@TwoLostSouls, unfortunately your name says it all..
Alprova, I read your response to "Rebelliousnature" and am more surprised at your answers each time we write. So far you believe in God and Jesus and that God created the world we live in and all of us in it, but you don't believe the Bible as the Word of God (nothing more than a history book).
You say,"...no one can prove the Bible contains the ultimate, indisputable answer to every contentious issue, such as this one. The Bible is a crutch for those who are unable to present any logical argument to support their opinion."
In fact, the Bible does NOT contain the ultimate, indisputable answer to every contentious issue. We are only human and therefore only have limited knowledge and discernment - imagine if the creator of us and the entire universe, which we both agree is God, made us able to understand Him and all if His ways. What then? We would not need Him, nor would we need Jesus to save us from our sin, because Adam would have never committed his Original Sin. Your "crutch" statement sounds like a frustrated hit below the belt. Your argument is that there are believers like me and thinkers like you. Believers being those that apparently don't feel the need to use their brains and logic (like I am now?) and thinkers who contend that reality and logic only exists as far as they or someone else can think it.
Sir, this is absolutely flawed. We will never know the answers to all things in the universe - our human brains will never compute on that level.
"This world would be a far better place if people would just live their lives as they choose and butt the heck out of everyone else's life."
I absolutely agree, unless invited to butt in, of course.
Alprova, you are most certainly a thinker - I'll give you that one. Our banter has been good for me, as I hope it has been for you as well. Undoubtedly, we have both put questions in the other's head and will grow from this experience. My prayer is that with all you know and the fact that you do believe in God and Jesus, you will come around to the legitimacy of God's scriptures and the truths He offers us in them. There is nothing wrong with putting our God-given brains to work for Him, studying His Word and applying it daily to our lives, but you must realize your sinful nature and accept that you need Christ to live inside of you and save you from your sins, just like He did me.
Let me leave you with this well-known thought on the subject (which you may have heard):
"If I am wrong and there is no Heaven, then we are both going to die. If, however, I am right and there is a Heaven, I will be there when I die. Either way, you lose."
Do you really want to chance spending eternity separated from your wife?
chattpatriot08 signing off....
My apologies for any offense taken. By celebrate, I meant in a positive but reverent light, the lives of those who fought and gave their lives. Thank you sir for your career service to our country - you are a hero to us all.
Alprova, it's such a relief to me that the KJV translation of the Bible isn't the only one in circulation today. You spent a lot of time focusing on King James, and yes, he did influence "his" translation for certain personal gain - we know that though. Thankfully, we can reference original manuscripts in Latin or Greek for a pure message, long before King James.
"...contradicts the purpose of the brain I was endowed with."
That would be the brain God endowed all of us with, giving us the power of choice.
"If all God wanted was devoted worshipers, who should never think for themselves or should never question or ponder, he or she as the case may be, would have created billions of mindless zombies with puppet strings attached to their extremities."
But He didn't, did He? Isn't that great for both of us?! He created us the way we are because He is a wonderfully creative God and desires to have relationships with all of His children. He does demand our worship, but not to the extent of puppets on a string. Come on.
"How do you or anyone else conclusively know what our Creator condones or does not condone?"
For starters, it's called the Ten Commandments. How about "Thou shalt not kill."
"I hate to break this to you, but your using the Bible to substantiate your opinion is the basis of your own belief.
Those most often opposed to homosexuality will never set the Bible aside, because the minute they do it, they have nothing left to support their rhetorical arguments."
And by using the Bible, I have a source - a foundation. It is in fact the basis of my own belief, as well as nearly 1/3 of the rest of the World. What then is the basis of your belief system?
alprova wrote: "Without question, I believe in God and I do believe Jesus to be his Son. However, I consider the Bible to be a book of religious reference, with not one word contained within it to have been written by God or his Son."
