Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Zanary said:
Man, not God, destroyed my faith in both churches and statespeople alike.
Then you should find a new church: one that preaches Christ crucified, rather than man-made stuff.
Of course, your faith should've been in Him in the first place, not in the churches, themselves.
Churches are filled with hypocritical sinners- just like the halls of Congress. But going to Congress isn't the solution to that problem; in fact, it (probably) just exacerbates the problem.
On the other hand, when Christians go to church, it isn't because they are good people... or better than anyone else. It is because they know that they are NOT better than anyone else... and certainly not "good" (by their own efforts or merits) enough for God. But God invites them to come into His presence and receive His gifts of forgiveness, life, renewal... and- yes- even fellowship with other sinner/saints. I don't know what happened in your past to turn you away from "church"... but if that church was the problem, then go find another church (one that preaches Christ crucified, not human doctrines).
You wouldn't stop going to the doctor, just because one (or two) doctors were jerks who misdiagnosed your health issues. You'd look for a good doctor, who would be able to give you what you need. Likewise, God tells us in His Word that we need (for our sake more than anything) to worship Him- together, in the company of other sinner/saints. So find the church that preaches and practices God's Word. They're out there.
My view of religion, far and wide, keeps my from going back. Far too many hypocrites, far too much power-mongering, far too much distortion of the supposed messages.
My faith in the Creator (who has many names) is unshakable. My faith in man's ability to represent said Creator is basically dead.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks; wasn't American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.
This is no different than what "you guys" are mad at Frankly Graham for doing: making Jesus into some kind of political figure... and completely ignoring / missing His true purpose in coming.
Fugelsang’s rant is obviously meant to stir up conservative believers, many of whom seem to be under the impression that Jesus loves America, capitalism, Wall Street, guns, torture, separating families and tax cuts for the wealthy. It does not mean that Fugelsang, or I, or anyone else for that matter, isn’t just as aware of Christs’s “true” message as you are. Saying so drips of the same kind of sneering judgement that frequently flavors your posts.
If saying that Christ hung out with lepers and crooks, for example, is politicizing Christ, then I have no problem with that. If that is politicizing His message then I suspect you do so every Sunday.
See, I don’t have a problem politicizing Jesus; I have a problem deifying Trump. I get angry when people think this self-absorbed, pathological liar, racist and conman is on the side of the angels.
Quote: @Zanary said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Zanary said:
Man, not God, destroyed my faith in both churches and statespeople alike.
Then you should find a new church: one that preaches Christ crucified, rather than man-made stuff.
Of course, your faith should've been in Him in the first place, not in the churches, themselves.
Churches are filled with hypocritical sinners- just like the halls of Congress. But going to Congress isn't the solution to that problem; in fact, it (probably) just exacerbates the problem.
On the other hand, when Christians go to church, it isn't because they are good people... or better than anyone else. It is because they know that they are NOT better than anyone else... and certainly not "good" (by their own efforts or merits) enough for God. But God invites them to come into His presence and receive His gifts of forgiveness, life, renewal... and- yes- even fellowship with other sinner/saints. I don't know what happened in your past to turn you away from "church"... but if that church was the problem, then go find another church (one that preaches Christ crucified, not human doctrines).
You wouldn't stop going to the doctor, just because one (or two) doctors were jerks who misdiagnosed your health issues. You'd look for a good doctor, who would be able to give you what you need. Likewise, God tells us in His Word that we need (for our sake more than anything) to worship Him- together, in the company of other sinner/saints. So find the church that preaches and practices God's Word. They're out there.
My view of religion, far and wide, keeps my from going back. Far too many hypocrites, far too much power-mongering, far too much distortion of the supposed messages.
My faith in the Creator (who has many names) is unshakable. My faith in man's ability to represent said Creator is basically dead.
