Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?

2007-07-13T03:06:27Z

Clarner:

I want to support other organizations that want abortion. I am a Republican and support this group Democratsforlife.com. I noticed their aggressive promotion during the last election cycle. I feel that women should be forced into having babies, even if they've been raped. God is on my side.. Prove me wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

To me, protecting innocent lives is far more important than partisan politics. I think it is disingeneous to accuse people of not caring about lives just because they have liberal economics views. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?

2007-07-13T01:29:24Z

Clarner:

God is divorced. See Is.54:5 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isa.%2054:5&version=9] and Jeremiah 3:8 [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%20-%203:8;&version=9;]
*thy Maker is thine husband
:*for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Christianity is full of contradictions. I suggest you develop schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder to deal with the impossibilities of religion. That is certainly what most Christians do.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. No one is really interested in this page. That's because divorce is a problem best dealt with in the real world, and god, moses and all the biblical team have nothing relevant to say on the matter. They're dead, as are their god and their thoughts

bless you all

Chris Larner

== What's a Christian To Do?? ==

Don't get married. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Foolishness==
Sheer mockery or just convoluted thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:15 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

To those without wisdom: Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fail to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

I pray that some day you will seek wisdom so that you will be able to understand God's Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Truth is, God was married to Israel, divorced her, invited her back (in contradiction to Deuteronomy 24 which he even says so in Jeremiah 3). The New Testament Church is now the bride of Christ, and awaits return of the bridegroom who is coming back for his bride. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not actually. Israel is the bride to be wed. The bridegroom (Christ) who was rejected at His first coming has yet to return at the Second Coming. Christians are the branch grafted into the tree of Israel. Israel is the bride that will recognize their Messiah upon his Second Coming. There are no contradictions to that in God's Word. The contradictions come from mankind misunderstanding that Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think you have reiterated what I've said; now, what is the meaning of Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 3:8? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Isaiah 54:5 "For you Maker is your husband the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is you Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth."
Israel is often portrayed as the bridegroom or bride in their relationship with God. So then the role plays out when Israel misbehaves a divorce certificate is issued. Israel is sent away from her home into exhile in 721 B.C. such as in Jeremiah 3:8
But remember that Israel hasn't actually been wedded to their Messiah because they didn't recognize Him the first time. Not until the end of Jacobs 70th week known as the Tribulation. Read Romans 11:25-27

Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready."
Many people will try to use mention of a divorce certificate to say that God has ridden Himself of Israel. That now the church is His bride. Of course this is in conflict with every book of the Bible. This is one of the signs of an apostate church. Israel is the tree and root while the Christian church is the branch grafted onto the tree. Romans 11:17-21--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for clarifing that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Headline text ==

well its quite clear that God does not approve of divorce but if certain rules are followed
it is allowed...I.E you CAN'T get re-married. This was not Mose's wish but the people. Jesus
still disapproving it allowed for that law to remain in place. so move on, its not a good
choice but it is allowed. For me its still unclear though is divorced allowed ONLY if your
spouse is NOT a virgin OR is divorce allowed for any reason EXCEPT thier NOT a virgin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 14:23, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:*''Jesus ...disapproving ..allowed for that law to remain in place...''
::Interesting doctrine; are you somehow implying that Jesus's mission was to rewrite the law, and he did so, and that now Christianity follows some form of "biblical law" based upon the teachings of Jesus? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeshua Messiach's mission, as it were, isn't to rewrite the Law. It is to fulfill it. By revealing its meaning. Divorced for not being a virgin? I don't think so. Sounds like some other religions' doctrine and not the Judeo-Christian kind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:00, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

umm read the verse again...it says fornication...sex without being married....which would
implie they were not virgins...you got a better explaination? its exactly what Joseph considered
doing with mary as he thought she no longer was a virgin. what bible you reading from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

if he allowed the law to "remain"..how is that re-writing it? sounds more like a confirmation
yes?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 17:12, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Joseph did exactly what Jeremiah 3:1 says,
:*''It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless '''return to me''', saith the Lord, '''and I will receive thee'''.

