Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

[KCKID]

The Mainstream Christian Church (i.e. the 'Christian Church' in general) appears to have an unshakable belief that gay people cannot possibly be Christians. Therefore gay people will always be regarded as 'lepers' because the mainstream Church believes that homosexuality is against the will of God and the actual practicing of such is a 'grave sin'. This is in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as a grave sin. This more comes from the minds of people who have received a life time of brainwashing into believing this. Where homosexual activity IS mentioned in scripture it almost always - in fact, PROBABLY always - refers to the practice of idolatry and not as WE today refer to homosexuality. There are those Christians who are so appalled at the notion that gay people might desire to integrate with 'actual Christians' within their Church community that they suggest gays start their own denomination ...minus the 'Christian' prefix, of course, which would be sacrilege. Such folks want nothing to do with homosexual people and their minds appear to be set on this.

Below is a recent item from The Guardian that tells of the plight of gay Christians in Uganda. In our particular neck of the woods (probably the majority of those of us who participate on the forum) gays have no fear of state imposed death or life imprisonment as do those in places such as Uganda. Gays do, however, have a stigma placed on them by most Christians that results in rejection by the mainstream Church and, indeed, by God himself. And, of course, the rejection of God is tantamount to death or, worse still, eternal torment. The latter makes the penalty imposed on gays in Uganda pale by comparison.

Will mainstream Christianity ever be accepting of people whose only 'sin' is that they happen to be gay ...i.e. an involuntary sexual attraction between two people of the same gender? If not, why not? Please, give your HONEST reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... ry-kampala

Sunday is a special day in Uganda, the conservative east African country that is threatening to put gay people behind bars for life. On Sunday you can see families flocking to churches all over the country for prayer, wearing their best clothes.

The sermons are predictable. Church leaders will pray for divine intervention against the corrupt leaders, poverty and the potholed roads, and then finally call doom upon the country's homosexuals who are sinning against the Christian God and ruining African culture.

But not at a tiny church tucked away in one of Kampala's suburbs. Here, gay people meet in devoted challenge to mainstream denominations that have declared them outcasts. With dread-locked hair and in jeans and bathroom slippers, members of this congregation would stand out in the prim and proper evangelical church I sometimes go to. I feel overdressed in my white dress.

"Here we are all about freedom," Pepe Onziema, a gay rights activist tells me. "It is a universal church. We welcome people whether gay or straight."

The gates may be open but the road to the church that calls itself a friendship and reconciliation centre is not paved with sleek cars or thronged with believers. The worshippers trickle in. They take their seats, but not before surveying the crowd furtively, trying to identify everyone. Their life depends on this vigilance.

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isnt under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

The gay Ugandan church seeks to spread an alternative gospel of love and acceptance for all. On this particular Sunday, it is the memorial of David Kato, a gay rights activist who was murdered in 2011. So the numbers are bigger than usual. When the church was started by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (who has since been thrown out of the Anglican Church for ministering to gay people), the gay community in Uganda attended devotedly. But with arrests and growing anti-gay sentiments, threats to their lives and arrests, fewer and fewer people come to the church.

"Our numbers have reduced ever since we started in 2008," Denis, the chaplain and a primary school teacher, tells me. "It is worse now that the bill has been passed." If Denis's employees knew of his orientation or his calling, he would certainly lose his job. "This is the only place we can feel at home. Here we can worship God without feeling guilty or fearing persecution."

Joining a gay congregation in Uganda is risky but Onziema says it is necessary in a society that greatly values community. For on Sundays, when many Ugandans spend time with their families, most gay people have nowhere to go. "Coming here lets us know that we are not alone and gives us the strength to continue the struggle," Onziema says.

You can see both hope and fear in the eyes of the congregation as they read Bible verses proclaiming God's protection over them and sing "What a friend we have in Jesus".

