Good Lord
- Thread starter Cyclone62
- Start date
"Scoooooooby Doooooby DooooooO!!
There.... does that help?:biggrin9gp:"
"How about RAGGGY RELLLLP?"
You guys are the BOMB. I'm so happy I'm about to weep....
There.... does that help?:biggrin9gp:"
"How about RAGGGY RELLLLP?"
You guys are the BOMB. I'm so happy I'm about to weep....
Ok, now why exactly is it that Shaggy and Scoob are always hungry, always paranoid, and ride around in a 60's van? :baffled5wh:
Also, Fred always leaves to "go search for clues" with Daphne, while Shag and Scoob are stuck with Velma. What's up with that?
Yeah, speaking of cartoons I wouldn't want my kids to watch....
Did anyone see the movie a few years back? The van was filled with smoke - but of course when you open it up it's just Shaggy and Scoob cooking burgers or something.
Anybody ever see that Southpark episode "Korn's groovy pirate ghost mystery"? That was back in the day Southpark wasn't so political and preachy.
Just because there are lots of really good thoughts in this thread, I thought I'd throw in my (unsolicited) opinion. Hope not to offend anyone - I'm a Christian liberal, so I straddle both sides of the fence. :biggrin9gp:
I think the quote above could even be explained further. I am Christian; it was my intention to be a minister for a while. During studies with my pastor, however, we came back to the topic time and again that much of the Bible is allegory - there are stories told (amongst fact) to illustrate God's greatness and omnipresence. The tale of Adam & Eve is a perfect example - it is an allegory for God taking a piece of man and a piece of woman to perpetuate the human race. The Bible says God created us in 6 days - where does it say how long each of His days lasted, or how he did it? On the flip side - what caused the Big Bang? It is true that The Bible was handed down through oral tradition for centuries; however, what remains is clearly God's will - we are simply left to interpret.
All of that being said... I personally believe it is not my place (or any other mortal's - including the government's) to decide who can love and who can't. The greatest thing Jesus teaches is to turn the other cheek. As people have said, "Judge not lest ye be judged". I have many friends who are homosexual, but I don't think that this is "wrong" of me - Jesus revealed Himself to a prostitute after His resurrection. He was forgiving and loving, regardless of people's current beliefs or their pasts, and He expects us to be the same. If someone is a contributing member of society, paying the same taxes and doing the same civic duties that I am, I personally believe it is their right to have the same rights afforded to them that I have to me - it is their right/choice to develop their relationship with God.
Yes, marriage is an institution closely tied to the church; however, it is dangerous to only afford that right through the church. In addition to banning gay marriage, do we also ban marriages for people of all other religions than the one we believe to be right? Do we convert them to our own beliefs? We don't even have proof as a society that homosexuality isn't a natural condition - are we going to deny people rights based off of something that isn't their fault? Do they get their own water fountains? This is a very overdramatic example (and I apologize), but I just wanted to illustrate that it is something of a slippery slope.
Matthew chapter 26-
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
Mark chapter 14-
When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.
Luke chapter 7-
Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment,
she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.
John chapter 12-
Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
It is absolutely incorrect to say that it is not consistent. It is very difficult at times and requires great study, but it is consistent. Give me the exact passage if you desire, so I may view it, but I would suspect that any perceived inconsistencies could be explained. For example, just b/c one author says his head was annointed with oil and another his feet doesn't mean they are necessarily inconsistent. It is very possible that both were, and each particular author only told part of the story. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in the Gospels, each had a different audience they were targeting, so they recorded the events as they were important to their audience. (Here are the aspects each author dealt with: Matthew - Christ as King; Mark - presents teachings of Christ; Luke - presents Christ as a suffering servant; John - Christ as the Messiah). Because of this, it is actually consistent that one would focus on the annointing of Christ's feet and the other His head - one does not preclude the other.
The Bible is to be taken literally unless it is obvious from the context that it is to be take figuratively. Most people want it to be taken figuratively because they are uncomfortable with the literal meanings of the Bible. There are things in the Bible I am uncomfortable with also, but I try to understand those instead of only taking the parts which are convenient for me (and believe me when I say I am sinful and have difficulty being a truly Good Christian and I fail miserably often).