Do you, likewise, avoid hospitals? (j/k)
Yes, every church has hypocrites... because if we weren't, we wouldn't need a Savior. We all know the good that we ought to do... but we are unable to do it (Rom. 7). As for "power-mongering" and "distortion", again: I implore you to find churches that don't do that. My own church body (the LCMS) has conventions every 3 years in which the members of the church- along with the clergy- make decisions. It was founded on a "bottom-up" philosophy that said (in essence) that a man armed with the Word of God is as authoritative as the Pope, himself. So, there's very little "power mongering" that goes on in our Synod (although, clearly, our pastors are imperfect- just like our members). And our doctrines are grounded solely in God's Word. So, unless your avoiding of churches is just an excuse to make up your own religion, why not consider finding a church that doesn't do those things that you (and I, for that matter) are bothered by?
As for faith in a Creator... that's a good starting point. But every religion has a "Creator". That doesn't make every religion "right". Your faith should be in a Savior, who can- and has- done the one thing that none of us are able to do: make us right in the eyes of our Creator.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks; wasn't American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.
This is no different than what "you guys" are mad at Frankly Graham for doing: making Jesus into some kind of political figure... and completely ignoring / missing His true purpose in coming.
Fugelsang’s rant is obviously meant to stir up conservative believers, many of whom seem to be under the impression that Jesus loves America, capitalism, Wall Street, guns, torture, separating families and tax cuts for the wealthy. It does not mean that Fugelsang, or I, or anyone else for that matter, isn’t just as aware of Christs’s “true” message as you are. Saying so drips of the same kind of sneering judgement that frequently flavors your posts.
If saying that Christ hung out with lepers and crooks, for example, is politicizing Christ, then I have no problem with that. If that is politicizing His message then I suspect you do so every Sunday.
See, I don’t have a problem politicizing Jesus; I have a problem deifying Trump. I get angry when people think this self-absorbed, pathological liar, racist and conman is on the side of the angels.
The vast majority of (genuine) Christians don't believe any of those things bolded above. That's just a straw man argument used to denigrate conservative Christians. We believe in capitalism because it is the best (so far) economic system. It has- literally- saved (and enriched) millions of lives. Yep, there are those who abuse it (as there have been in places where Socialism and Communism have been tried). But it demonstrably a better system than any other ever attempted by mankind.
As for the other bolded stuff, Christians can take different positions on those things and still be Christians. It doesn't mean that we KNOW that our ideological beliefs align with Christ's. I have no idea how he would feel about a person's desire to protect themselves. I tend to think that He would be opposed to torture... but, then again, I can't think of many of His teachings that were meant to apply to a nation's security protocols. No one is in favor of torture as a means of recreation; but- to save lives? That seems like a gray area to me. I would compare it to a nuclear bomb. I can appreciate how some Christians would think that such a weapon was a bad idea. And I can also appreciate those who say that the use of it- as terrible as it was- probably ended up saving millions more lives.
As for separating families: it happens every day when criminals commit crimes and get sent to prison. Should we stop punishing criminals- because it "separates families"? Yet that seems to be the basis for your argument: that the children are suffering for their parents' "crimes"... so we should stop punishing their parents' crimes. But, I digress. The Bible has much to say about gov't (we should obey it insofar as it does not command us to do things contrary to the Word of God) as well as marriage and families. The Bible says that marriage should be between one man and one woman... and that it should be a life-long commitment. It also says that fathers should be the spiritual leaders of their families... and that both parents should- above everything else- make sure that their children know the love of their heavenly Father. It ALSO says that unborn children are human persons whom God knows and loves.
So, in summary: the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin... that homosexuality is a sin... that divorce is a sin... and that abortion is murder. It doesn't say anything about immigration policies or taxation (other than to pay Caesar what belongs to him).
But, more than that, it says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory... and- therefore- are in need of a Savior. THAT is the WHOLE message of the Bible: our need for a Savior. Liberals have done the bidding of the Evil One (Father of Lies) by turning Jesus into some kind of Social Justice Warrior (and completely ignored or denied His work as Redeemer). Yes: Jesus DID hang out with sinners (and those who were- otherwise- considered "unclean"). But He DIDN'T do it because they threw the best parties. He did it because the "sick" were the ones who needed a doctor. He came to "heal" them... by FORGIVING their sins, not tolerating them. In other words, He came to change / transform them... not to "affirm" them.
