Who is right, me or the Pope? Me, of course. I don’t think you have any intrinsic disorder – other than that hatred for all religion, that is! 
Jesus said a lot of stuff. Some of it was irony, some parable, some hyperbole. Look up what he said was most important. Check how he said to apply it to daily life.
You have a problem with “heavily”, I assume? And what’s wrong with “one of the earliest”? (Briefly, of course. I don’t expect you to give me a history of Xian texts here.)
Separate but the same, it’s a very hard thing to grasp, I would think people of this board have a better then average chance of understanding multi-dimension physics (beyond 3d+time) and how 2 objects can actually be part of the same multi-d object, and how they can be independent in our 3d world. I’m not saying that’s how God works, jut the theory that 2 or more independent objects can be the same thing.
The New Testament is secretly a parable for understanding string theory and particle physics, right?
For the question of homosexuality, I will contribute my WAG’s:
Homosexuality is a sin (as is a lot of other sexual and non-sexual things). Before Christ died for us, a practicing homosexual was just racking up more and more sin, so it was a mercy killing to end his life early and incurring less judgment.
After Jesus, this no longer applies as all sin can be totally transfered to Jesus instantly. Killing a homosexual while in a state of sin means eternal death, while letting him live allows more of a chance to come to accept Christ and have eternal life.
This however leads to a rather odd situation where you should kill a homosexual (and all sinners) once he comes to accept Jesus, to keep him from slipping back. But Jesus’s value on life here seems to answer that odd situation.
And nuclear science, God destroyed 2 cities, only seconded 1000’s of years later by Americans.
Well I guess that’s the secret of the Old Testament.
GWB, Abe Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, all swore to uphold the Constitution. Is somebody cherry picking?
A book like the Bible or any religious text, as well as other documents that are philosophical in nature will be subject to interpretation. The interpretation reflects the inner person doing the interpretation, not necessarily the writing.
This point was made in another thread a few months back. Someone suggested that perhaps it’s even incorrect to call it an interpretation of the Bible since people seem to be so selective. Perhaps the Bible and Jesus tools for own self exploration revealing something about us, not the book or JC. In that each person must take responsibility for their choices and their actions. If they give their hearts and minds over to others {like Swaggart etc,} to tell them whats right and whats wrong, what to think and how to feel, they’re responsible for that too.
If you do not agree with him, how can both of you come to such diffrewnt conclusions based on the same Jesus and the same Gospels. One of you is wrong, obviously!
So how does that differ from “Everyone can do whatever they damned well feel like, and justify by Scripture–or just throw Scripture out the window, if they like–and invent his own standards of ethical behavior, and believe in a combination of Jesus, Mohahmmed, and the Good Humor man, or the IPU, and/or Satan and His Merry Band”?
OE: this is in response to Cosmosdan.
Welll, both of them could be wrong, too. (That’s how the smart money is betting.)
The US Constitution is a great example of this phenomenon, as already mentioned. The most far-left liberal and the most far-right conservative both think they are interpreting the Constitution “correctly.” Maybe only one of them is right, or maybe neither is, but the act interpreting rightly or wrongly doesn’t change the fundamental truth of the document.
I can see you feel strongly about this but honestly, you sound like any other person ranting about their beliefs without any evidence. The same people you rail against. No amount of statistics or historical mentions will support the thesis contained in your last sentence. you’ve mentioned this before in other threads.You simply have no evidence to support your emotional belief. How much does it help your case about the evils of religion when you yourself continue to hold and promote your own unsubstantiated beliefs? How do you successfully criticize others emotional attachment to their beliefs while clinging to your own?
So the Bible is a living document, intended by its framers to be interpreted as applying to future civilizations, added to, changed, and (in one of the framers’ words) revoked and rewritten if it ever became antithetical to the needs of a future generation? Sounds good to me.
Cite me the chapter and verse of the Gospels where this is specified btw. I’d like to study that.
Your description of the Constitution as a “living document” is an interpretation in itself.
Well, me and about a gazillion lawyers, scholars and judges. What, you think it’s a dead document, and Negroes are still 3/5ths of a human?
My point was that the term “living document” means different things to different lawyers, scholars, and judges.
Everyone can do whatever they feel like… and then they have to take full responsibility for their actions. People do invent their own standards of ethical behavior whether they are believers or not. Their view of what constitutes ethical behavior will inevitably conflict with others and in that conflict we examine ourselves {hopefully} and grow {eventually}
It works exactly the same for believers and non believers. Neither has any edge or moral advantage in trying to justify their behavior.
I’m all for chipping away at the use of religion to justify heinous, immoral and just plain stupid acts. People can say “I believe this is God’s will for me, for mankind” and really believe it but they are still responsible for their actions. The same goes for those who rant that “all religion is tainted with stupidity and evil” If the goal is to move the discussion and mankind forward rather than just vent , then either side has to come to some realization that there is something to learn from the other.
I’m still waiting to hear how you think it’s not a living document. “Your description of the Constitution as a “living document” is an interpretation in itself.” Let me hear your description of it as anything other than a living document.
It appears that if the Bible can be amended that man is not given this privilege.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.