Saints LB Scott Fujita endorses gay marriage(*MERGED*) (1 Viewer)

[jpcdolphan]

This is the description of the 1 world antichrist leader in the last days, FWIW...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel 11:37&version=KJV

Daniel 11:37 (King James Version)

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

You can't possibly want attention this much.

Are people really this dumb?

Yes. And, sadly, this isn't rock bottom.

Yet.

 

[Jamnn25]

This is the description of the 1 world antichrist leader in the last days, FWIW...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel 11:37&version=KJV

Daniel 11:37 (King James Version)

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

But it doesn't say he'll be doing dudes. It just says he won't be interested in chicks because he loves himself more than anyone else.

 

[Utah Saints]

This is the description of the 1 world antichrist leader in the last days, FWIW...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel 11:37&version=KJV

Daniel 11:37 (King James Version)

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who cares what your little book of lies says about gay people?

 

[Sandman]

Who cares what your little book of lies says about gay people?

While I don't agree with the other poster's position, let's set the bar a little higher with the discussion.

With that said, my problem isn't with the Bible, but rather with the way some interpret it. Let's focus on discussing the (imo erroneous) interpretation rather than attacking the Bible itself.

 

[UpHere]

But it doesn't say he'll be doing dudes. It just says he won't be interested in chicks because he loves himself more than anyone else.

heh, i had to go back a couple of pages... i though you guys were talking about Fujita

 

[Utah Saints]

While I don't agree with the other poster's position, let's set the bar a little higher with the discussion.

With that said, my problem isn't with the Bible, but rather with the way some interpret it. Let's focus on discussing the (imo erroneous) interpretation rather than attacking the Bible itself.

Erronious interpretation? Its admonition against homosexual behavior is right there in black and white. What is erronious about it?

 

[Galbreath34]

Don't really want to wallow in a mire where there is nothing more than sabre rattling to be done (the true believers will never be convinced anyway, so it's just venting), but did want to say that while I can see Sandman's point about "set the bar a little higher" or not attacking the Bible itself, it would be nice to see a similar suggestion made the 10,000 times that a sect of one uses the Bible on EE (or SSF Breesus threads) to emphatically claim that someone's soul is in peril or damned to Hell. There's no reason to attack the soul of a fellow poster, whatever you might say to yourself there's no need to type that out.

 

[Utah Saints]

Don't really want to wallow in a mire where there is nothing more than sabre rattling to be done (the true believers will never be convinced anyway, so it's just venting), but did want to say that while I can see Sandman's point about "set the bar a little higher" or not attacking the Bible itself, it would be nice to see a similar suggestion made the 10,000 times that a sect of one uses the Bible on EE (or SSF Breesus threads) to emphatically claim that someone's soul is in peril or damned to Hell. There's no reason to attack the soul of a fellow poster, whatever you might say to yourself there's no need to type that out.

Calling gay people 'disgusting' and claiming they are the evil heralds of the end of the world is ok. Its religion. Its different.

 

[Deuceistheman]

That's actually a pretty funny line.

What is funny about it? I would like to know.

 

[jpcdolphan]

...

There's no reason to attack the soul of a fellow poster, whatever you might say to yourself there's no need to type that out.

The TOS states that you are not allowed to attack the poster.

Your immortal soul is fair game, though.

 

[Sandman]

Erronious interpretation? Its admonition against homosexual behavior is right there in black and white. What is erronious about it?

Well, here is the text that you commented on:

Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

There is nothing black and white in that text. I don't see anything about homosexuality in that quote. Nothing. Now, some may interpret the "nor the desire of women" to be a reference to homosexuality, but it could also mean that he is stuck on himself.

I am sure that you know Christians that follow the Bible that have no problem with gay marriage. I know some. I find that many of the passages of the Bible are subject to different interpretations. This is one of the reasons I do not buy the argument that the Bible is the "word of God." If it was, people wouldn't interpret it differently.

 

[Utah Saints]

Well, here is the text that you commented on:



There is nothing black and white in that text. I don't see anything about homosexuality in that quote. Nothing. Now, some may interpret the "nor the desire of women" to be a reference to homosexuality, but it could also mean that he is stuck on himself.

I am sure that you know Christians that follow the Bible that have no problem with gay marriage. I know some. I find that many of the passages of the Bible are subject to different interpretations. This is one of the reasons I do not buy the argument that the Bible is the "word of God." If it was, people wouldn't interpret it differently.

Trying to equate 'nor the desire of women' to mean straight-but-narcissist is quite the stretch.

I was also referencing the more famous leviticus verse, though I guess I shouldve quoted it as well.

Yes, people cherry-pick what they like out of the bible and discard what they dont like. Everyone does it. This is why two people can disagree on what their religion commands them to do, and both be right.

The tolerant-religious dont like to admit that the bible is rife with intolerance, the intolerant-religious never talk about the new testament virtues of caring and forgiving. Round and round they go.

 

[dtc]

Obviously, you should check wikipedia for the Truth.

Hold on, let me finish editing it first.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

If I could make one of those haunted house laughs, I would.

Scary.

 

[dtc]

Thanks for that. I appreciate how you believe that unless you have a law degree that you cannot participate in the discussion.

Dood, you can't. It's illegal to practice law without a license.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Trying to equate 'nor the desire of women' to mean straight-but-narcissist is quite the stretch.

...

At the risk of turning this into Vacation Bible School, Sandman is actually right in that this particular verse is not an attack against homosexuality.

There are a couple of different translations of it but the gist of it is that the Antichrist holds himself above all. Gods, people, chicks...he doesn't give a **** about any of 'em.