Finally, I know that there are some that have deified Trump... but I don't recall you having any problems when it was done to Obama. I can post videos of school children singing "hymns" to his picture, if you want. I haven't deified either one of them. And my opposition to Trump has been well-documented. Trump wasn't elected to be a priest, he was elected to be a president. And if character really does matter (now)... why didn't it before?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks; wasn't American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.
This is no different than what "you guys" are mad at Frankly Graham for doing: making Jesus into some kind of political figure... and completely ignoring / missing His true purpose in coming.
Fugelsang’s rant is obviously meant to stir up conservative believers, many of whom seem to be under the impression that Jesus loves America, capitalism, Wall Street, guns, torture, separating families and tax cuts for the wealthy. It does not mean that Fugelsang, or I, or anyone else for that matter, isn’t just as aware of Christs’s “true” message as you are. Saying so drips of the same kind of sneering judgement that frequently flavors your posts.
If saying that Christ hung out with lepers and crooks, for example, is politicizing Christ, then I have no problem with that. If that is politicizing His message then I suspect you do so every Sunday.
See, I don’t have a problem politicizing Jesus; I have a problem deifying Trump. I get angry when people think this self-absorbed, pathological liar, racist and conman is on the side of the angels.
The vast majority of (genuine) Christians don't believe any of those things bolded above. That's just a straw man argument used to denigrate conservative Christians. We believe in capitalism because it is the best (so far) economic system. It has- literally- saved (and enriched) millions of lives. Yep, there are those who abuse it (as there have been in places where Socialism and Communism have been tried). But it demonstrably a better system than any other ever attempted by mankind.
As for the other bolded stuff, Christians can take different positions on those things and still be Christians. It doesn't mean that we KNOW that our ideological beliefs align with Christ's. I have no idea how he would feel about a person's desire to protect themselves. I tend to think that He would be opposed to torture... but, then again, I can't think of many of His teachings that were meant to apply to a nation's security protocols. No one is in favor of torture as a means of recreation; but- to save lives? That seems like a gray area to me. I would compare it to a nuclear bomb. I can appreciate how some Christians would think that such a weapon was a bad idea. And I can also appreciate those who say that the use of it- as terrible as it was- probably ended up saving millions more lives.
As for separating families: it happens every day when criminals commit crimes and get sent to prison. Should we stop punishing criminals- because it "separates families"? Yet that seems to be the basis for your argument: that the children are suffering for their parents' "crimes"... so we should stop punishing their parents' crimes. But, I digress. The Bible has much to say about gov't (we should obey it insofar as it does not command us to do things contrary to the Word of God) as well as marriage and families. The Bible says that marriage should be between one man and one woman... and that it should be a life-long commitment. It also says that fathers should be the spiritual leaders of their families... and that both parents should- above everything else- make sure that their children know the love of their heavenly Father. It ALSO says that unborn children are human persons whom God knows and loves.
So, in summary: the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin... that homosexuality is a sin... that divorce is a sin... and that abortion is murder. It doesn't say anything about immigration policies or taxation (other than to pay Caesar what belongs to him).
But, more than that, it says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory... and- therefore- are in need of a Savior. THAT is the WHOLE message of the Bible: our need for a Savior. Liberals have done the bidding of the Evil One (Father of Lies) by turning Jesus into some kind of Social Justice Warrior (and completely ignored or denied His work as Redeemer). Yes: Jesus DID hang out with sinners (and those who were- otherwise- considered "unclean"). But He DIDN'T do it because they threw the best parties. He did it because the "sick" were the ones who needed a doctor. He came to "heal" them... by FORGIVING their sins, not tolerating them. In other words, He came to change / transform them... not to "affirm" them.
Finally, I know that there are some that have deified Trump... but I don't recall you having any problems when it was done to Obama. I can post videos of school children singing "hymns" to his picture, if you want. I haven't deified either one of them. And my opposition to Trump has been well-documented. Trump wasn't elected to be a priest, he was elected to be a president. And if character really does matter (now)... why didn't it before?
Trump is filth, has been for decades. How many payoffs, bankruptcies, wife trade-ins, frauds, horrific arrogance, and pathetic behaviors does it take for people to quit being led around by that babbling jackass?