Here, there are no thunderous shouts of praise, speaking in tongues or Bible-thumping that is characteristic of the evangelism that is so trendy in the country. In the quiet worship of Uganda's gay community, there is a still hope and the kind of courage you can only muster after you have seen it all and there is nothing left to fear. Sunday is also the day gay people in Uganda cast off their masks to chat about the latest fashion, cars and celebrities.

"You thought we were going to pray that God stops the anti-homosexuality bill," Mugisha, the head of Sexual Minorities Uganda, asks me with laughter and mischief in his voice. "It will not pass. We do not need to pray for that."

Mugisha is for a moment free from his job, his life, fighting for the basic human rights of gay people. "I come here for the community. It is better than staying home alone," he says. As the service ends, members of the congregation are asked to say something in memory of David Kato, whose spirit of resilience they will need as they walk out of the church into their daily routine.

"We know he did not die in vain," Mugisha says. "One day we shall be accepted."

[KCKID]

KCKID

Like I teach children, and this may help you, but probably not, based on your political ideology, "if all of the bad stuff is true in the Bible, so is the good stuff."

Well, that's why you shouldn't speak to kids. Your comment is completely devoid of logic. Yes, if it's all true, it's all true... that goes without saying.

But, it's not true that "if the bad stuff is true, so is the good stuff." Just because one thing is true, doesn't impact the truth of a different claim.

All the bad stuff in the Bible could be true, and the Good stuff a complete lie.

The problem is, you haven't established if it's true! You then go on to tell these poor children, in glowing detail, the world you believe exists, but don't give them the tools to test if your world view is correct.

This "logic" may work on children, but not us.

I didn't accept Christ as Savior until I was an adult.

And, what did Christ 'save' you from ...the wrath of God? If so, then why would a human being - who is imperfect and therefore 'naturally sins' - be held accountable in the first place for having been created 'imperfect' by the Creator?

I have consistenly held that you have the right to reject the Biblical record. And I, on the other hand have the right to belive it.

I didn't say anything about one's rights to believe whatever they like. I simply asked you a question that you didn't answer. Do you believe it unreasonable for God to demand 'perfection' (as is claimed of God) from 'inferior' (as compared to God) human beings?

Whatever tactic you are employing this time around, you still haven't shown where we can edit out of the Bible anything that upsets your personal morality.

I asked you a legitimate question. Why is this seen by you as 'a tactic'?

I am not here to give my testimony and I believe fully what Jesus said about pearls and swine. In metaphor (or parable) veritas. I've seen that metaphor happen in real life as much as I have here at this website and of course others as well.

I didn't ask for your testimony. I asked whether it's unfair of God to demand from humans what they are incapable (by God's design) of giving.

We're told that humans are 'lesser' beings than the angels who are 'lesser' beings than God. So, humans are way down on the totem pole.

Really?

Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?

- 1 Corinthians 6

Well, I'm also here to learn. Would you please explain to me in detail - and in concise English - what that text is saying? By the way, it's Hebrews 2:7 that claims humans are lower in status than angels.

In the Garden of Eden story God evidently didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the specifically forbidden fruit since doing so, we find out later, would allow them knowledge of good and evil and they would therefore be 'as gods'. Clearly, if we take the A&E story literally, as I believe you do, God wanted them to remain in ignorance, i.e.'imperfect'. Do you not realize that none of this makes any sense to those that think out this kind of stuff logically? Or, is it the general rule that one has to suspend logic when it comes to the Bible?

Is that how uou see it? Hmm. Says a lot.

Says a lot about what? That the above is illogical? If I need to be educated then I'm giving you the opportunity to educate me. That's why I'm asking you the questions. The answers, unfortunately, are not forthcoming.

How many good old fashioned human parents want their children to be debauched?

Huh, what ...?

So, again, what were you saved from, 99percent? If you answer, "I was saved from death (since the wages of sin is death)," then my next question would be ..."Why would God impose this harsh penalty in the first place on an imperfect human being KNOWING that humans are INCAPABLE of NOT 'sinning?" Can you explain why you found this totally illogical notion SO appealing that it became your life mission to convert others to this "Jesus saved me from a cruel and unreasonable God" way of thinking? AND, with SUCH enthusiasm, I quickly add!!

