all 12 comments

[–]Tiwaking 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This daily verse misses the most important part: verse 11: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."
Choosing sin merits no reward

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They also changed the words that are actually there into what they want them to be. This is only one of many falsifications which nearly every Bible follows. I'd honestly rather have one translated by non-believers than people with a theological agenda. And of course to save their own skin, Jeremiah is usually blatantly changed to avoid charges against the "false pen of the scribes" and corrupted texts. They usually change "I did not command" to "I did not only command" to the laws called out as evil here, because sure enough they are in our Old Testament law books, but they want to protect the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, because otherwise most of the "proof texts" Christendom uses to justify evil would be exposed.

Speaking of deceptive scribes, I don't think chapters 5-6 and 7:2-5 were written by Paul either. They don't quite fit his style, they contradict his theology, and they desperately cling to metaphors he uses elsewhere, only with no reason or logic here, as if the writer is desperately trying to sound like Paul. And there is no coherent topic other than pastoral concerns. There are many similarities with 1 Timothy.

Nor does it matter if Paul did say these things, because he was only human after all.

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Vulptex 1 insightful - 0 fun - 9 hours ago They also changed the words that are actually there into what they want them to be.

This article on Jeremiah 8:8 is quite interesting, comparing Catholic and Islamic sources showing how it has been adulterated from the original meaning: https://brandplucked.webs.com/jeremiah88penscribes.htm

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The KJV is not special, and it's in fact worse off than modern versions because it uses newer and more corrupt manuscripts and there was far less knowledge than there is today, leading to many more misunderstandings.

It's not as though modern versions are innocent either. But they in fact go in the opposite direction of what you think here. They in fact try to protect the Bible from charges of being corrupted by changing things like "I did not command" to "I did not only command". The reason they differ from the KJV in 8:8 is because the KJV is incorrect. The Hebrew has שקר, which is "false", not "vain". The same error occurs in the commandment about using God's name. It's "for falsehood" or for deceit, not "in vain".

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Leviticus 18:22

(22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Up to here it's all deliberately false translations.

Romans 1:26-27

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

King James Version

It has been demonstrated that Romans 1:18-2:29 was written later by someone else and inserted into Romans (I think it even continues until 3:21, because the beginning of chapter 3 is still strange and 3:22 would be a very smooth transition from 1:17). This is clear based on style, the sudden shift in tone and audience and back again, and contradicting Paul's beliefs (especially chapter 2's statement that justification is by works of the Law).

Nevertheless, what Paul thinks of something doesn't matter, unless he successfully makes an argument for his case (which he does many times, but not here). Or was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Robert Bork ("The Necessary Amendment," First Things, August/September 2004, p. 16) drives this point home in his comments about the effort to legalize homosexual marriage. Bork cites three reasons why "the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live."

I care very little about what the state says or their claims of authority over these matters, but I will warn that anyone who makes any effort for the state to make a particular decision in non-legal matters is becoming a dictator, prideful and arrogant and making an idol of themselves. Recall the incident with the baker being forced to cater to a gay wedding. So we know that we struggle against censorship and waning religious and personal liberty. And we know that defending such rights is important. But if you do the same thing to others yourself, what right do you have to complain when it is done to you? Are you not a hypocrite then? Do to others as you would have them do to you. Therefore if you are going to stand up for your own rights when they are threatened, you can't then go and steal others' as well!

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First, sanctioning gay marriage will endorse heterosexual promiscuity. By its very nature, legitimatizing homosexual marriage demeans "traditional marriage, [which] comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others." Studies of the consequences of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands hint that nontraditional marriage arrangements break "the symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family.

Writer, do you make an idol out of marriage, procreation, and family? Have you not read that we will be like the angels, not marrying? Even your favorite apostle Paul says it is good not to marry. And whose family are we of, if not God's? Or do we create division in it? Or are we sold to human masters and under bondage of fleshly relations?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This in turn will lead to an increase in the "homosexual syndrome," a collection of physical and psychological symptoms homosexuals are far more prone to display than heterosexuals. HIV/AIDS is just one set of these symptoms. Attempted suicide rates, commonly 300% higher in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, manifest another symptom (see "How Normal is Deviance?" CGG Weekly, October 22, 2004).

Which is why it has been said:

And with a male you shall not lie a woman's lyings

Because if you lie a woman's lyings you are having someone ejaculate into your anus, which is clearly unsanitary. But how is this unavoidable?

The word gay, attached to homosexuals, is a real misnomer, for homosexuals' lives are not at all gay. The homosexual syndrome manifests itself even in the most "gay-friendly" cultures. This fact exposes how absurd is the argument that psychological disorders in gays are the result of "social disapproval." Bork points out that no research exists to corroborate the notion that society's disapproval of homosexuals' lifestyles results in their increased incidence of psychological disorders. The homosexual syndrome, then, is directly related to sexual perversion itself and is not the product of a guilt-trip forced on sodomites by a supposedly intolerant culture.

Indeed. Mental disorders are associated with other mental disorders. But how is the victim of such a thing guilty? Or do people choose to suffer for no reason?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In arguing this way, Bork is saying that legitimizing same-sex marriages crosses a line. Once crossed, no other moral barrier will hold against the onslaught of even the most bizarre proposals. How bizarre can bizarre become? Well, how bizarre is the proposal to legitimize pedophilia? After all, if a teenage girl no longer needs to receive parental permission to obtain an abortion, how far are we from legally approving intercourse between an adult and a consenting teenage boy? This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the floodgate principle. Mary Eberstadt shows that "the taboo against pedophilia is weakening."

And herein lies the crux of the fallacy. If all sin and righteousness was determined by social taboo, there would be nothing at all wrong with comitting adultery in your heart as long as you don't act on it. And then society and traditions of men would determine what is and isn't acceptable. Or do we live of the world?

But it is not determined by social taboo, but by morality. And morality dictates that preying on a child is an awful crime due to consent. And how can someone consent if they have no knowledge about what is being done to them, as a child?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In the name of "choice," America is destroying her young people. It is only a matter of time before even the most unspeakable deviant practices become legal, rampant, public, and "acceptable" in America. And, all that to the hurt of sinner and society alike.

Is America not the land of the free? Or do only your own rights matter, to hell with anybody elses'?

I warn everyone that if you judge others, you yourself will be judged. Therefore if you demand that your rights be protected, yet persecute and take away rights from others, you are guilty.

[–]doginventer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I warn everyone that if you judge others, you yourself will be judged. Therefore if you demand that your rights be protected, yet persecute and take away rights from others, you are guilty.

Sounds a bit judgmental to me.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not looking to punish or to hate, but to caution. Because very many are misled into hatred.