Oh, and as for "...when done by Obama..." BS, I called him out constantly; I think of him as a terrifying media creation that was supposedly above criticism and/or accountability. It's not either/or, they're both horrid. Our current Oval Office Embarrassment is just much more obviously obnoxious about it.
The bible is edited into babble that fits the agendas of its editors, and history is plain in showing times that man, not God, took over authoring the book. I laugh out loud at anyone holding it aloft and judging the sins of others, both because they're full of it and because they've missed the point completely.
Homosexuals are largely wired just as they are, the lab work is in...many times over. Either God wired them that way and is a hypocrite, or God loves all his creations and the book was edited by bent people. Does he forsake them in order to love the unborn? Take all the time you need.
Man has no business representing ideals that he's modified to his own purposes for centuries.
Wow Zan that was a pretty good rebuttal.
I certainly agree with both your takes on Trump and Obama.
I don't believe edited for agendas is correct. I would say translated. Meanings do get lost in translation. I won't argue that it was men who decided which chapters made it in and which were discarded from the draft I know today. That was agenda driven. I would say interpretation is often/mostly agenda. That's the problem.
All in all very great post.
P.s. I agree gays are wired that way.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers hookers and crooks; wasn't American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew.
This is no different than what "you guys" are mad at Frankly Graham for doing: making Jesus into some kind of political figure... and completely ignoring / missing His true purpose in coming.
Fugelsang’s rant is obviously meant to stir up conservative believers, many of whom seem to be under the impression that Jesus loves America, capitalism, Wall Street, guns, torture, separating families and tax cuts for the wealthy. It does not mean that Fugelsang, or I, or anyone else for that matter, isn’t just as aware of Christs’s “true” message as you are. Saying so drips of the same kind of sneering judgement that frequently flavors your posts.
If saying that Christ hung out with lepers and crooks, for example, is politicizing Christ, then I have no problem with that. If that is politicizing His message then I suspect you do so every Sunday.
See, I don’t have a problem politicizing Jesus; I have a problem deifying Trump. I get angry when people think this self-absorbed, pathological liar, racist and conman is on the side of the angels.
The vast majority of (genuine) Christians don't believe any of those things bolded above. That's just a straw man argument used to denigrate conservative Christians. We believe in capitalism because it is the best (so far) economic system. It has- literally- saved (and enriched) millions of lives. Yep, there are those who abuse it (as there have been in places where Socialism and Communism have been tried). But it demonstrably a better system than any other ever attempted by mankind.
As for the other bolded stuff, Christians can take different positions on those things and still be Christians. It doesn't mean that we KNOW that our ideological beliefs align with Christ's. I have no idea how he would feel about a person's desire to protect themselves. I tend to think that He would be opposed to torture... but, then again, I can't think of many of His teachings that were meant to apply to a nation's security protocols. No one is in favor of torture as a means of recreation; but- to save lives? That seems like a gray area to me. I would compare it to a nuclear bomb. I can appreciate how some Christians would think that such a weapon was a bad idea. And I can also appreciate those who say that the use of it- as terrible as it was- probably ended up saving millions more lives.
As for separating families: it happens every day when criminals commit crimes and get sent to prison. Should we stop punishing criminals- because it "separates families"? Yet that seems to be the basis for your argument: that the children are suffering for their parents' "crimes"... so we should stop punishing their parents' crimes. But, I digress. The Bible has much to say about gov't (we should obey it insofar as it does not command us to do things contrary to the Word of God) as well as marriage and families. The Bible says that marriage should be between one man and one woman... and that it should be a life-long commitment. It also says that fathers should be the spiritual leaders of their families... and that both parents should- above everything else- make sure that their children know the love of their heavenly Father. It ALSO says that unborn children are human persons whom God knows and loves.
So, in summary: the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin... that homosexuality is a sin... that divorce is a sin... and that abortion is murder. It doesn't say anything about immigration policies or taxation (other than to pay Caesar what belongs to him).
