whats weird is how selective they are with their emphasis. being gay is one sin among many, and i dont believe theres a hierarchy for sins that justifies their explicit disdain for that one in particular. the bible is as absurd as its followers are incapable of objectively interpreting it.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Firstly, I never said being homosexual is a sin. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, rather it condemns their sexual acts which are perverted.

Second, if your analogy is correct then believers are very capable of interpreting the Bible correctly. There may be obvious symbolism in various parts of the Bible, however, for the most part it is accurate to take the Bible literally.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

See, the thing is that your interpretation of the bible differs from that of the church next door. You believe that your interpretation is right and that everyone else's is wrong. This is one thing that all biblers have in common. Christians are much more of a minority than they choose to believe.

It's like your church communities exist in little bubbles or something. Someday the safety bubble will pop.

__________________

I wouldn't hold my breath on that. They've been inside the bubble too long as it is.

It's bad enough that so many among them pretend that the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the U.S. as a generally Christian theocracy--they ignore the distance between the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution via the FAILED Articles of Confederation, they ignore the First Amendment in the context of Article VI.

They're self-delusional on an assortment of levels.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
Hypercrites

The Bible, for the most part, is meant to be taken literally. Saying that the Bible isn't literal would be similar to saying that the constitution isn't literal. It's ridiculous.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

Law and the constitution are not concrete. It is constantly being re-interpreted becuase law is a never-ending enterprise. It is a constant process to improve ourselves.

A lot of things didn't even exist when the constitution was written. Cars, automatic weapons, nuclear devices. Many things could not have possibly been considered back then. The constitution has no mention of nukes; therefore a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment would mean that every citizen has the right to own a personal nuclear device.

You are living in a world of mental boundries and limitations my friend. We modify things on an as needed basis in order to preserve ourselves collectively. If we did not, then society would collapse.

So again we come back to: Your interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong.

You're preaching, but you are not listening. What use is there of a one-sided conversation? So the question is: Why are you and your little cult right, and why are the rest of the SIX BILLION people on this planet wrong?

__________________

For the most part huh?

I wonder if you think that one of these parts in the ten plagues which if proven true shows a revengeful god that lashes out on innocent people.

Huckabee said in the youtube debate that the bible has good messages and parts that are obviously an allegory. How hypocritical is that? So everything that can be interpreted as a good message comes from god, the rest, its just a cute little story

And this for hte most part, Im sure other religions dont pick the parts they mean literally same as you, so hteres a difference right there

I don't really have a problem with the type of church/state separation that Great is endorsing here. Do the rest of you?

If, for instance, a muslim community wanted to place a memorial to muslim-American soldiers killed in the Iraq war, and use a muslim religious symbol on it, on public property, would that offend you?

I do think we get our panties in a wad far too easily in the U.S. these days. It's almost like people are looking for an excuse to be offended.

I kind of hate it, truthfully.

I'd rather work in "The Office" than in the type of politically correct scenario everyone is being told we should endorse in harassment training these days.

Now, truthfully, what exactly about Great's view of church/state separation IN PRACTICE bothers you people?

__________________
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls.

its not politically correct, its actually unpc. as you can see with our presidential candidates, making sure everyone knows youre christian is important. thats how powerful bigotry is in this country. no religious test shall ever be required? im not sure about that one.

in practice it can be unconstitutional (gay marriage), civil rights are everyones concern. in practice it can be unreasonable (abortion - the bible isnt even as prolife as they think). in practice, it can hurt education (passing off creationism as science). its not so much about what offends me personally, but what i know is either wrong or on the wrong path. im not gay, id probably never consider an abortion and i could care less what they teach their kids in kansas, but i know when something is wrong.

the thing is, the reasonable values christianty holds are not unique to that faith (or any), and the unreasonable ones can still find their way into our laws.

"Firstly, I never said being homosexual is a sin. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, rather it condemns their sexual acts which are perverted.

Second, if your analogy is correct then believers are very capable of interpreting the Bible correctly. There may be obvious symbolism in various parts of the Bible, however, for the most part it is accurate to take the Bible literally."

i think youre being a bit disingenuous here.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

Notice how the founding fathers didn't specify that an individual had the right to own bombs.
Arms, in their time, were personal guns and rifles. They recognized that a people had to be armed in order to put down a tyrannical or corrupt government.

Also, I have a major issue with this.

Any corrupt leader who doesn't have "mental limitations" could exploit this statement to make the case that free speech isn't in the best interests of the US. While it is true that the constitution didn't lay out a design for the court system or criminal rulings, what the constitution does state should always be taken literally. If it is not, you can count on the fact that someone will abuse it.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12