Gay Marriage

[Collins Country]

Come on RC, why does one have to be a liberal to believe in the contradictions of the bible? That is like saying one would have to be a conservative to believe in the 2nd. amendment.

I can think of a couple obvious examples of contradictions: Matthew 28:3-8 vs. Acts 1:18 dealing with Judas death and what happened to the money he was given to betray Christ. Matthew and Luke even disagree on the genealogy of Jesus.

Matt 27:3-7 (KJV)

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.


Acts 1:16-19 (KJV)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.


Where is your confusion at? After a brief study of it and consulting a couple of commentaries, it is simple. As far a Judas' death, Matt. gives account that he hanged himself, Luke writes in Acts how he handed himself, headlong. As for the money, in Matt. he left it with the priest but they would not put it in the treasury but rather bought the potters field, WITH JUDAS' MONEY, THE REWARD OF HIS INIQUITY.

As for the geneologies of Christ in Matt and Luke, Matt. records Josephs lineage and Luke Mary's, look a Scofield's notes as well as Barkly.

[bucks better beagles]

RC: My main point in the thread above was why one had to be labeled a "liberal" if they believe differently than someone else. I used the gun reference as a guide point and question. I try never to use labels. The implications seem to be to smear another person's credibility. I have said it before and I will say it again, we should be able to honestly disagree without personal attacks.

It seems that there are certain key words that bring out the fightin side of people on the site. Example: Liberal, gay, god, muslim, guns, democrats, bush, pelosi, obama, reed, socialism, government, palin, unemployment benefits, welfare, immigration, PMT, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why everyone wants to choose up sides on these issues. Perhaps, you can explain.

[Tim H]

I don't understand why people make a post on here just to start a argument.
Maybe your just bored!!

Steve...I started this post because it was news of the day which I thought was encouraging news. Argumentation was not my intent. A discussion among equals is not an argument. An argument is a pooling of ignorance without fact base.

It seems that there are certain key words that bring out the fightin side of people on the site. Example: Liberal, gay, god, muslim, guns, democrats, bush, pelosi, obama, reed, socialism, government, palin, unemployment benefits, welfare, immigration, PMT, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why everyone wants to choose up sides on these issues. Perhaps, you can explain.

You started this post using the word gay in the subject, you say you didn't start this to be argumentative and then you post that you know the word gay brings out the fighting side in people. You also have used almost every word you know brings out the fighting side in people throughout your posts. Either you don't read your own writing or you should have just admitted to Steve that he was right.

Perhaps you need to explain?

[Pine Mt Beagles]

Collins Country on Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:34 am

Rufus you definately need to step back and get out of liberal thinking and look at things for yourself for a change. ombamanation is not the massiah! neither are nancy palosi or harry reid!

But believe it or not, I do aggree with you on the part about the gays! When it comes to the Bible I believe it from front to back. But many in modern time have tried to change it, hence the liberals, to suit theirselves. I still read, teach, and preach the King James. I have stuck with it while many of my brethren have switched around to every new version that comes out. I even know some that quote from 6-8 different bibles so if one dont say what they want it to then another one will. jmho

By the way, there are Liberals in politics as well as religion.
-
-ONCE AGAIN I'AM NOT A LIBERAL-BUT YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THERE ARE NONE IT'S A MYTH,
-WHEN PEOPLE TRY TO PUT THE BIBLE IN POLITIC'S-IT DON'T FIT -BUT SINCE YOU CAN'T THINK FOR YOUR SELF AND BELIEVE EVERY THING YOU ARE TOLD BY YOUR DO NOTHING REPUBLICAN'S ,SHOW ME ONCE WHERE DEMOCRAT'S TRIED TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN THE BIBLE .PLEASE.
-
-CHARLESTON, West Virginia — The Gospel of Luke records that, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus showed his boundless mercy by praying for his killers this way: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Not so fast, say contributors to the Conservative Bible Project.

The project, an online effort to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities, claims Jesus' quote is a disputed addition abetted by liberal biblical scholars, even if it appears in some form in almost every translation of the Bible.
'Reworking scripture'
Experts who have devoted their careers to unraveling the ancient texts of the Scriptures, many in long-extinct languages, are predictably skeptical about a project by amateur translators.

"This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda," said Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who calls himself a theological conservative.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

FOR YOU
MR COLLIN'S
-
by Meg White

We've been hearing rumblings all around the blogosphere, from news tips to tweets to comments on our stories, submitted by progressives worried about conservatives trying to rewrite the Bible in their own political language. Because we so value our readers concerns, we looked into it.

