Homosexuality, reglion and contradiction

[JayRob]

~sighs~.....I suppose I better digress now. I was taught that it is unwise to argue over the Word.

Whose arguing? Paul supposedly debated on a daily basis on behalf of his god. Some folks today don't know enough about the bible in the first place to even be able to put up a decent debate. They're ignorant of the very word they claim to believe in.

It's truly amazing how atheists/agonostics/nonbelievers/non-Christians don't acknowledge God and/or His Son Jesus and/or His Word, but yet they use scripture from His Word to refuse/refute/dispute Him.

If you're debating a matter, isn't it obvious and logical that one would use the information the opposing party claims as fact in order to show it's flawed side? I would, and I do.

When it comes to the bible, it's not difficult at all to disprove many facets of such a book. It's so easy to the point that it's as clear to me as it ever has been that no one who calls himself THE Supreme Intelligence of the universe would make such elementary blunders over and over and over.

Ironically enough, they contribute to the Holy Bible being the top selling book of all time, even if it was authorized to be translated to English by an alleged homosexual.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the bible didn't have any good points in it because it does. The book of Proverbs has some nuggets of truth as does a few other books.
When it comes to the parts of the bible that's highly flawed, it's as clear as day that's it's a man-made document built up by men as a book supposedly inspired by a Supreme Intelligence. It's that in name only.

 

[dacontinent]

Ease up on JayRob for what? She made some valid points, but it still doesn't negate the fact that King James did nothing on behalf of a biblical god. ...

Label me dense if you will, but I don't get what you're trying to say here.

 

[JayRob]

Label me dense if you will, but I don't get what you're trying to say here.

The temptation is there, but I'll pass, THIS time.

Lionness hinted in post 97, that the god of the bible possibly used King James for his glory. I simply stated that King James affiliated himself with the version named after him for selfish reasons, not because he was trying to glorify any god.

 

[dacontinent]

The temptation is there, but I'll pass, THIS time.

Lionness hinted in post 97, that the god of the bible possibly used King James for his glory. I simply stated that King James affiliated himself with the version named after him for selfish reasons, not because he was trying to glorify any god.

True. However, King James is far from the first or last to fall into such a distinction.

 

[JayRob]

True. However, King James is far from the first or last to fall into such a distinction.

Didn't want to mistake credit for no one who didn't deserve it. That would be the fair and just thing to do.