Cosmic Theories and Philosophies

[Meiscool-2]

It's common sense. His information, again, comes from what hasn't been proven yet, Dragon Blaze.

God could've easily sent his son through a woman that he knew was a hoe to ensure that his son reached the planet rather then a god fearing virgin that probally wouldn't be pregnant. GOD WORKS IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

Social moral makes people think that sex before adulthood is bad. Back then, people didn't live much past adulthood, and would normally marry before age 15.

Secondly, the CHURCH, not the bible, says that sex before mariage is a sin. The only sin that the bible states involving sex is being married to a person and having relations with another person, and/or having relations with a person that is married.

The only laws that God put out are the commandments. Every other law inside the bible was made or interprerated by the church. No where on a commandment did it ever say that sex before being committed is a sin. It only stated that ADULTERY is a sin. If you don't know, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

*awaits stupid reply*

[DragonBlaze]

Interpretations are neither write nor wrong, they are what a certain indevidual thinks. If you think 99% of the bible is based on interpretations, don't try to argue points about it based on the other 1%. It'd be perfectly fine to say you don't think this is how it was or you don't think that this is what happened. But remember, thats your own thinking, you're presenting your thoughts as facts, as things that are, not as your interpretations. Go ahead, believe what you want, its your right. All I've seen you do thus far is push YOUR interpretion as the RIGHT one.

MIC, there are laws god has given us outside the 10 commandments. Sex with animals for example, if you want, I can dig you up that passage, you won't find it in the 10 commandments. And what about before the 10 commandments? Was there no sin because there was no commandments? If that was the case, god wouldn't have needed to send a savior in the first place.

[I Have a Sandwich]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze
But remember, thats your own thinking, you're presenting your thoughts as facts, as things that are, not as your interpretations. Go ahead, believe what you want, its your right. All I've seen you do thus far is push YOUR interpretion as the RIGHT one.

Because we all know you've been doing something COMPLETELY different.

[Drace]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze

quote:

Originally posted by I Have a Sandwich quote: Originally posted by DragonBlaze 'Two horny teens' would be a sin in God's eyes. From what we know about God, he wouldn't have his son born from a sin. Plain and simple. No, 'two horny teens' would be a sin in mans eyes. Its like how being gay is a 'sin' yet its no where in the bible. 'Sins' were all determined by the church, not by God.

*sigh*, having sex before marraige is a sin, it says such in the bible (and yes, the original version says this as well). We know that marry and joseph weren't married at this time, and thus it was a sin. Maybe if you would have actually studied it at some point you would know this.

Where exactly are you getting all your 'information'?

Did God wrote every letter of the bible? Is his handmark on it? Do you have proof that the bible actually SAYS what God wanted? No. The bible is a guideline, not a way of life. Sins written in the bible were written by men, not God. Perhaps God doesn't mind it at all. Perhaps God enjoys wars and people suffering. YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT GOD THINKS. YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT SINS ARE TO GOD. All you can say is what the church thinks what God thinks, not what he actually think.  

[Razor]

Originally posted by Drace
Did God wrote every letter of the bible? Is his handmark on it? Do you have proof that the bible actually SAYS what God wanted? No. The bible is a guideline, not a way of life. Sins written in the bible were written by men, not God. Perhaps God doesn't mind it at all. Perhaps God enjoys wars and people suffering. YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT GOD THINKS. YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT SINS ARE TO GOD. All you can say is what the church thinks what God thinks, not what he actually think.  

Goddamn it I love you sometimes.

There's no proof God himself wrote the bible. There's no proof God isn't a bastard who wants to **** around with us on a grand scale. There's no proof God hasn't gotten bored of us and has left us completely, gone to create another planet somewhere else in the universe, vibrant with life. Hell, there's no solid stone concrete rock hard cement proof that God exists but I won't go into that.

But anyway, noone can prove **** when it comes to God. People should really stop speaking for him.

[DragonBlaze]

So since the bible was not written by God himself, you guys are just gonna try to contredict every point brought up by "its not proven cuz the bible wasn't written by god and thus nothing of that matter can be proven?"

[Drace]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze
So since the bible was not written by God himself, you guys are just gonna try to contredict every point brought up by "its not proven cuz the bible wasn't written by god and thus nothing of that matter can be proven?"

Yes, if you keep going on with the "Ugh, it's in the bible..." thing, we are.

[Moosetroop11]

You guys seem to know alot more about the bible than I do, and there's been something on my mind. Near the beginning, in all the versions I've read, God says let man be in "our" image. Is he talking about himself d'you reckon, as more than one person, or was there (Wooo) Loads of gods? Like a race?

[Drace]

Hmmm... a race of gods... that does approve the Greek and Roman mythology.

[Razor]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze
So since the bible was not written by God himself, you guys are just gonna try to contredict every point brought up by "its not proven cuz the bible wasn't written by god and thus nothing of that matter can be proven?"

Well as Drace pointed out, it's supposed to be guideline, not a way to live.
Besides, some of that doesn't make sense. And I refer specifically to Noah.

[aboutasoandthis]

Who here actually believes the Laws of the Levites are actual sins?

[DragonBlaze]

 

Well as Drace pointed out, it's supposed to be guideline, not a way to live.

Prove it. As it has been pointed out here before, the bible is mainly about interpreatations. I think the bible is more than just a guideline. You can't prove that it was just a guideline just as I cannot prove that it was more than that.

 

You guys seem to know alot more about the bible than I do, and there's been something on my mind. Near the beginning, in all the versions I've read, God says let man be in "our" image. Is he talking about himself d'you reckon, as more than one person, or was there (Wooo) Loads of gods? Like a race?

"Our" refers to the three parts of god (father, son, and holy spirit). And by image, it doesn't mean that we 'look' like god does, but rather that when we were created, we were (like god) holy and without sin. Interperate that how you want.

[Razor]

I like the idea of innocent until proven guilty, in which my side is innocent. :D

[Drace]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze

quote:

Well as Drace pointed out, it's supposed to be guideline, not a way to live.

Prove it. As it has been pointed out here before, the bible is mainly about interpreatations. I think the bible is more than just a guideline. You can't prove that it was just a guideline just as I cannot prove that it was more than that.

No, it is not. It is NOT more than a guideline. The bible is a guideline just as the Koran and those of the other religions. They´re a way of life in which you can take example of, not live life like. That would be foolish.

[Meiscool-2]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze

quote:

Well as Drace pointed out, it's supposed to be guideline, not a way to live.

Prove it. As it has been pointed out here before, the bible is mainly about interpreatations. I think the bible is more than just a guideline. You can't prove that it was just a guideline just as I cannot prove that it was more than that.

 

quote:

You guys seem to know alot more about the bible than I do, and there's been something on my mind. Near the beginning, in all the versions I've read, God says let man be in "our" image. Is he talking about himself d'you reckon, as more than one person, or was there (Wooo) Loads of gods? Like a race?

"Our" refers to the three parts of god (father, son, and holy spirit). And by image, it doesn't mean that we 'look' like god does, but rather that when we were created, we were (like god) holy and without sin. Interperate that how you want.

You impose to much on hard facts and nothing on interperation.

Again, any laws not made through the commandments are laws purposed and interperated by the church.