Or, are these questions of mine, similar to previous others, ones that you'd rather ignore? They're piling up, y'know.

You know what's piling up pal, is that you continually attack me personally post after post after post. You are truly lucky that I didn't report this one.

Forum Rules:

1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages.

Where am I attacking you? Is this the tack that you take in lieu of offering actual answers to my questions? If anything, I will confess that I'm submitting questions to you believing that you can't effectively answer them. Or, maybe you can and therefore prove me wrong. Perhaps that makes me 'sneaky' but I don't intend to 'attack' you per se. I've read (in full) many of your posts on this forum and it would certainly appear (to me anyway) from the contents of these posts that you have indeed made it your mission in life to combat 'the evils' (as you see them) of this world and to convert everyone to your specific mindset. As you know, there are any number of people on this forum who are pretty knowledgeable of the scriptures who don't share your specific mindset.

I say this as sincerely as I can, 99percent ...you perhaps need to accept these differences that we have and move on. Why can't we agree to disagree on specific issues and instead concentrate on any commonalities that we might have? Is this really asking too much?

[99percentatheism]

Goat

Goat:

[Replying to post 1 by KCKID]

Hopefully one day those who are interested in following the teachings of Jesus will realize that he said nothing one way or the other about gayness. That's included in the Hebrew teachings. It's also included in Paul's teachings. Jesus didn't mention it, as far as we know. What he DID tell us was "Do not judge". To me, that says it all. When a discrepancy arises between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught, I'll go with Jesus every time.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. "Gayness" as in acted out same gender sex between men . . . was a death sentence in His religious positions.

Actually, that was not true. By the time of the second temple, and probably earlier, the restrictions that were 'their blood be upon them' and all that sort of stuff was interpreted as being 'very discouraged'. However, the restriction in the Torah was specifically talking about the religious ceremonies of competing Gods.... the male prostitutes of Baal in this instant.

What? They (Torah-observant Jews of the Second Temple period) stoned Stephen and Paul. Stephen died a martyr and Paul survived. Torah observance was still mega enforced in the Second Temple period.

Can you please show a non-Christian source that does not depend on Christianity to verify these claims? While 'torah observant' was still there, capital punishment was extremely rare. Can you show any evidence for the stoning of Stephan from outside the New Testament scriptures? "ACTS" was very polemic against the Jews. Can you provide any independent confirmation of this claim.

Can you tell me how the story of the Stoning of Stephen stacks up with the claim that the Jews had Pilate kill Jesus because they couldn't execute people according to Roman Law?

So many contradictions!!!

C'mon now.

Where do you get your info from? The Second Temple was burned to the ground and all that was in it. Where does your Jewish opinion come from?

And of course, if we are to agree with you, then let's agree with Jesus too:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?

[/quote]

Can you please provide independent confirmation of this, from outside the Christian scriptures.

Kind of veered off course didn't you?

What is the justification for denying the reliability of the New Testament witness to history?

The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2

Author Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned, people who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri 125 A.D.). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing, and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.

Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest, which is Homer's Iliad, where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?

Important
Manuscript
Papyri Contents Date
Original Written MSS
Date Approx.
Time Span Location
p52
(John Rylands
Fragment)3 John 18:31-33,37-38 circa
96 A.D. circa
125
A.D. 29 yrs John Rylands Library, Manchester, England
P46
(Chester Beatty Papyrus) Rom. 5:17-6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11,22,24-33,35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 50's-70's circa
200
A.D. Approx.
150 yrs Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan library
P66
(Bodmer Papyrus) John 1:1-6:11,35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9
70's

circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Cologne, Geneva
P67 Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 circa
200
A.D. Approx.
130 yrs Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1


If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.