I think this point is an absolute fallacy. You stake claims with no evidence. How do you know that the bible has retained 99% of it's accuracy since it's original inception (Maybe since it's first printing but not from it's inception). The oldest transcripts are the Dead Sea Scrolls which only holds some scripture of the bible in it along with a bunch of other different religious writings. And some of the writings are hidden away in the Vatican.
Your absolutely right. However, I still believe that, man in all of his good intentions has altered the bible throughout the ages. I have no evidence of this, except for history. Man has continually altered and changed things for his benefit and power. Who was copying the early works of the Bible? The people in power. I think the Bible as a whole should be looked at, not one line or two.
All in all this still proves that it was written by man to get the point he wanted to make across to the audience he is trying to reach. What of the other gospels that didn't even make it into the bible? Man (men, not women) decided what should be put in and what should be left out. They were choosing what they wanted - perhaps because they were uncomfortable with something the other gospels said. Such as the gospel of Mary. I'm assuming they wanted to downplay the roll of women in the church, so they just left out the parts about her, and eventually one of the Catholic popes even tried to say she was a prostitute.
It is true that Christ revealed Himself to prostitutes and many other sinners. That does not mean however that we should revel in sin. In every encounter with the great sinners of His day, he would forgive them and would send them on their way telling them to 'go and sin no more.' What this means is he is forgiving them for their past sins, and that they should not continue on their sinful path. Yes, if homosexuals ask for forgiveness for their sin of homosexuality, they will be forgiven. The problem is that homosexuals want everyone to view their homosexuality as natural and accept them. That is not the intention Christ has of us as Christians.
Also, both the Old Testament and New Testament declare homosexuality a sin.
Well said. I'm glad you don't only look at the parts that are convenient for you.
I hope that my previous post helps. We all have to face the fact that the Bible has some inconsistencies. Do those inconsistencies invalidate the teachings contained within? NO! But there is no way that anyone can convince me that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally or as an absolute historical fact.
Incorrect, it was written by God (the Holy Spirit) through mankind. Yes, it was written by men, women were suppressed in most societies during that time period of history, so it would be quite consistent that men would be the authors of the Bible. However, women played great roles throughout Biblical history, so to say that men intentionally trid to suppress the role of women in the church is ridiculous. In fact, the Catholic Church elevates Mary, the mother of Christ to an iconic status.
I recently saw a story about twins on some evening news show. There were two little boys (elementary school aged) who had an entirely normal family. One little boy loved GI Joe and had his entire room decked out in camo. The other little boy had a bit of a softer side. His entire room was pink, and instead of GI Joes he liked Barbie. $10 says he's going to be gay when he grows up... since he likes all things girls like now, it's almost to be expected that he's going to like boys, like girls do. He's been this way his entire life, his parents can't explain it. So what I ask is this: If this kid does end up being gay, is he a sinner? He didn't choose to be born this way, it's ingrained in him and no one has forced him to like pink or play with girls toys. His twin brother turned out like most parents hope their little boys will turn out.
Shaggy and Scoob were/are on crank. I hear that stuff gives you the metabolism of a pit bull. They also probably both smoked off camera.:sweet:
Look at Daphne and you tell me. She's a dream doll and and Fred is hornier then a two peckered bull in a field full of cows. The man has NEEDS don'tcha know???:yes4lo:
Shag and Scoob are stuck with Velma because the crank is frying their brains so she, being the genius, has to hang out with them to even things out.:baffled5wh:
That would be my take on the whole situation. I am not sure if my theory supports evolution or creationism there. I think about it and get back to ya...:wink0st:
But Jesus never did.
p.s. I could also argue that the Testaments were not arguing against homosexuality, but other problems that existed in society (as a matter of fact, I had a minister give a sermon on that very topic), on top of that, since the passages that are being quoted speak of a man sleeping with another man then why shouldn't a woman sleeping with another woman be considered okay? Are we only going to discriminate against gay men?
Last edited:
