Gays, Lesbians to Blame For Sandy, Katrina

[Rob Iola]

.... Swanson, who earlier urged Chick-fil-A to produce “Miss Piggy on a bun” to mock gay rights groups ...

Miss Piggy on a Bun? I'm sorry Jon, but if this is anything like the McRib it'll quickly become my new favorite sandwich.

[dbackjon]

.... Swanson, who earlier urged Chick-fil-A to produce “Miss Piggy on a bun” to mock gay rights groups ...

Miss Piggy on a Bun? I'm sorry Jon, but if this is anything like the McRib it'll quickly become my new favorite sandwich.

I love McRibs. Still not sure why Miss Piggy on a bun would mock gay rights groups...

[JoltinJoe]

Miss Piggy on a Bun? I'm sorry Jon, but if this is anything like the McRib it'll quickly become my new favorite sandwich.

I love McRibs. Still not sure why Miss Piggy on a bun would mock gay rights groups...

I didn't get that either. Maybe because the Muppets pulled that marketing deal with Chik-Fil-A? If that's it, it's a pretty remote connection.

[dbackjon]

I love McRibs. Still not sure why Miss Piggy on a bun would mock gay rights groups...

I didn't get that either. Maybe because the Muppets pulled that marketing deal with Chik-Fil-A? If that's it, it's a pretty remote connection.

Ok - forgotten about that - and it wasn't the Muppets - it was Jim Henson Studios, who make other products now, since they sold the Muppets to Disney.

[JoltinJoe]

Oh, come on. The concept of "sin" did not arise for the first time at the time the Greek "hamatia" was translated into English.

First, you have a whole tradition of the understanding of "sin" evolving from the Old Testament. Then, you have Jesus, who spoke in Aramaic (in all likelihood) and speaks numerous times about the OT concept of "sin." Then you have writers translating Jesus' words into Greek when transcribing the Gospels; and then you have translations into various languages.

Translators did not pull the word "sin" out of thin air when translating "hamatia." The Christian concept of sin derives from the Jewish concept of sin; which is why translators chose that word.

And the King James Bible is not the Catholic bible. Protestants omitted a number of books from the Catholic canon after the Reformation.

Right
So you're admitting it's not the infallible word of God then...
I'm glad we've moved past that fallacy - now on to the real issues - Pre 345 CE

What's the pre-345 issue? You're going to say that the Council of Nicaea "changed" the Bible? Not so. The Council merely formalized the existing understanding of the Catholic canon, since there had been attempts to add books which had not been part of the traditional Catholic canon. No biggie.

And what do you mean by the "infallible" word of God? That can be a loaded term. The Bible is the inspired word of God which imparts truth, but you cannot read portions of the book out of the context of the whole book. The Bible recounts a process of revelation and discernment in the relationship between man and God -- which, like any relationship, evolves, develops and grows in understanding over time. The search for God is the search for truth; and the search for truth defines the human experience. It is the defining characteristic of our experience.

And much of the OT is not literally true.

[Chizzang]

Right
So you're admitting it's not the infallible word of God then...
I'm glad we've moved past that fallacy - now on to the real issues - Pre 345 CE

What's the pre-345 issue? You're going to say that the Council of Nicaea "changed" the Bible? Not so. The Council merely formalized the existing understanding of the Catholic canon, since there had been attempts to add books which had not been part of the traditional Catholic canon. No biggie.

And what do you mean by the "infallible" word of God? That can be a loaded term. The Bible is the inspired word of God which imparts truth, but you cannot read portions of the book out of the context of the whole book. The Bible recounts a process of revelation and discernment in the relationship between man and God -- which, like any relationship, evolves, develops and grows in understanding over time. The search for God is the search for truth; and the search for truth defines the human experience. It is the defining characteristic of our experience.

