times in the New Testament alone, repentance is NOT REALLY necessary as long as we "love"

Liberal Truth #6 Anything that tries to prevent us from being able to live any way we please is called LEGALISM (despite Jesus saying if we love God we'll obey His commands)

Liberal Truth #7 If you think someone is sinning, it means that you either HATE him, or secretly desire to do what he is doing

Liberal Truth #8 There is no truth, what's true for you may not be true for me (wait a minute... is that truth? I thought there was no such thing as truth!)

Actual Proof #1: There is not one condemnation of homosexuality as one’s innate sexual constitution in the Scriptures. In fact, any reputable Bible scholar will tell you that when the original manuscripts were written in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in none of these languages did the word "homosexual," or any viable translation of the word, exist.

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

 

[DMagoh]

Actual Proof #1: There is not one condemnation of homosexuality as one’s innate sexual constitution in the Scriptures. In fact, any reputable Bible scholar will tell you that when the original manuscripts were written in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in none of these languages did the word "homosexual," or any viable translation of the word, exist.

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

I dont see the word "homosexual" in this verse at all. All I see is...

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• They receive the due penalty for their perversion.

How do you mistranslate that?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

I dont see the word "homosexual" in this verse at all. All I see is...

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• They receive the due penalty for their perversion.

How do you mistranslate that?

Did you know that Bible scholars believe Paul was blind and wrote either sloppily or with a scribe? Ever think the scribe misheard it? Or the ones who mass produced the Bible read Paul's writing incorrectly.

 

[Zaac]

Did you know that Bible scholars believe Paul was blind and wrote either sloppily or with a scribe? Ever think the scribe misheard it? Or the ones who mass produced the Bible read Paul's writing incorrectly.

Ever think that folks have to really try entirely too hard to twist things in order to make this sin acceptable?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Ever think that folks have to really try entirely too hard to twist things in order to make this sin acceptable?

Ever think that these are the same Bible Scholars you go on and on about how right they are?

 

[OllieFranz]

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

I dont see the word "homosexual" in this verse at all. All I see is...

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for one another;
• [They have committed indecent acts] men with men; and
• They receive the due consequences for their error.

How do you mistranslate that?

You have already been told that the phrase I changed to red is an editorial insertion showing translator bias and is not in the Greek manuscripts. And the parts I changed to dark red are closer to the intent in the Greek. To continue to post the charge without those corrections shows that it is you, not those you accuse, who keep "twisting" God's word.

This verse is a quote from Plato, and the error these people are making is an addiction to pleasure (specifically in this example to sex), and addiction carries its own punishment. The punishment of addiction is that the activity is no longer pleasurable, but one must not only continue it, but must increase it.

 

[DMagoh]

Did you know that Bible scholars believe Paul was blind and wrote either sloppily or with a scribe? Ever think the scribe misheard it? Or the ones who mass produced the Bible read Paul's writing incorrectly.

Yeah, and I heard the part about Jesus coming back from the dead was heard wrong too. Mary was really taking a rose to Jesus' grave, and the hard-of-hearing scribes wrote that Jesus arose from the grave. You see, He's really still dead, and your whole life has been a lie due to simple misunderstanding about "a rose at the grave" and "arose from the grave".

 

[DMagoh]

Did you know that Bible scholars believe Paul was blind and wrote either sloppily or with a scribe? Ever think the scribe misheard it? Or the ones who mass produced the Bible read Paul's writing incorrectly.

Ever think that folks have to really try entirely too hard to twist things in order to make this sin acceptable?

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[DMagoh]

This verse is a quote from Plato, and the error these people are making is an addiction to pleasure (specifically in this example to sex), and addiction carries its own punishment. The punishment of addiction is that the activity is no longer pleasurable, but one must not only continue it, but must increase it.

Sorry, but the rationalization that keeps going on just gets more and more humorous. In this one verse, I have heard that...

• it's really only talking about homosexual sex during idol worship
• Paul was a homophobe, God is not
• Paul was blind and the scribes were hard of hearing
• they were really talk about sex addiction, not sex

Could you just pick one hilarious rationalization and go with it?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Yeah, and I heard the part about Jesus coming back from the dead was heard wrong too. Mary was really taking a rose to Jesus' grave, and the hard-of-hearing scribes wrote that Jesus arose from the grave. You see, He's really still dead, and your whole life has been a lie due to simple misunderstanding about "a rose at the grave" and "arose from the grave".

Stop saying your Bible is right then because the same Bible scholars who've translated your translations are the ones who say this.

 

[DMagoh]

Did you know that Bible scholars believe Paul was blind and wrote either sloppily or with a scribe? Ever think the scribe misheard it? Or the ones who mass produced the Bible read Paul's writing incorrectly.

Yeah, and I heard the part about Jesus coming back from the dead was heard wrong too. Mary was really taking a rose to Jesus' grave, and the hard-of-hearing scribes wrote that Jesus arose from the grave. You see, He's really still dead, and your whole life has been a lie due to simple misunderstanding about "a rose at the grave" and "arose from the grave".

Stop saying your Bible is right then because the same Bible scholars who've translated your translations are the ones who say this.

What?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

What?

Fundie Truth 44:

44. Don't forget the ol' favorite of 'huh?' or 'huh? That doesn't make any sense' - even if it does.

That was sarcasm to express a point by the way.

 

[OllieFranz]

Sorry, but the rationalization that keeps going on just gets more and more humorous. In this one verse, I have heard that...

• it's really only talking about homosexual sex during idol worship
• Paul was a homophobe, God is not
• Paul was blind and the scribes were hard of hearing
• they were really talk about sex addiction, not sex

Could you just pick one hilarious rationalization and go with it?

Well it seems that you have no response to the main point of my post, that you are, by deliberately quoting a biased "translation," twisting the verse, yourself.

As for my assertion that Paul is quoting Plato on sexual addiction:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Plato, Laws 1.636c

As the dialogue goes on, Plato makes it quite clear that he he is talking about addiction by comparing it it drunkenness (alcoholism).

Either Paul is citing Plato (quoting him with the understanding that his Roman readers will understand that verse to refer to addiction), or he is a plagiarist, a thief. Since Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was not plagiarizing Plato, but citing him.