Who should be allowed to adopt?

[david_x]

"...and if the devil doesn't like it he can sit on a tack "ouch!" sit on a tack "ouch!" and if the devil doesn't like it he can sit on a tack "OUCH!" Sit on a tack to stay!"
tulc(always loved that song!)

LOL never heard that verse.

 

[tulc]

LOL never heard that verse.

Check here:
http://childbiblesongs.com/index.shtml
tulc(it's a fun site!)

 

[Floatingaxe]

I will call myself Christian as I choose, my friend. You don't get to decide what I call myself. That's up to me. If you want to dismiss me as a "cult Christian," then fine. I don't care what you think of my Christianity. Your opinion of my beliefs does not matter. I do care that some Christians continue to use the Bible to try to justify slandering and throwing stones at gay people. Doing that is immoral.

The Gospel of Thomas is no less a reliable historical source than any of the other Gospels are. And the Gospel of John is the least reliable of the Gospels historically as an account of the life of Jesus.

How do you know anything about the Bible? Yopu don't have muchy respect for it, so why don't you just burn it? It means nothing to you and your self-concocted dogma. You defend your homosexuality by using God's Word while at the same time you refute God's Word in order to justify your homosexuality!

Talk about spiritual schizophrenia!

What does one who makes up her own moral code have to say about morality? There are moral absolutes, my dear, and you trample all over them.

My vote is for heterosexual Christian adoption and fostering. That is a pie-in-the-sky kind of view as we all know that it can never happen. Non-Christians do have good families, and exercise and teach great morals to their children. But in order for the Lord to have a hand in raising good children to adulthood, the best opportunities for such children come from being raised in a Christian home and in a bible-beleiving church family. Faith is important for children, and for them to learn faith by seeing it in action in their parents and church family is a priceless benefit!

 

[kiwimac]

Modern scholarship largely supports Ohioprof's view of the Bible. The Earliest NT writings are Paul's, his view of Jesus is quite different from the more developed view of the Gospels.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Modern scholarship largely supports Ohioprof's view of the Bible. The Earliest NT writings are Paul's, his view of Jesus is quite different from the more developed view of the Gospels.

More developed view? What does that mean? I take Paul's view, which is more relevant, seeing as Jesus chose Him specifically, and made Him a dynamic Apostle over anyone else who was not an Apostle.

His view was the most highly developed of anyone since! Modern scholarship doesn't hold a candle to Paul's scholarship!

If modern scholarship has a different view of Jesus, then obviously that view is incorrect, and not worthy of contemplation.

 

[Mling]

More developed view? What does that mean? I take Paul's view, which is more relevant, seeing as Jesus chose Him specifically, and made Him a dynamic Apostle over anyone else who was not an Apostle.

His view was the most highly developed of anyone since! Modern scholarship doesn't hold a candle to Paul's scholarship!

If modern scholarship has a different view of Jesus, then obviously that view is incorrect, and not worthy of contemplation.

The question isn't about "modern" verses "Pauline." It is a question of what modern scholarship reveals about Jesus and Paul, versus what, say, 16th century scholarship said about Jesus and Paul. Older versions of the Bible had some very un-scholarly ways of.....blatantly mistranslating "temple prostitute" as "sodomite," for example.

 

[Brieuse]

The question isn't about "modern" verses "Pauline." It is a question of what modern scholarship reveals about Jesus and Paul, versus what, say, 16th century scholarship said about Jesus and Paul. Older versions of the Bible had some very un-scholarly ways of.....blatantly mistranslating "temple prostitute" as "sodomite," for example.

Yes they did blatantly mistranslate. I hold that the original Word of God is pure and beautiful. However it can be a bit tedious sifting through the centuries of added, or reconceived perceptions that have been injected into the Word of God by people, some not even within a relationship with God.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Yes they did blatantly mistranslate. I hold that the original Word of God is pure and beautiful. However it can be a bit tedious sifting through the centuries of added, or reconceived perceptions that have been injected into the Word of God by people, some not even within a relationship with God.

That's untrue. God is in control of what we have today as the bible. He is totally trustworthy to guard His own Word!

 

[irateional]

That's untrue. God is in control of what we have today as the bible. He is totally trustworthy to guard His own Word!

Wow. I missed a fun debate.

Anyways, that's an issue becuase then you imply that God literally control man. So if God can and does override man's free will, then doesn't that destroy the ability of man to have freewill?

Secondly, the issue is simple. Paul was a pharisee and his legalism shows through. While Paul's message was mostly about spreading the good news and understanding the fact Jesus died for all of man's sins, he also shows a more legalistic streak. Compared to the other apostles and other churches, Paul emphasizes sin and repentence more than the good news of Christ.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Wow. I missed a fun debate.

Anyways, that's an issue becuase then you imply that God literally control man. So if God can and does override man's free will, then doesn't that destroy the ability of man to have freewill?

God knows just how to get His Word out there. He orchestrates things. He is always seeking open, willing, obedient hearts. He found men who were trustworthy to Hiim with His message. That is entirely how He was able to have His message written. He's a good God, and everything He does is awesome and done with excellence.

You cannot attribute human characteristics--like failure and impotence--to God!

