DNB
Christian
wow, look at that, you're making progress, ...unless someone else revealed this to you?That's just like, your opinion, man.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
wow, look at that, you're making progress, ...unless someone else revealed this to you?That's just like, your opinion, man.
Perhaps that should be taken up with the thread creator, as this Poster is attempting to do.
The Bible states that if a man lies with another man they should both be stoned to death. It's my belief that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice over who they're attracted to just like a heterosexual. If this is true why would God create homosexuals when he seems so opposed to their nature? I believe in the God of the Old Testament and believe that he is righteous but I'm confused by this. Did God create homosexuals purely to destroy them or is there something else going on? Does he want a homosexual man to be celibate or to go against his nature and procreate with a woman? Is God offering him the chance to make a huge sacrifice to the highest by denying himself? What are your thoughts?
Ooops, you've confused me with the other poster you were conversing with.Yet, you haven’t once addressed the thread creator, who was actually long gone after his thread was hijacked.
So you can't explain what harm there is in being "flamboyant" or engaging in "effeminate behaviour" or "cross-dressing" or "tom-boy behaviour."Only on Halloween are these practices acceptable - you figure out the rest, like really.
You made the claim, dude. Prove it instead of trying to throw it back on me and thus shift your burden of proof.Really, prove it.
To actually back up the ridiculous claims you're making?What would be the point?
Enough with the games, dude. It's not making you look good here.How would you know the difference?
Yes, but a critique is only as credible as the source of the critique..To actually back up the ridiculous claims you're making?
You know, like, having some credibility.
You didn't answer my question, why is that, dude?Enough with the games, dude. It's not making you look good here.
Joelr........ I don't do homework for angry members on Tuesdays.
You need to ask me this stuff on Thursdays and Saturday afternoons.
However, if you have particular points to raise I'll tell you what I think about them.
Nope, I hold that respect for the evidence presented that demonstrates it's all myth. YOu really don't get that? Besides the evidence it's also common sense that stories about magical demigods are fiction. But the evidence also supports it.But you think it's all myth, You've written that several times! So you hold all that respect for PhD HJ Historians? That's funny!
Actually no I don't need to look up the answer. I gave you what I remembered. What's funny is you think I would look up the answer. The question had nothing to do with any point in the discussion. I'm familiar with people who don't have an argument going down weird sidetracks but it's still a facepalm.All you needed to do was to look up the answer.
0/10
Very well....... this might teach you more than you realise. You need to be able to sieve myth out from probable fact to be a proper HJ researcher.
After arriving in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday they went to the Temple, sightseeing...........
Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
There's no need for detail like this if it's all myth.
The fact that these Galilean peasants spent the day sightseeing shows that they didn't frequent the Temple as often as G-John pretends........ You see, tiny half verses can throw so much light upon other factors and parts of the story.
And I can tell you that nobody seems to ever have taken note of that day's events, they all think that the hellraising started on the first day....... Now you've got it you can use it to test any others.
Oh please! I only had to read the first paragraph!You are confusing a simple case of calling you out on a statement for anger. You said the above contained incorrect information. You were referring to an article covering the 7 arguments as to why the Synoptic problem is considered solved and the source is Mark.
Here is the article, please point out what is incorrect:
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
You said it, not me. Your words. "some is junk". Explain what is junk but please provide sources. So far you have only offered opinion based on, I don't know? Beliefs?
I know...... that's selective cherry-picking to fit your own prejudged position, Joel. It's the root of ignorance.Nope, I hold that respect for the evidence presented that demonstrates it's all myth.
You do need to look up answers if you want to rise out of ignorance, Joel.Actually no I don't need to look up the answer.
Go away Joel. Bother others with your stuff.Of course you write details in a myth. The final narrative is the entire point of the story, it's going to have detail. Also it isn't sightseeing. Looking around upon all things is a deeper symbolism than "sightseeing" LOL.
Yes, but a critique is only as credible as the source of the critique..
So games and riddles are all you have to offer, other than bigoted opinions and bold empty claims?You didn't answer my question, why is that, dude?
...in my opinion, all should stay away from homosexuality, and do their best to deter others from it also, for it is obscene and perverted. If you're over 10 years old, you should be able to understand this.So games and riddles are all you have to offer, other than bigoted opinions and bold empty claims?
Thought so.
Oh please! I only had to read the first paragraph!
You need to make your mind up through personal research and investigation rather than grasp any junk that suits your personal prejudices.
Here:-
A. The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence.
Don't waste my time, Joel.
G-Mark is a lone deposition featuring the author's own experiences plus the memoirs of a person who clearly was not totally united with others such as Saul/Paul.
That's as easy to to show as your last lesson about what Jesus did on that last Palm Sunday. Go and figure all this stuff out for yourself and then it'll have more value.
"G-Mark is a lone deposition featuring the author's own experiences plus the memoirs of a person who clearly was not totally united with others such as Saul/Paul."
I know...... that's selective cherry-picking to fit your own prejudged position, Joel. It's the root of ignorance.
You do need to look up answers if you want to rise out of ignorance, Joel.
All you have done is show me that you know absolutely nothing about the accounts deposed in the gospels, you just pick up and hug any 'scholar' who fits your theories.
Go away Joel. Bother others with your stuff.