Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Of the three categories of truth, there appears to be confusion relative to what is discernable by whom. Additionally, there is confusion regarding both access and application.
The first category of truth, which is for all people, deals with establishment policy, how people are to live among themselves.
The second category, which is for unbelievers only ...[text shortened]... permits by His standards, not the tainted ideal by which some here are attempting to judge Him.

Ah, very interesting. Is this an established theory or something you've come up with yourself?

Originally posted by Darfius
The message is preached to all so they have the OPPORTUNITY to understand it. Many, like you, for instance, can choose to remain willfully ignorant.

Nothing in the text suggests that everyone WILL understand it, that is your eisegesis.

Do you understand what irrelevant means, marauder? It means none of the verses are in any way relevant to the disc ...[text shortened]... meant rather than admitting that you haven't the foggiest of what you're discussing. Typical.

As usual, when your theology lapses into incoherence, you simply change your claims. You stated:

The entire NT was written to people who already believed


But Jesus said to preach the Gospel to ALL people. Therefore, ergo, you are wrong or Jesus is wrong. Which is it?

Besides that, you are not merely claiming that unbelievers chose not to understand the Gospels, but are actually unable to. Please actually stick to your claims for more than a page.

Originally posted by David C
No. Asinine responses for a comic book religion populated by cartoon characters and followed by stinking hypocrites like RBHILL. I'm sure you're happy to note my proxy-reply for RBHILL was moderated out of existence. Praise Jesus!

I'm sure you're happy to note my proxy-reply for RBHILL was moderated out of existence. Praise Jesus!

Don't look at me. I did nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by RBHILL
With God all things are possible.

Even contradictions.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
The WORD OF GOD says to kill gay people. It is unequivocal. You are not following God's word. You are displeasing God by not killing gay people. You are going to go to hell if you don't start catching up on your God-sworn duty.

Hey big furry guy....do you know the origins of why the biblical faiths are so violently against homosexuality and only mention MALE homosexuality and not female?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Because lesbians are so hot!

Well...there is THAT...but that is not what I meant....

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ok...no. I don't know. Enlighten me.

It was one of the ways that the biblical teachings turned the populous away from the cultural traditions of the Greeks. It is well documented that the Greek men would take in young boys (age 10 or so) as their apprentices and the relationship was not just one of busniess and tutoring. There was a love and sexual aspect to it as well. When that boy would grow to adulthood, he would, in turn, take on his own apprentice and the tradition would continue. Men still took wives and fathered children, but there was the bisexual aspect of the culture that appalled the culture of biblical origins. They had to do something to stop it.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
It was one of the ways that the biblical teachings turned the populous away from the cultural traditions of the Greeks. It is well documented that the Greek men would take in young boys (age 10 or so) as their apprentices and the relationship was not just one of busniess and tutoring. There was a love and sexual aspect to it as well. When that boy would ...[text shortened]... the culture that appalled the culture of biblical origins. They had to do something to stop it.

Bad history. The Old Testament and Mosaic law was written centuries before the people of the Middle East would have worried about the "cultural traditions" of the Greeks, who were considered little more than savages by the Persians as late as Alexander's conquests in 330 BC (though Alexander himself wasn't Greek). Cultural taboos against homosexuality were, and are, widespread though not universal. If you're going to to discredit the prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament (which you should) it is unnecessary to use bogus arguments like in your post.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bad history. The Old Testament and Mosaic law was written centuries before the people of the Middle East would have worried about the "cultural traditions" of the Greeks, who were considered little more than savages by the Persians as late as Alexander's conquests in 330 BC (though Alexander himself wasn't Greek). Cultural taboos against homosexualit ...[text shortened]... the Old Testament (which you should) it is unnecessary to use bogus arguments like in your post.

Perhaps I should have said "cultural traditions LIKE the Greeks had."

n1m - I am sorry you have not read the same things I have, but just because you have not, does not mean my history is bad. I would be willing to wager I have studied much more of history than you.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I had heard that before...hmm. What an educated society, so productive and way ahead of its time intellectually. And they do that.

There's almost universal revulsion over sex with children. I'm not sure why it was acceptable then. Hmm. It worked in that society, I suppose. Very freaking bizarre. Hard to imagine a world where that's okay.

Oh, aye...that is agreed, but do remember that the societal norm for life expectancy was much less than now. Even as early as 500 years ago girls of 13 years of age were married off by their families. For a long time, if a girl was not married off by the age of 15, she became too old to find a husband and often became a spinster or joined a convent, at least among the non-peasant families.

Originally posted by KnightWulfe
Perhaps I should have said "cultural traditions LIKE the Greeks had."

n1m - I am sorry you have not read the same things I have, but just because you have not, does not mean my history is bad. I would be willing to wager I have studied much more of history than you.

Assuming the posts you made here are indicative of your study of history, you either: A) Would badly lose that wager; or B) Have been "studying" junk, popular history (i.e. "Columbus discovered America" type crap).