This article is also available in: Espaol

1. Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001) p. 256.
2. The above chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
3. "Deissmann was convinced that p52 was written well within the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-38) and perhaps even during the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117)" (Footnote #2 found on pg. 39 of The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd Ed. 1968, Oxford University Press, NY, NY). Bruce Metzger has authored more than 50 books. He holds two Masters Degrees, a Ph.D. and has been awarded several honorary doctorates. "He is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, the International Society for New Testament Studies, and the North American Patristic Society." -- From, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI: pg. 57.

- http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

[dianaiad]

....
The fact that you accepted Jesus late in life, but people regularly do the same thing without any reflection at 8 or 9 doesn't make your conversion very impressive. You are doing what children do without thought or knowledge, except much later in life.

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from making personal judgements and comments about other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ooberman]

All of that stuff from CARM is useless.


The question is "Why is the Bible Authentic/Athoritative?"

You gave us a reason to believe the copies are accurate to what was copied.

You haven't established the originals were authentic or authoritative.

This is a classic tactic by apologists: answer the question they want to answer, not the one asked.

Plus, it's simply stupidity that we should compare the NT to other classic works, as if the claims are equal. Or, as if all writers started with no agenda and it was the degradation of history that changed the texts.

And, besides, there are highly questionable and untrue things in most ancient history. There are reasons to doubt ALL of them.




Basically, the Apologetic response is:

"Look haw many great copies we have of Mein Kampf! It must be authoritative and authentic!"





But, worse, and he is another issue that will be ignored, there is this clear implication.

99% is arguing that copies made closer to the original date are better than later copies.

That means he is claiming Pauls Letters are more authoritative/authentic than the Gospels, and than the books written later.


Isn't that right, 99%, your argument is that Paul - having been written closer to the events in question, must therefore be - by your own argument - more reliable than the Gospels.

I'm sure at this point your Apologetic instincts will pick an arbitrary time in which texts can still be considered all authentic... and I bet that date is conveniently past the date of the last book written in the Bible...


This is, after all, the game they play. They want us to believe early dates are more reliable, and later dates aren't. But, then they want to place ALL of the NT within their idea of "early". (Which some Christians simply declare is pre-70 to avoid all kinds of problems).

The fact is, even if we had the originals, they aren't documents that are meant to be read as historical fact - but religious posturing. They have already been highly edited, redacted and interpolated.


And, remember, there was already pious fraud - fake books - being written at the time most of the Bible was written.


Christians have to accept they may have a very accurate copy of a total lie.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 212 by 99percentatheism]

And the original meaning for WIFE was WOMAN.

Bubbles always seem to burst.

Thank you for the validation of my positions. But I am confident that I have always maintained truth and reality.

It's actually quite easy to see why the answer to the OP is always going to be NO.

Have you finally come around to embracing Biblical truth?

You have made the right choice if you have.

Send me a PM and we'll talk further. The intense joy of finally realizing Biblical truth is shockingly enlightening. To grow a healthy mind is not something to waste time doing. Jesus knew what he was talking about. He is after all the Creator.

Yes WIFE means WOMAN, not married woman as you erroneously claim.

I'm so glad to see you've come to some semblance of reality. Keep it up.

Yawwnnnnnnn HUH? What? I'm sorry what was that?

WHAT???

Sir, "WIFE" means married woman. Ask a woman. Or a man as well. A "divorce lawyer" and Divorce Judge. Blah, blah, blah.

"Living togther shacking up, cohabiting, friends with benefits" yada, yada, no one thinks the person called a WIFE isn't a married person.

Not EVEN in the gay community.

Let's try some other tactic "kay?

Of course, the meaning of words change.

Funny how you use 'kay' so much. It reminds me of that teacher in south park.. 'kay'..

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 212 by 99percentatheism]

And the original meaning for WIFE was WOMAN.

Bubbles always seem to burst.

Thank you for the validation of my positions. But I am confident that I have always maintained truth and reality.

It's actually quite easy to see why the answer to the OP is always going to be NO.