Alprova, let me offer you this excerpt from a Christian apologetic friend of mine:
"...it is very reasonable and logical to believe that Scripture is historically reliable and factual. For example, archaeology has shown Scripture to be historically accurate and reliable on numerous occasions. The finding of Hezekiah’s Tunnel and the collapsed walls of Jericho are excellent examples. Those are just two among many examples we could discuss. Also, the historical documentation we have is extremely strong evidence that Scripture is accurate. We have very early records from both secular and non-secular historians and other sources regarding the events and people of the New Testament. Let me give you an example. I propose a hypothetical scenario: Several friends of mine join me to shoot off one of the most incredible fireworks displays anyone has ever seen this upcoming Independence Day; however, no one brought a video camera that day. Twenty to twenty-five years later, a few of those friends write a document about the incredible display of fireworks that they had seen. Then, 140 years later, their great, great grandsons write about the same display of fireworks they have heard about from their ancestors. I think we could both agree that the document written twenty to twenty-five years after the event would be much more reliable than the document written 140 years after the event, primarily because it was written by eyewitnesses of the events. It is this way with Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ. I am sure that we both agree that Julius Caesar was a real person, and more specifically, a Roman emperor. The first document regarding Julius Caesar’s life was written 140 years after his death. The first document written about Jesus’ death and resurrection, was written only 20-25 years after the events by Paul, a witness of the resurrected Christ. In addition, many critics believe that Paul, Peter, and James first met for the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in A.D. 35, at which Paul confirmed that he was preaching the correct gospel. The information discussed in that meeting is then referenced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3 when Paul uses his Pharisaic background to express the accuracy of his transmission of the gospel to the Corinthians. With Christ’s resurrection happening between A.D. 30-33, this puts the meeting of the Jerusalem Council and the confirmation of the gospel message at that meeting only 2-5 years after the resurrection. That exceeds satisfaction in regards to historical literary timeliness."
I agree completely with InspectorBucket - do they get the job done? Enough said. I'm sure Clay's intentions were not as cruel and degrading as some here have concluded. Either way, let's not forget the real reason for the celebration this holiday weekend.
With that, I say a huge thank you to our men and women who have and are serving in the armed forces today. You are not forgotten.
Happy Memorial Day to everyone!
alprova writes in response:
"Logically, in the animal kingdom, the same would hold just as true, however, homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species and the 'phenomenon' has been well-described for 500 of them."
Your Wikipedia research (nearly word-for-word) isn't so bullet-proof when you look at the sentence before yours quoted above that states this research is related to "non-human animals".
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"And as we all know to be a 'documented fact,' all opposite gendered couples ONLY close the door, turn out the lights, and enter into a heavy breathing session for the SOLE purpose of procreating."
I'm not sure this (sarcastic) choice of words was necessary to help prove your point - this is obviously NOT always the case.
"The arguments are always the same. It will only be a matter of time before those who thump the Bible as the "word of God," crank up their rhetoric."
"I have held a theory for decades that homosexuality is God's plan to control over-population of Earth. It's a very simplistic theory, but to anyone who would disagree with it, I ask one simple question.Why not? Make an argument that does not include a quotation from the Bible. One thing I know is that there is not a soul alive on this Earth who can begin to disprove my unpopular theory, with anything other than their personal belief(s)."
The arguments ARE always the same because our foundation never changes - it' one thing you can guarantee to stay the same. As for your theory, it's very interesting really. Would you agree that natural disasters and disease fall into that same category of natural population controls? My biggest confusion lies in your insistence and seemingly cocky assurance about your theory that homosexuality is God's way of controlling population. Why do you insist this if you denounce "Bible thumping"? Does this mean you believe in God but not His scriptures? I'm not saying your theory is flawed, but I'm skeptical that God would use something he doesn't condone as a means to control the population He created. As for your last statement,"...there is not a soul alive on this Earth who can begin to disprove my unpopular theory, with anything other than their personal belief(s)." - are you or are you not using YOUR personal beliefs to justify your theory? So what you're saying is that my or anyone else's personal beliefs are not up to par with yours - substandard to yours? You have created a theory that can't be proven or disproven because it is based on God using homosexuality as population control - something no one - not even you, sir, can prove. Yours is a bold statement coming from someone who has no foundation in their beliefs other than "their beliefs".
Clay - your cartoon is right on the mark for proving the point you were trying to make - appreciate the boldness.
I can agree with you in regards to the controversy over unequal treatment in our armed services, however I cannot stand by and let you make some of the comments you did without respectfully interjecting my thoughts, feelings and convictions.
Your comment about the judgement of a person's sexuality not being logically or morally defended bothers me. Logically, the male and female bodies were designed specifically for a purpose and to work together for that purpose, being childbirth. Maybe you've heard the phrase "God made "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" - it's true (Genesis). Morally? Well, I really can't believe we in the world today are questioning the morality of something that is such an incredible perversion of truth and reality. Those children you speak of later in your comment - how will they ever exist to learn about this injustice if they are never conceived through a mother and father?
I hope I haven't missunderstood your points and have therefore ranted on and on. I, like you I'm sure, am proud and so very thankful for our soldiers who are serving and have served their country, gay or not. Their lifestyle should have no bearing on how they are remembered - rather, that they served their country courageously and paid the ultimate price. I may not agree with the lifestyle, but I can definitely respect, admire, and if the situation presents itself, honor them as defenders of our freedom.