:Here the Lord amends himself; Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to stick a bill of divorcement into his wife's hand and send her out if he hated her. But Joseph, following the spirit of the law, said, "return unto me." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2007-07-13T01:26:41Z

Clarner:

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill: you are an idiot. There is no god. Jesus was a man. Stop reading the bible: it is not the plan of a grand architect. We make our own world. You yourself were not born at a time which suited anyone. You were born at the time you were born, as was I, as was every one of us. No plan. No design. Get over it. It's OK, it's not scary.

bless you

Chris Larner

*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Jesus will return, but he will not return as the peaceful, forgiving person he did come as. He will come in justice. AdamNelson has never read the Bible accurately. Just because two accounts of Jesus say different things does not mean that they are contradictory. For example: I saw the fireman working on a fire. I saw the police man making an arrest near the gas station. If you were to then say that both were true, then it would seem that there was a contradiction. However many times in the Bible, you have to take into account that such instances in the Bible are complimentary, rather than contradictory. In my example, to show how those two instances could be complimentary, look: I saw the fireman working on working on a fire in the gas station, while the police officer arrested a suspect.
In Christ;
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Jesus Christ, 'The Computer Wizard" (and have you ever thought about getting a nomme de plume that isn't rubbish)will you get a Life? Stop reading the bible: it's balls. Jesus Christ will not come again. There is no god. Wake up. We make our own world. Start talking to people without the bible as an intermediary. Honestly!

best wishes

Chris Larner

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2007-07-13T01:23:31Z

Clarner:

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Jesus will return, but he will not return as the peaceful, forgiving person he did come as. He will come in justice. AdamNelson has never read the Bible accurately. Just because two accounts of Jesus say different things does not mean that they are contradictory. For example: I saw the fireman working on a fire. I saw the police man making an arrest near the gas station. If you were to then say that both were true, then it would seem that there was a contradiction. However many times in the Bible, you have to take into account that such instances in the Bible are complimentary, rather than contradictory. In my example, to show how those two instances could be complimentary, look: I saw the fireman working on working on a fire in the gas station, while the police officer arrested a suspect.
In Christ;
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Jesus Christ, 'The Computer Wizard" (and have you ever thought about getting a nomme de plume that isn't rubbish)will you get a Life? Stop reading the bible: it's balls. Jesus Christ will not come again. There is no god. Wake up. We make our own world. Start talking to people without the bible as an intermediary. Honestly!

best wishes

Chris Larner

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2007-07-13T01:18:45Z

Clarner: /* No */

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

With the exception of the idiotic observation about the 'acceptance of evolution' above, I agree. The acceptance of evolution is a sign of intelligence, not of moral anything. The notion that Britain has 'declined' suggests a monstrous presupposition, that Britain was once great. Britain became great in 1948 with the introduction of the National Health Service, the Nationalisation of the Railways the Coal Mines and the major industries all of which took the working people of Great Britain forward into a world immensely richer and freer than that of their forefathers. This work by the Attlee govn was a major, practical step towards socialism, and should be being celebrated and analysed in a positive way, not knocked in sly, leading questions by stupid, right-wing pretend-encyclopedias such as this.

chris larner

==Yes==

You'll notice that there are no entries in the "yes" section

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2007-07-13T01:16:14Z

Clarner:

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

With the exception of the idiotic observation about the 'acceptance of evolution' above, I agree. The notion that Britain has 'declined' suggests a monstrous presupposition, that Britain was once great. Britain became great in 1948 with the introduction of the National Health Service, the Nationalisation of the Railways the Coal Mines and the major industries all of which took the working people of Great Britain forward into a world immensely richer and freer than that of their forefathers. This work by the Attlee govn was a major, practical step towards socialism, and should be being celebrated and analysed in a positibve wat, not knocked in sly, leading questions by stupid, right- wing pretend-encyclopedias such as this.

chris larner

==Yes==

You'll notice that there are no entries in the "yes" section

Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

2007-07-13T00:48:40Z

Clarner:

New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Trying to define what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Seriously on that last sentence? I've yet to see a Bible that uses the phrase "homosexual". Pretty recent word IMO, certainly not in any Bible I've read.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 23:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's 1 Cor 6:9. NET and WEB use homosexual. Rotherham uses Sodomite. It seems to be missing from my version of the Vulgate. All other versions I have use some construction of "men who abuse themselves with men." Shouldn't this be a Discussion or Debate?--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 02:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

--NET and WEB are new versions of the bible which have undergone many translations and transformations. If you look at the King James Bible - accepted all over the world as the most accurate, the "Authorised Version" - you'll see it's not about homosexuality at all. It says "nor abusers of themselves with mankind". So don't accept the word of people who just decide for themselves that's what an ambiguous verse is about, twisting words until they are unrecognisable like so many preachers do. And they do. Proof of that is in the existence of countless different kinds of Christianity.