But, more than that, it says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory... and- therefore- are in need of a Savior. THAT is the WHOLE message of the Bible: our need for a Savior. Liberals have done the bidding of the Evil One (Father of Lies) by turning Jesus into some kind of Social Justice Warrior (and completely ignored or denied His work as Redeemer). Yes: Jesus DID hang out with sinners (and those who were- otherwise- considered "unclean"). But He DIDN'T do it because they threw the best parties. He did it because the "sick" were the ones who needed a doctor. He came to "heal" them... by FORGIVING their sins, not tolerating them. In other words, He came to change / transform them... not to "affirm" them.
Finally, I know that there are some that have deified Trump... but I don't recall you having any problems when it was done to Obama. I can post videos of school children singing "hymns" to his picture, if you want. I haven't deified either one of them. And my opposition to Trump has been well-documented. Trump wasn't elected to be a priest, he was elected to be a president. And if character really does matter (now)... why didn't it before?
You accuse me of crafting straw men, then respond with a series of them. Still, how do you know for sure Christ didn't love hookers for their parties?
As we liberals fight alongside "the evil one" for things like healthcare, a living wage and principled leadership, it's good to know what "genuine" Christians think. I always wonder. Interesting to me that you are so UNwilling to believe Christ's new testament call to "welcome the stranger" could possibly apply to immigrant and refugee policy, and yet seem SO willing to accept ancient old testament condemnations of things like homosexuality, which appears alongside similar condemnations of mixed fabrics and shellfish. It just smacks of bigotry to me. Unless of course you are equally burn-in-helly about wearing polycotton socks.
Quote: @Zanary said:
Trump is filth, has been for decades. How many payoffs, bankruptcies, wife trade-ins, frauds, horrific arrogance, and pathetic behaviors does it take for people to quit being led around by that babbling jackass?
Oh, and as for "...when done by Obama..." BS, I called him out constantly; I think of him as a terrifying media creation that was supposedly above criticism and/or accountability. It's not either/or, they're both horrid. Our current Oval Office Embarrassment is just much more obviously obnoxious about it.
The bible is edited into babble that fits the agendas of its editors, and history is plain in showing times that man, not God, took over authoring the book. I laugh out loud at anyone holding it aloft and judging the sins of others, both because they're full of it and because they've missed the point completely.
Homosexuals are largely wired just as they are, the lab work is in...many times over. Either God wired them that way and is a hypocrite, or God loves all his creations and the book was edited by bent people. Does he forsake them in order to love the unborn? Take all the time you need.
Man has no business representing ideals that he's modified to his own purposes for centuries.
As for Trump, I already told you that I'm not a fan of him. As for Obama, yes: YOU may have called him out for it... but many others have/did not. YOU are not being hypocritical when you complain about Trump's character... unlike so many others (who despise Trump because of his personal failings).
The Bible has absolutely accurate copies of it's original pages. That is a fact. Yes, there are copy errors here and there (which the Bible that I use actually points out- for the sake of full transparency). But the Bible is far more "accurate" (a relatively exact copy) to the original writings than even the works of Shakespeare, which is only 500 years old (vs. 3000+ years). So it is an easily disprovable fact that "man has NOT taken over authoring the book". The Dead Sea Scrolls are the easiest way to prove that (although there are plenty of others for those who are interested). For simplicity's sake: the "Bible" was already compiled and in common use... well before Constantine made Christianity legal. So, it would not be true to say (as Jehovah's Witnesses do) that the Bible was altered by the Catholic Church for the sake of them claiming and maintaining power. What we have... is (almost exactly) what the original writers wrote. That's just simply a fact.
Now, as to how it has been "translated" over the years... or, more accurately, "interpreted"... is a different matter. That's why I practice 2 principles when interpreting the Bible: know what the originals say (that was part of my pastoral training: to learn Hebrew and Greek)... and use the Bible to interpret itself, rather than injecting my own thoughts into the matter. Those 2 principles are NOT used by the majority of denominations in our country... which might be part of the problem that you have with "organized religion". And, if so: I would agree with you. Too many people trying to bend and distort God's Word to make it say what they want it to say... rather than letting it speak for itself.