One cannot successfully search for the truth where it has been so cleverly concealed
(actually discarded)

But I happen to completely agree
The search for truth has to include the God concept
We're built with it inside of us - it's a part of who we are
I think the bible is actually a move away from God but that's a whole different conversation

[mainejeff]

I think the bible is actually a move away from God but that's a whole different conversation

[JohnStOnge]

Elaborate. I will be up front and say I suspect that's something you read somewhere and took as truth without ever confirming it for yourself. Something you immediately believed because it flattered what you already thought. Probably written by somebody who is anti-Christian and trying to make a case. But tell us about how you know that to be true in case I'm wrong about that.

Why would you care what I think John..?
You're obviously a fundamentalist Christian pretending NOT to be, which is disgraceful frankly

Anyway you're probably an expert on the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
(of which 99% of Christians know nothing)
and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE
(of which 99.99999999999% of Christians know nothing)

Why should Christians know anything about these meetings John..?

I'm sure your Aramaic or common (koine) Greek is perfect
So you were able to read The Codex Sinaiticus (330 AD) version on file
or was it The Vulgate (400 AD) translated by Jerome
Who fought with Damasus over which books to leave out (46 books) or was it (39)
Interesting that a debate over what to "not include" when it's all infallible..?

I'll skip over about 2 semesters of crap and jump right into John Wycliffe (1380) do you like his version..?

One of my favorites is the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582 (a fabulous translation)

We're all familiar with King James Version, KJV (1611) this is technically version two from KJ but that's a whole different conversation

How about the now famous revised Version III (1881-1884)
Designed to be a revision of the KJV mark II
This particular revised version had the advantage of "more" access to some of the ancient manuscripts held in Rome - although this revision was sponsored by the Church of England - and I do mean SPONSORED some American scholars were invited to participate...

Should I keep going..? There are possibly (depending on which scholars you study with and who you trust - somewhere around 1000 versions of "The infallible word of God"



Next

Actually, with all that, you never made your point. You said they are "completely different" books. Saying that there are a bunch of different versions is not supporting your point of view. Most of us have seen different translations. Most of us know that a variety of languages were involved.

That's different than saying "They are completely different."

[Chizzang]

Actually, with all that, you never made your point. You said they are "completely different" books. Saying that there are a bunch of different versions is not supporting your point of view. Most of us have seen different translations. Most of us know that a variety of languages were involved.

That's different than saying "They are completely different."

Well john I challenge you to do more research than your wife has done on "The Bible"
Because they are indeed completely different books
Or you can trust your pastor to tell you the truth




The least knowledgeable people in the world regarding the Bible and it's history and contents are the Christians who believe it.... because in order to buy into it you must remain ignorant about it.

Sincerely once you do almost any research on it
It becomes quite obvious - and when I say "research" I'm talking about a genuine search for THE TRUTH
The history of the books pre-345 CE / until today are indeed fascinating

[JoltinJoe]

What's the pre-345 issue? You're going to say that the Council of Nicaea "changed" the Bible? Not so. The Council merely formalized the existing understanding of the Catholic canon, since there had been attempts to add books which had not been part of the traditional Catholic canon. No biggie.

And what do you mean by the "infallible" word of God? That can be a loaded term. The Bible is the inspired word of God which imparts truth, but you cannot read portions of the book out of the context of the whole book. The Bible recounts a process of revelation and discernment in the relationship between man and God -- which, like any relationship, evolves, develops and grows in understanding over time. The search for God is the search for truth; and the search for truth defines the human experience. It is the defining characteristic of our experience.

One cannot successfully search for the truth where it has been so cleverly concealed
(actually discarded)

But I happen to completely agree
The search for truth has to include the God concept
We're built with it inside of us - it's a part of who we are
I think the bible is actually a move away from God but that's a whole different conversation

So then we've limited our disagreement to whether the Bible is a move away or toward God.

Also, I think I can agree that certain interpretations of the Bible represent a move away from God.

Are we getting closer?

[Chizzang]

So then we've limited our disagreement to whether the Bible is a move away or toward God.

Also, I think I can agree that certain interpretations of the Bible represent a move away from God.

Are we getting closer?

and this... I think we both can agree on this
"The least knowledgeable people in the world regarding the Bible, it's history and it's contents are Christians. Because in order to buy into it you must remain ignorant about it."