Whats with that one that calls fornicators sinners? I still fail to understand why sex in marriage is ok and sex out of it isn't. Adultery is wrong yes, but just fornicating? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:09, 22 April 2007

:Fornication covers far more than just sex outside marriage. My KJV dictionary describes it as "sexual immorality," which, as you can imagine, covers a wide array of behaviors, many of which hadn't even been invented when the Bible was compiled. (Likewise, certain behaviors considered immoral then may be moral today; but let's not go there.)

:For the sake of argument, let's accept sex outside of marriage = fornication. Imagine a child born out of wedlock in an ancient, tribe-based society. Imagine trying to determine the rights and obligations of all parties involved, to include care of the child, inheritance, legal lineage, etc. Back then, it was much easier just to restrict who is having sex with whom. Today, we have the benefits of contraception, paternity testing, etc., so it's not as big a deal. But there is always a counterexample to make us think that maybe the ancients were on to something (see: DannieLynn Stern/Birkhead/Whoever).--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the Bible says plenty against homosexual sex out of the context of a relationship, but the only comment it makes about a loving homosexual relationship is between David and Jonathan, which is even said to be better than that of a man and a woman: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, King James). They formalised the relationship: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Samuel 18:3-4, King James). I thought with so many negative quotes from the Bible on this page, it might be refreshing to have a positive loving one :-) [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 18:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Wrong''' David and Jonathan were not homosexual. <s>Take this as a block warning.</s> --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, the quotes check out (though they may be out of context). We don't block for ideological reasons, according to your awesome proposed block policy, CPA1. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, no block warning. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 18:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sorry - didn't realise I was near a nerve. I'll back up slightly. I will say though that the view that they were homosexual seems to me no less conservative than that they were not - it has been believed by many for centuries (e.g. "indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus", Life of Edward II, 1326 AD).
:::: Dont worry, you will be had, sooner or later I am sure. I mean, check out the link related to Schlafly on wikipedia and provide them here and you will see how quickly you will be BLOCKED. Oh yes, that most Reverend Haggard also, not a peep about that man here nor will we ever see any mention. Ah yes, Our Vice President and how angry he got when CNN Wolf Blitzer started down the road about his daughter. So, watch out, big brother IS watching and WILL stop you when they find anything they deem objectionable (Oh yea, the reasons will not be what you think they are or what they state
:::I don't know whether we can say categorically that they were not homosexual, but I do admit there is a grey area. The key word seems to me to be 'ahabah', which is the Hebrew word in the text for the love that they shared. It is the same word as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:20). It also features between a man and a woman in Pro 5:19 and 2Sa 13:15. It is also used often to describe God's love for his people.

:::The argument that their relationship could be political does not to me seem very credible as all of their covenants were made in private. Although David was married to many women, the Bible never states that he loved them, only that one of them loved him. In fact, when he learns of Jonathan's death, he states that his love for him was greater than that of women (as quoted above). What is the argument that they categorically were not homosexual? [[User:Proberts84|Proberts84]] 17:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. the quotes were only out of context as it would be a little counterproductive for me to paste the entire passages here. I gave references so that they could be read in context which, I believe, supports my point.

yeah your totally out of context...it would depend on your definition of love..does that ALWAYS
include sex? IF you Love God even more then a women, does that mean you had sex with God? does
"1 Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us. " mean God had sex with us? That verse you
so need to be homosexual is talking about a brotherly love greater then love between a husband
and a wife.--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Please, guys, get over it! Read another book. The bible is - er - out of date and was written by a bunch of chaps who were not exactly up-to-the-minute. Anyone who says being gay is wrong is immoral. Anyone who says that sex is wrong is immoral. We must find other codes to live by, beyond those outlined in the bible, which is a book completely irrelevant apart from some cultural and literary interest. The bible is wrong. It is not the word of god. God does not exist, except in the minds of the emotionally depleted and the intellectually feeble. Is this clear?

much love and best wishes

chris larner

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2007-07-13T00:34:43Z

Clarner:

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner