Bible Publishing Companies sued for anti-gay References

[Dethklok_still_rules]

If you don't like what's written in the bible, don't read it. If I want to say homos are evil, that's my right. ****ing gaiafags fail. What a ****ing pussy. if you get mental anguish from reading a book, kill yourself. I'm not exaggerating or joking. If someone tells you you're evil and you feel unbearable mental strain, kill yourself. Life's going to get harder than that, and you won't be able to handle it. This guy's just looking for a quick buck. I hope some crazy religous nut kills him. What a pussy. If you stand behind him, you're a pussy, and are a social parasite, the kind I would like to exterminate. I'm. Dead. ****ing. Serious.

[mm3]

****ing gaiafags fail.

lol.

anyway.

Ok, it's the BIBLE! Holy crap, seriously? It's a low lower than low.

[teddy564339]

Originally Posted by Mako

Ron... reading through your explanation, your interpretation sounds like salvation by deception on the part of paul, it kinda feels... icky for me.

If that whole section of what I posted wasn't completely off of the main topic of this thread, I would ask you to explain what you mean by "deception", because I wasn't aware that it had been included in my post. Maybe over PM.

[weswissa]

I love my Bible the way it is... I would rather not have to buy a new one... I hope he loses...

~Weswissa

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Dethklok_still_rules

If you don't like what's written in the bible, don't read it. If I want to say homos are evil, that's my right. ****ing gaiafags fail. What a ****ing pussy. if you get mental anguish from reading a book, kill yourself. I'm not exaggerating or joking. If someone tells you you're evil and you feel unbearable mental strain, kill yourself. Life's going to get harder than that, and you won't be able to handle it. This guy's just looking for a quick buck. I hope some crazy religous nut kills him. What a pussy. If you stand behind him, you're a pussy, and are a social parasite, the kind I would like to exterminate. I'm. Dead. ****ing. Serious.

You missed the point of his lawsuit. It was that OTHERS who were following the bible discriminated, ridiculed and humiliated him because of it.
Though he claims its because of the dumbed down wording of stating homosexual, though this notion is quite silly.


To Ron: If I'm not mistaken, instead of teaching christ, he teaches to follow him instead of christ so they are not decieved by others. Which to me in itself sounds like something a false teacher would do. But to note, paul does judge, and inject his own views, admittedly so.

1 corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

And keep in mind this is a SINGLE book. I'm simply to lazy at the time to start cross referencing from other statements made by paul, jesus, and other disciples that paint an incomprehensible mess of a story.

1 corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

But according to paul, this is the plan...

[teddy564339]

Originally Posted by Mako

To Ron: If I'm not mistaken, instead of teaching christ, he teaches to follow him instead of christ so they are not decieved by others. Which to me in itself sounds like something a false teacher would do.

I don't see what makes you say that Paul is trying to tell people not to follow Christ. To me, Paul's doctrine does not contradict anything that Jesus taught. Paul did not ever physically interact with Jesus (not counting his Damascus Road encounter)...everything he learned/wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit (or if you don't believe that, learned from disciples like Peter). So Paul probably did not even hear everything that Jesus says in the 4 gospels. But like I've said...while their messages (and audiences) were different, I don't see how Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to abandon Christ and follow him instead.

In addition, while Paul does instruct the Corinthians to follow him instead of false teachers in chapter 4, in chapter 1 (verses 12-17) he rebukes people for saying that they belong to himself. He points out that it was Jesus who was crucified and that people are baptized in Jesus' name, not his own.

Originally Posted by Mako

But to note, paul does judge, and inject his own views, admittedly so.

1 corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is the only place in all of Paul's writing that I have ever found that he offers his own opinion. And he's honest about it...he says that he is not writing a message from God like all of his other writings, he is merely giving his own opinion. Yes, he uses the word judgment...but that doesn't mean he is judging people, calling them evil (which is the message that Jesus was getting across). He is just giving his opinion...if people don't follow it, he's not saying that they are sinning or are doing evil.

In his opinion, he thinks it is best for the Corinthians to stay virgins. However, because he didn't get this commandment from God, he says that if they don't, they're not doing anything wrong. I don't see why it's a problem that Paul is doing this, or how it would contradict any of Jesus' teachings, or cause people to do follow him instead of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Mako

And keep in mind this is a SINGLE book. I'm simply to lazy at the time to start cross referencing from other statements made by paul, jesus, and other disciples that paint an incomprehensible mess of a story.

There are many books of the New Testament, with many different audiences and messages. While they can be difficult to sort through, I don't think that makes the whole picture of them incomprehensible, nor do I think that they are at odds with one another. I truly do think that one can find harmony between them.

Originally Posted by Mako

1 corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

But according to paul, this is the plan...

I think a verse that goes very well with the one you mentioned is this one:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Basically, meaning that unless someone has been saved, the Bible will probably just look like a bunch of stupid writing.



Anyway...if you respond to this post, my next response to you will be through a PM, because we have gotten very much off the original topic.

[Dethklok_still_rules]

Originally Posted by Mako

You missed the point of his lawsuit. It was that OTHERS who were following the bible discriminated, ridiculed and humiliated him because of it.

He's trying to change the bible. Trying to make it more politically correct. Claiming that what is printed ids the publisher's interpretation. **** him, he has no excuse for being such a little whelp. From now on, I won't even use the pronoun 'he'. I've seen a lot of weak men in my life. Child molesters, wife beaters, welfare scammers, but never have I seen a bigger pussy. This 'thing' is the most pitiful excuse for a human ever. And the sad part is that this is typical behavior. People all acroos the world try to change books , radio and Tv show into what they want to see by being "offended". They don't want freedom for everyone, they want freedom for themselves. They have no regard for anyone else on earth who might take enjoyment out of something they don't. ****. Nothing pisses me off more than shit like this.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by teddy564339

I don't see what makes you say that Paul is trying to tell people not to follow Christ. To me, Paul's doctrine does not contradict anything that Jesus taught. Paul did not ever physically interact with Jesus (not counting his Damascus Road encounter)...everything he learned/wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit (or if you don't believe that, learned from disciples like Peter). So Paul probably did not even hear everything that Jesus says in the 4 gospels. But like I've said...while their messages (and audiences) were different, I don't see how Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to abandon Christ and follow him instead.

I did not mean to imply that paul is asking to abandon christ, mearly injecting his own beliefs within the teachings, stretching the truth, and making curious statements that would make me question his integrity as a follower of christ.

Speaking of damascus

1 corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is the only place in all of Paul's writing that I have ever found that he offers his own opinion. And he's honest about it...he says that he is not writing a message from God like all of his other writings, he is merely giving his own opinion. Yes, he uses the word judgment...but that doesn't mean he is judging people, calling them evil (which is the message that Jesus was getting across). He is just giving his opinion...if people don't follow it, he's not saying that they are sinning or are doing evil.

And is paul righteous in using his position of authority to push his own agenda?

In his opinion, he thinks it is best for the Corinthians to stay virgins. However, because he didn't get this commandment from God, he says that if they don't, they're not doing anything wrong. I don't see why it's a problem that Paul is doing this, or how it would contradict any of Jesus' teachings, or cause people to do follow him instead of Jesus.

Mostly the judging upon pauls part, and I still disagree with your view that disassociation only pertains to being friends with non-believers. Something that still seems pretty silly, a christian not allowed to befriend any non-believer.

There are many books of the New Testament, with many different audiences and messages. While they can be difficult to sort through, I don't think that makes the whole picture of them incomprehensible, nor do I think that they are at odds with one another. I truly do think that one can find harmony between them.

It's much too big a task at the moment for me to start going into every book and pointing out the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, unfulfilled prophecy, and down right silly notions.

I mean, people miss that jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that would identify him as the messiah. Now, I'm a strong believer in that which one learns oneself leaves a bigger impression then that which is told to you. So I will leave it up to those with an inquiring mind to investigate, and not waste effort upon those in which bury their heads in the sand.

I think a verse that goes very well with the one you mentioned is this one:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Basically, meaning that unless someone has been saved, the Bible will probably just look like a bunch of stupid writing.

There's also several verses where it preaches that anyone not christian is an anti-christ and is here to deceive you. Now christians see these verses as evidence that the bible is true. But I see it in more of tune to the tactics of cults to discredit dissenters, thus blocking them out, instead of investigating idea's and opening ones mind to new schools of thought.

An idea idea or belief should be able to survive based upon its own merits, and not need to be held above critique.

Anyway...if you respond to this post, my next response to you will be through a PM, because we have gotten very much off the original topic.

Yeah, but theres not really much more to go with the original topic :P I mean, there's no one particularly defending his law suit.

He's trying to change the bible. Trying to make it more politically correct. Claiming that what is printed ids the publisher's interpretation.

Correction, the publishers dumbed down the wording to specifically state homosexual instead of "abusers of themselves with mankind". It was a change of semantics since this still does mean homosexual, but it was a change of the publishers half none the less.

From now on, I won't even use the pronoun 'he'. I've seen a lot of weak men in my life. Child molesters, wife beaters, welfare scammers, but never have I seen a bigger pussy. This 'thing' is the most pitiful excuse for a human ever.

Yet all you know of him is that he sees the publishers choice to dumb down the wording of the bible, as the direct cause of people more directly going after him. It's quite narrow to pass judgement so fast when one knows so little about this man.

And the sad part is that this is typical behavior. People all acroos the world try to change books , radio and Tv show into what they want to see by being "offended". They don't want freedom for everyone, they want freedom for themselves.

And freedom from literature that was a direct cause of his discrimination is unreasonable? This is not as simple as a boob being flashed, or vulgar language being used. The messages taught within the bible is that it is wrong to be gay, and that they are not to be associated with. I don't support the method in which he is attempting to enact this change, but I do support the notion of not having to tolerate intolerance of things one can not help.

I may not believe in judge not lest ye be judged, but I believe in the spirit of the message with a modified method. Judge not which one does not know. Ignorance is an ugly thing, uglier when one makes conclusions based upon it.

[Millenniumfalsehood]

I personally prefer the original Kione Greek version, which I can't reproduce here because there's no Greek font. It basically reads that sodomites (an old English word for homosexuality before that term was coined) are included in I Cor. 6:9. Other condemnations about homosexuality can be found in Romans 1:27(men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned with lust toward one another).

That being said, I think it bears noting here that we are commanded in the exact same book, not four chapters later, to love one another with agape love(self-sacrificing, the highest form of love in Greek). We are to hate the sin, but want the best for the sinner. We need to tell them that we think what they're doing is wrong, but never hound them about it. If someone hounded you, you'd hate them right? So why would God expect Christians to hound non-Christians about sin? I *do not* believe God condones the act of homosexuality at all(he did destroy a city for it after all), but there's no way He hates gays as a certain so-called, self-proclaimed 'reverend' would like you to believe(that's a term reserved for God anyway).

I'm tired of people browbeating me for my belief, but I can't stand it when fellow Christians brow-beat their fellowman because they choose not to follow Christ. We're all humans here, let's act like it.

[andynonymous]

I could see this going either way at the outset depending on which court hears it and which way the prosecution decides to go. So-called "hate speech" is still a hot button topic in the US, and could be used to the prosecution's advantage. However, once past the initial court there's no way any appellate or the Supreme court(s) will let this one slide. Motion denied. End of case.