Secondly, the issue is simple. Paul was a pharisee and his legalism shows through. While Paul's message was mostly about spreading the good news and understanding the fact Jesus died for all of man's sins, he also shows a more legalistic streak. Compared to the other apostles and other churches, Paul emphasizes sin and repentence more than the good news of Christ.

Every writer of the Scriptures expressed the heart of God, but they were allowed the freedom to express it through the filter of their own unique personalities. Excellent! Something for everyone! God is great at disallowing the "cookie cutter" effect, eh?

 

[Brieuse]

God knows just how to get His Word out there. He orchestrates things. He is always seeking open, willing, obedient hearts. He found men who were trustworthy to Hiim with His message. That is entirely how He was able to have His message written. He's a good God, and everything He does is awesome and done with excellence.

You cannot attribute human characteristics--like failure and impotence--to God!



Every writer of the Scriptures expressed the heart of God, but they were allowed the freedom to express it through the filter of their own unique personalities. Excellent! Something for everyone! God is great at disallowing the "cookie cutter" effect, eh?

Well, I didn't attribute those characteristics to God. I'd like to believe your statement that God is in full control of The Word, including all translations over the last 20000 years, however, there is evidence that the Word has been influenced by mankind to distort the original meanings.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Well, I didn't attribute those characteristics to God. I'd like to believe your statement that God is in full control of The Word, including all translations over the last 20000 years, however, there is evidence that the Word has been influenced by mankind to distort the original meanings.

In 45 years of walking with Jesus and reading and studying the Word of God, I have yet to come across ANY DISTORTION!


That is until I come to sites like this one and see how PEOPLE distort the Word. That's more in line with what is in the world that we must face daily...opposition of the devil that comes in the form of light. I see it, and I recognize it.

 

[Brieuse]

In 45 years of walking with Jesus and reading and studying the Word of God, I have yet to come across ANY DISTORTION!


That is until I come to sites like this one and see how PEOPLE distort the Word. That's more in line with what is in the world that we must face daily...opposition of the devil that comes in the form of light. I see it, and I recognize it.

Well, unfortunately I have come across evidence in my long walk.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Well, unfortunately I have come across evidence in my long walk.

I doubt that very, very much.

 

[Phinehas2]

there is evidence that the Word has been influenced by mankind to distort the original meanings.

Once again we are back to the basic disagreement. It seems most if not all those who dont believe same-sex sex is error dont really believe the Bible anyway, yet those who see the Bible says same-sex sex is error do believe the Bible.

We cant discuss the issue based on the Bible as the truth and the word of God, if half of us believe it and the other half dont.
This debate is a question of what is the Christian faith and what isnt, thats why the clause was inserted this year into the rules to try and stop anyone objecting to what anyone who simply calls themselves a Christian wants to claim.

 

[Brieuse]

I doubt that very, very much.

Well, I have. Whether you doubt it or not.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I voted for all. Granted there are moral and ethical values that can vary dramatically in different upbringings based on social and economical factors, but with the notion that the child will be well taken care of and have all of his/her needs met, I could care less. It could be a straight/gay couple, single, or pair of loving chimpanzees.

 

[Mling]

That's untrue. God is in control of what we have today as the bible. He is totally trustworthy to guard His own Word!

That's a bold statement, but, given the Biblical portrayal of God, perfectly plausible, and I am willing to consider it. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
I ask because, during my studies of Hebrew, I found many passages very difficult to translated because of what appeared to be mistakes in the transcription from the original manuscripts to the Masoretic texts. 1st and 2nd Samuel were especially difficult.

Clearly, given that you have arrived at the conclusion that God had complete control over the Scripture, you would not consider these to be mistakes. In the words of a friend, "That's a feature, not a defect!"

So how, in your studies, did you handle these difficulties in translations?

 

[Floatingaxe]

That's a bold statement, but, given the Biblical portrayal of God, perfectly plausible, and I am willing to consider it. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
I ask because, during my studies of Hebrew, I found many passages very difficult to translated because of what appeared to be mistakes in the transcription from the original manuscripts to the Masoretic texts. 1st and 2nd Samuel were especially difficult.

Clearly, given that you have arrived at the conclusion that God had complete control over the Scripture, you would not consider these to be mistakes. In the words of a friend, "That's a feature, not a defect!"

So how, in your studies, did you handle these difficulties in translations?

Passages where there are differences in translation, as in the Samuels, where, for example, it is written 40,000 horses or horsemen, and in another it is written 4,000 is neither here nor there when it comes to the meaning of the passage. God is sovereign. That is the underlying message. There is not one little translation error that changes what God is conveying to us. Not one.

We need to believe tht God has preserved His Word and it all just falls into place. It is true.

 

[Mling]

Passages where there are differences in translation, as in the Samuels, where, for example, it is written 40,000 horses or horsemen, and in another it is written 4,000 is neither here nor there when it comes to the meaning of the passage. God is sovereign. That is the underlying message. There is not one little translation error that changes what God is conveying to us. Not one.

We need to believe tht God has preserved His Word and it all just falls into place. It is true.

But given just how much of the Samuels, in particular, show signs of corruption (that is my interpretation of the...unusual passages, if you have a better explanation I'd be perfectly open to hearing it), well...it begs the question: how can the integrity of the message of Scripture not be dependent on the integrity of the text?