Have you finally come around to embracing Biblical truth?

You have made the right choice if you have.

Send me a PM and we'll talk further. The intense joy of finally realizing Biblical truth is shockingly enlightening. To grow a healthy mind is not something to waste time doing. Jesus knew what he was talking about. He is after all the Creator.

Yes WIFE means WOMAN, not married woman as you erroneously claim.

I'm so glad to see you've come to some semblance of reality. Keep it up.

Yawwnnnnnnn HUH? What? I'm sorry what was that?

WHAT???

Sir, "WIFE" means married woman. Ask a woman. Or a man as well. A "divorce lawyer" and Divorce Judge. Blah, blah, blah.

"Living togther shacking up, cohabiting, friends with benefits" yada, yada, no one thinks the person called a WIFE isn't a married person.

Not EVEN in the gay community.

Let's try some other tactic "kay?

Of course, the meaning of words change.

Funny how you use 'kay' so much. It reminds me of that teacher in south park.. 'kay'..

Why not just admit that I am correct and not waste time?

And I don't believe that I have used "'kay" more than maybe one or two times. But of course you may know because it appears you follow me around from thread to thread keeping record.

Yeeesh.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 212 by 99percentatheism]

And the original meaning for WIFE was WOMAN.

Bubbles always seem to burst.

Thank you for the validation of my positions. But I am confident that I have always maintained truth and reality.

It's actually quite easy to see why the answer to the OP is always going to be NO.

Have you finally come around to embracing Biblical truth?

You have made the right choice if you have.

Send me a PM and we'll talk further. The intense joy of finally realizing Biblical truth is shockingly enlightening. To grow a healthy mind is not something to waste time doing. Jesus knew what he was talking about. He is after all the Creator.

Yes WIFE means WOMAN, not married woman as you erroneously claim.

I'm so glad to see you've come to some semblance of reality. Keep it up.

Yawwnnnnnnn HUH? What? I'm sorry what was that?

WHAT???

Sir, "WIFE" means married woman. Ask a woman. Or a man as well. A "divorce lawyer" and Divorce Judge. Blah, blah, blah.

"Living togther shacking up, cohabiting, friends with benefits" yada, yada, no one thinks the person called a WIFE isn't a married person.

Not EVEN in the gay community.

Let's try some other tactic "kay?

Of course, the meaning of words change.

Funny how you use 'kay' so much. It reminds me of that teacher in south park.. 'kay'..

Why not just admit that I am correct and not waste time?

And I don't believe that I have used "'kay" more than maybe one or two times. But of course you may know because it appears you follow me around from thread to thread keeping record.

Yeeesh.

We all do, 99percent. You have a huge fan base on this forum.

[99percentatheism]

Ooberman

All of that stuff from CARM is useless.

To you. You left that part out.

The question is "Why is the Bible Authentic/Athoritative?"

You gave us a reason to believe the copies are accurate to what was copied.

You haven't established the originals were authentic or authoritative.

This is a classic tactic by apologists: answer the question they want to answer, not the one asked.

Plus, it's simply stupidity that we should compare the NT to other classic works, as if the claims are equal. Or, as if all writers started with no agenda and it was the degradation of history that changed the texts.

And, besides, there are highly questionable and untrue things in most ancient history. There are reasons to doubt ALL of them.




Basically, the Apologetic response is:

"Look haw many great copies we have of Mein Kampf! It must be authoritative and authentic!"





But, worse, and he is another issue that will be ignored, there is this clear implication.

99% is arguing that copies made closer to the original date are better than later copies.

That means he is claiming Pauls Letters are more authoritative/authentic than the Gospels, and than the books written later.


Isn't that right, 99%, your argument is that Paul - having been written closer to the events in question, must therefore be - by your own argument - more reliable than the Gospels.

I'm sure at this point your Apologetic instincts will pick an arbitrary time in which texts can still be considered all authentic... and I bet that date is conveniently past the date of the last book written in the Bible...


This is, after all, the game they play. They want us to believe early dates are more reliable, and later dates aren't. But, then they want to place ALL of the NT within their idea of "early". (Which some Christians simply declare is pre-70 to avoid all kinds of problems).

The fact is, even if we had the originals, they aren't documents that are meant to be read as historical fact - but religious posturing. They have already been highly edited, redacted and interpolated.

And, remember, there was already pious fraud - fake books - being written at the time most of the Bible was written.

Christians have to accept they may have a very accurate copy of a total lie.

You present yourself as an expert and then denounce the experts of CARM? Which is odd because the New Testament texts very much do present themselves as historical facts. The "religious posturing" was to denounce real life false teachers and real life false teachings.

Anti-Christians have to accept that they may have a very accurate copy that is totally true.

Too.

Sheesh, what we Christians have to put up with. In history and throughout it.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 212 by 99percentatheism]

And the original meaning for WIFE was WOMAN.

Bubbles always seem to burst.

Thank you for the validation of my positions. But I am confident that I have always maintained truth and reality.

It's actually quite easy to see why the answer to the OP is always going to be NO.

Have you finally come around to embracing Biblical truth?

You have made the right choice if you have.

Send me a PM and we'll talk further. The intense joy of finally realizing Biblical truth is shockingly enlightening. To grow a healthy mind is not something to waste time doing. Jesus knew what he was talking about. He is after all the Creator.

Yes WIFE means WOMAN, not married woman as you erroneously claim.

I'm so glad to see you've come to some semblance of reality. Keep it up.

Yawwnnnnnnn HUH? What? I'm sorry what was that?

WHAT???

Sir, "WIFE" means married woman. Ask a woman. Or a man as well. A "divorce lawyer" and Divorce Judge. Blah, blah, blah.

"Living togther shacking up, cohabiting, friends with benefits" yada, yada, no one thinks the person called a WIFE isn't a married person.

Not EVEN in the gay community.

Let's try some other tactic "kay?

Yes that's right, WIFE originally meant WOMAN and it's has changed to mean married woman.

It's just too bad you use the mythical Adam's words as your support, since you consider him the first man that would obviously prove that he was not referring to a married woman, he would have been using the original meaning.

Thanks.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 212 by 99percentatheism]

And the original meaning for WIFE was WOMAN.

Bubbles always seem to burst.

Thank you for the validation of my positions. But I am confident that I have always maintained truth and reality.

It's actually quite easy to see why the answer to the OP is always going to be NO.

Have you finally come around to embracing Biblical truth?

You have made the right choice if you have.

Send me a PM and we'll talk further. The intense joy of finally realizing Biblical truth is shockingly enlightening. To grow a healthy mind is not something to waste time doing. Jesus knew what he was talking about. He is after all the Creator.

Yes WIFE means WOMAN, not married woman as you erroneously claim.

I'm so glad to see you've come to some semblance of reality. Keep it up.

Yawwnnnnnnn HUH? What? I'm sorry what was that?

WHAT???

Sir, "WIFE" means married woman. Ask a woman. Or a man as well. A "divorce lawyer" and Divorce Judge. Blah, blah, blah.

"Living togther shacking up, cohabiting, friends with benefits" yada, yada, no one thinks the person called a WIFE isn't a married person.

Not EVEN in the gay community.

Let's try some other tactic "kay?

Yes that's right, WIFE originally meant WOMAN and it's has changed to mean married woman.

It's just too bad you use the mythical Adam's words as your support, since you consider him the first man that would obviously prove that he was not referring to a married woman, he would have been using the original meaning.

Thanks.

Man this is just tooooooo easy.

Let's see what Jesus thought about your opinion shall we?

Havent you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

- Jesus called Christ, while interacting with Jewish religious leaders during a discussion about adultery, divorce and remarriage

Adultery affecting a husband and wife.

Divorce affecting a husband and a wife.

Remarriage . . . well you know now don't you.

On to tougher assignments.

And, you're welcome.