I would never hold the Bible aloft to judge the sins of others. I would hold it aloft to declare that all sinners (i.e. every human being who has ever lived) have been declared innocent of their sins: forgiven and righteous in the eyes of God... because of what Jesus Christ accomplished by His death and resurrection. If people want to know what is a sin... and what isn't... I would use the Bible to define it. But that wasn't it's purpose. It was to declare what God has done to "fix" what Adam and Eve "broke".
Finally, I have no problem with the theory that homosexuals are "wired" that way. But, so what? We are ALL "wired" to be sinful (God didn't create us to be that way, but- as the Bible clearly states- since the Fall [Original Sin] all are- by nature- sinful and enemies/strangers to God). Some may be "wired" to be pedophiles... others to be prone to violence. Some have disabilities of various kinds. NONE of those things are what God intended; yet we all have them (things inherent to us that are contrary to God's original will for us). Now, it is false to say that "the lab work" is in, since there has never been a definitive DNA link to homosexuality. I think it is more likely to be a product of nurture than nature- but that's just an opinion. In the end- from a theological point of view- it doesn't matter, though. So I'm not going to argue about it.
So your argument that God is either a hypocrite... or that the Bible isn't really His Word... really doesn't hold any water. God, Himself, laments the fact that "every inclination of man's heart is evil all the time". It's not His fault... nor did He intend for it to be that way. But it is our present reality now, because of- again- the Original Sin that we all inherit when we are conceived. And that is why a Savior was necessary: to be a mediator for us... and to redeem us... so that we might be something that we could never be on our own: righteous in the eyes of God.
I don't know what you mean by "forsake them in order to love the unborn"... so I can't really answer it. But, if you re-ask it in a way that I understand, I'll be happy to answer it (as best I can).
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
Wow Zan that was a pretty good rebuttal.
I certainly agree with both your takes on Trump and Obama.
I don't believe edited for agendas is correct. I would say translated. Meanings do get lost in translation. I won't argue that it was men who decided which chapters made it in and which were discarded from the draft I know today. That was agenda driven. I would say interpretation is often/mostly agenda. That's the problem.
All in all very great post.
P.s. I agree gays are wired that way.
I would encourage you to do some research into how the Bible was actually compiled. It was not agenda driven. How could it be: when Christianity was illegal... and those who continued to believe in Christ and His Word were threatened and punished for it? What "agenda" could they possibly have? And since the Apostle John lived to the end of the first century (by which time the majority of the Biblical canon was complete)... we can be (relatively) certain that the "Elder" (as he was called) would not have allowed false things to be preached, much less included in the canon.
The "Church" did not begin to have any kind of "power" until hundreds of years after the Bible canon was complete and in use. So, unless someone can explain what "agenda" the Early Church would've had... I'm not sure why anyone would think that that was true (especially in light of the complete absence of proof for it).
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Wow Zan that was a pretty good rebuttal.
I certainly agree with both your takes on Trump and Obama.
I don't believe edited for agendas is correct. I would say translated. Meanings do get lost in translation. I won't argue that it was men who decided which chapters made it in and which were discarded from the draft I know today. That was agenda driven. I would say interpretation is often/mostly agenda. That's the problem.
All in all very great post.
P.s. I agree gays are wired that way.
I would encourage you to do some research into how the Bible was actually compiled. It was not agenda driven. How could it be: when Christianity was illegal... and those who continued to believe in Christ and His Word were threatened and punished for it? What "agenda" could they possibly have? And since the Apostle John lived to the end of the first century (by which time the majority of the Biblical canon was complete)... we can be (relatively) certain that the "Elder" (as he was called) would not have allowed false things to be preached, much less included in the canon.
The "Church" did not begin to have any kind of "power" until hundreds of years after the Bible canon was complete and in use. So, unless someone can explain what "agenda" the Early Church would've had... I'm not sure why anyone would think that that was true (especially in light of the complete absence of proof for it).
I have researched and understand the King James version had choices made in 1611 when it was put together. I believe there were adenda's. I can't prove it I wasn't there. However that is quite awhile after early Christians. Regardless I still expect it. It is still the bible I own. I don't think I've ever said differently.
|