The effort, called the Conservative Bible Project, comes from Conservapedia, a right-wing online "encyclopedia" founded in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activists John and Phyllis Schlafly. Conservapedia itself seems to have been inspired by an intense anger from perhaps being rejected by Wikipedia.
Wow. Bitter anyone?

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view. It was started in 2006 by lawyer and social studies teacher Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.

The site specifically markets itself as a learning tool for homeschoolers (Schlafly is a homeschool teacher, though he holds no teaching license nor training in pedagogy), but the main goal seems to be the assertion of a political position, rather than an educational resource. Aside from being openly anti-science, the vast majority of Conservapedia's promoted threads are strikingly partisan.

For example, the "Liberal Hypocrisy" thread prominently features a photo from President Obama's inauguration and this caption:

Liberalism is supposed to include the caring for the environment, as demonstrated here following the innauguration [sic] of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. One hundred tons of trash was [sic] removed from the National Mall in the days following.
The site is certainly right-wing, with featured articles on communism (in which they put William Ayers at the very top of the list of "notorious communists," above Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and Mao Zedong), feminism (in which a modern feminist is identified as someone who refuses to bake, and "detest[s] women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives") and global warming (which the thread defines as a "myth... promoted by liberals seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy").

But the site is really conservative in the true sense of the word, what with its thirst for changing the current meanings of words in our socio-political landscape. Indeed, the word "conservative" generally conveys a resistance to change.

Conservapedia founder Schlafly, who described himself as an amateur religious scholar in an interview on the radio program " told host Alan Colmes that even the word "government" is a liberal term that should be stripped out of the Bible, and suggested a suitable synonym could be "tyranny." He also admitted in that same interview to not having read the Bible in Greek or Aramaic, yet still insisted that the original text was conservative, and that each of the English "translations get increasingly liberal."

Despite the lofty goals, as of this week none of the Old Testament threads had even been set up with the original verses (strangely, the only Old Testament thread that had been created, Genesis, was nominated for deletion today). But a few New Testament chapters were close to completed. One of these is a letter from Paul to Philemon, one of the shorter of the apostle's many correspondences that made it into the Bible.

Some of the translations appear to be simply using more modern language, such as turning this final sentence of the King James Version of the chapter:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

into this:

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Pretty harmless stuff, really (although the explanation for the change, that the phrase "'your spirit' is anachronistic today," seems to miss the point, ignoring the fact that the 2,000-year-old text itself is "anachronistic today").

In contrast, the first few entries on that same page are overtly political, suggesting that a modern reading of these particular Bible verses connote "socialism" and anti-war sentiment with the words "fellowlabourer" and "peace" respectively.
-
-

[bucks better beagles]

Tim, If you read my entire post"

(RC: My main point in the thread above was why one had to be labeled a "liberal" if they believe differently than someone else. I used the gun reference as a guide point and question. I try never to use labels. The implications seem to be to smear another person's credibility. I have said it before and I will say it again, we should be able to honestly disagree without personal attacks.

It seems that there are certain key words that bring out the fightin side of people on the site. Example: Liberal, gay, god, muslim, guns, democrats, bush, pelosi, obama, reed, socialism, government, palin, unemployment benefits, welfare, immigration, PMT, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why everyone wants to choose up sides on these issues. Perhaps, you can explain.)
bucks better beagles)

I was making an innocent observation. RC: seems to be a very wise man and I thought maybe he might have some input on this phenomena of word usage. I try never to make personal or slanderous posts. I try to use fact wherever I can. But, we can't all agree on every subject. That would be awful boring (Steve M). Wouldn't it?

My posts are meant as input only and a learning tool for me where ever possible. If you take them any other way, I apologize. I will go one step further, if you and others, find my posts simply argumentative, I will quit making them entirely and fade off into internet oblivion as far as this site is concerned. Just say the word.

Look back, I tried to shut this post down and nobody seems to want to so, some people must be enjoying it.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

B.B.B.
YOU ARE IN THE WRONG TERRORITORY,IF YOU THINK YOU WILL GET ,ANY IMPARTIAL TREATMENT HERE.THERE ARE SIMPLY TWO VIEW'S, THE ONE'S WHO TRY TO DO GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY, AND THE ONE'S WHO TRY TO GOOD FOR THEM SELVE'S.YOU CAN DECIDE WHO IS DOING WHAT.

[bucks better beagles]

PMB: Are you implying that people on this board would rather see the country fail and, thus, Barack Obama, fail for whatever political reasons, than do what is right for the people and the country. That would seem to be the Republican and Tea Party agenda but, (big BUT) here, I think most people would not appeal to this train of thought. I think most people want what is good for the people and the country.

I don't know any of you that have been posting but how do you feel? Do we do what is good for the country or just get rid of a president or are they one and the same?

[Collins Country]

BUCK,

I WIWLL RESPOND TO THIS LATER TONIGHT, THAT WILL GIVE ME TIME TO THINK ON IT. RIGHT NOW I HAVE A MINISTERIAL MEETING, OF CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

: Gay Marriage
by bucks better beagles on Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:23 am

PMB: Are you implying that people on this board would rather see the country fail and, thus, Barack Obama, fail for whatever political reasons, than do what is right for the people and the country. That would seem to be the Republican and Tea Party agenda but, (big BUT) here, I think most people would not appeal to this train of thought. I think most people want what is good for the people and the country.
-
-THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'AM SAYING IF YOU WATCH THE REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN'S THE WILL TELL YOU UP FRONT THEY WILL DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO SE THIS PRESIDENT FAIL.....CONSERVATIVE------------
-
-HERE IS THE SHORT VERSION
-
-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night.
THERE ARE MANY MORE-----LIMBAUGH- IS THE REPUBLICAN LEADER AND HE SAY'S IT EVERY DAY..

[2500 HD]

B.B.B.
YOU ARE IN THE WRONG TERRORITORY,IF YOU THINK YOU WILL GET ,ANY IMPARTIAL TREATMENT HERE.THERE ARE SIMPLY TWO VIEW'S, THE ONE'S WHO TRY TO DO GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY, AND THE ONE'S WHO TRY TO GOOD FOR THEM SELVE'S.YOU CAN DECIDE WHO IS DOING WHAT.

And you PMB are the selfish one......Finally you admit it!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stavemillbeagles]

I was making an innocent observation. RC: seems to be a very wise man and I thought maybe he might have some input on this phenomena of word usage. I try never to make personal or slanderous posts. I try to use fact wherever I can. But, we can't all agree on every subject. That would be awful boring (Steve M). Wouldn't it?

My posts are meant as input only and a learning tool for me where ever possible. If you take them any other way, I apologize. I will go one step further, if you and others, find my posts simply argumentative, I will quit making them entirely and fade off into internet oblivion as far as this site is concerned. Just say the word.

my name is not Steve it is CHRIS and my name is at the bottom of every one of my post
and im saying WORD!!!

[Pine Mt Beagles]

25-VD-
I HAVE BEEN CALLED MANY THING'S BY MANY PEOPLE SINCE I WORKED WITH PEOPLE ALL MY LIFE.BUT I DOUBT, ANYONE WHO NOW'S ME, WOULD CALL ME -SELFISH-

[bucks better beagles]

Impartiality...absolutes...openmindedness...You folks know, I think PMB is right. I am in wrong territory on this site. I am closing shop. Good Luck to you all, live long and prosper.

[Collins Country]

RC: My main point in the thread above was why one had to be labeled a "liberal" if they believe differently than someone else. I used the gun reference as a guide point and question. I try never to use labels. The implications seem to be to smear another person's credibility. I have said it before and I will say it again, we should be able to honestly disagree without personal attacks.

It seems that there are certain key words that bring out the fightin side of people on the site. Example: Liberal, gay, god, muslim, guns, democrats, bush, pelosi, obama, reed, socialism, government, palin, unemployment benefits, welfare, immigration, PMT, etc. For the life of me, I don't understand why everyone wants to choose up sides on these issues. Perhaps, you can explain.

There are those that are Conservative and them that are Liberal, no way around it! I live in Pulaski Country, Kentucky where there are somewhere around 25,000 Republicans and 3,500 Demacrats. We are mainly Farm folk that when it comes to getting by, we must live within our means. We cant goto the bank and borrow money for a new tractor when we can get by with the old one. Now several fellers that were around here and called themselve Liberal Demacrats, borrowed and borrowed money for bigger tractors, bigger bailers, big lift disks, and so one as that. Out of 4 of them, 3 went under and the 4th is holding on for dear life telling everyone he doesnt understand how we're getting by. I will have to say this, those Demacrats did help the rest of us around here, we bought a good International Disk for around 1/5 of new price at the aution!!!!

Conservatives live on what they have, Liberals borrow and spend whether they got it or not! Just the way I see it, here at home, as well as in Frankfort and Washington.

Good Day!