Got a question about whether you’re being hateful or intolerant? Just ask!

How much doublespeak does it really take to classify the statement “God hates f*gs” as hateful?

Here's an example:

4a3gup.jpg (click to show)

imgflip.com/i/4a3gup

Enjoy!

You think that’s hateful? I’m not seeing it.

Think wha?

Well first off God loves all people according to the Bible. He does hate the act of homosexuality and for good reason. People that regularly do homosexual acts are at the top of the studies for disease, poverty, depression, mental illness, and suicide. Its bad for the individual, families,and society as a whole (insurance premiums, spread of disease).
Its kind of like how you hate when your 5 year old is playing with a lighter. You don't hate the child you hate what they are doing.

Yahweh hates a heck ton of people, starting with non-Jews. Kinda funny for a God elected to be supreme by those who ended the country of HIS Chosen and dispersed them so that they may be persecuted in foreign lands for millenia while He does no smoting or flooding or killing first born sons or make it rain frogs while rivers run with blood or turning them to pillars of salt those who attempt to destroy his children like the good old days.

Like said Jews, people persecuted for their orientation tends to lead them to having a whole mess of problems. Strange, I know.
People with great lives have little to no problems, so obviously the maligned must be doing something wrong to be suffering.

Yahweh did not pay much heed to studies, insurance, nor disease spread.

It's kinda like concubines. Yahweh didn't mind, yet promiscuity is a nifty way of spreading disease.

God does not hate the act of homosexuality between women, or at least he forgot to mention that He did.

Do you know why the prohibition and repulsion is solely focused against men?

HINT: The answer is in Babylon, the temples, to be specific.

Again. Go back and read the Bible. I suggest the King James.

Nope. Please try again. Do some reading on history.
The King James version was translated in such a way that there were many translators, the best living at the time from all over.
They used the Textus Receptus or "received text. This was a compilation of all known original copies that they had access to.
Unlike the Vaticanus that was a trashed copy with edits and changes, found one day in the vatican vaults. The Vaticanus was used to translate all modern versions and was missing lots of verses and whole books.
The idea behind the textus Receptus is that where most of the copies agree, that's what gets put in.
Old English also has words that directly match the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek, whereas modern English does not.

Nope. Its known as the Gish gallop fallacy. When you try to present so much info that your opponent can't respond to it all, then you say "aha, you didn't respond to this." Its a common atheist attempt to win a debate.

Once again you are picking out technicalities and claiming that you win the debate because I made a grammar error. Please try again. This time with facts, sources, and professional opinions presented in links.

I refer to what the bible says because you are clearly not a believer. If I were to talk to you about spiritual things, you wouldn't understand. I'm talking to you about factual earthly things and you are still flailing about not understanding the basics of logic, discussion, and basic facts about the history of the bible or readings from the bible.

I've not ignored anything. I addressed your issue. There is not a meaningful difference between the Koine and classical Greek, only small changes in the usage of words. Similar to how someone from the 60's could still understand our modern English today.

What King James did, had nothing to do with how the bible turned out, as its been verified independently since by many scholars both secular and Christian.

The Johannine Comma does not change the meaning since the trinity is described in many other places. Also it was removed a long time ago. Once again if you bothered to read the bible you'd know this.

The additional copies don't deviate from the Textus Receptus. They are too few to have an impact. I posted a link to a nice graphic that makes this entire path of conversation pointless.

I'll give you one point. The vaticanus was not found in a trash heap: https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=sinaiticus-wastebasket-story
It was the sinaiticus and it wasn't a trash heap, it was a basket they were using to start fires with in a monastery. Apparently this story has been passed down by a lot of well known scholars. My bad.

However, the fact of the matter is that while the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest manuscripts, they disagree with the other thousand copies and lineages of the bible and would still be excluded from the Textus Receptus.

My 'contempt' is not contempt at all. Its a knowledge of the condition of the manuscripts when found. They had things marked out, and other things written over. They were clearly a bad copy.
"1. The Sinaiticus was not “accurate.” When examining the text at codexsinaiticus.org/en/ , we can see the truth. It was first written with Alexandrian Gnostic changes, then mistakes changed, then parts were conformed to the Greek Orthodox text, until the monks gave up. Which of all these writers and correctors was supposed to be “accurate”?" from the link above.

No that's what you call a miscommunication. You weren't specific enough and I assumed instead of asking what you were talking about.

The reason its relevant is that if you factor in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it wouldn't change the Textus Receptus at all.
We know the Vaticanus (from the Egyptian gnostic sects) and Sinaiticus (with many corrections and changes) are not fit for use.

All of your questions show that you have not bothered to read the new testament. All is explained (whether you believe or not) there. Try giving it a read.

No the New King James uses the vaticanus and sinaiticus and uses modern English. Very few people use it or view it as an improvement over the KJV.

Dead sea scrolls verify the accuracy of the KJV. They also include apocryphal books and corrupted books. You act like the dead sea scrolls are a single book or copy when they are a library of different copies from different authors and ages.

They all had the bible, but it was in stories passed down and not written down. Of course they took it seriously and didn't corrupt it.

The vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican vault. It had the same issues as the sinaiticus and was traced back to the Egyptian gnostic sects that did not believe in the divinity of Jesus which is a core part of the originals.

Nope. I worship God. I do not worship a book. More false attributions. You should stick to "I" statements and leave the "you" statements alone.

Nope. I'm presenting facts backed up by links that quote scholarly articles written by professionals. I've yet to see a decent link from you to prove anything. Please try again.

"We" as in the countless biblical scholars that study these things.

When you have overwrites, things marked out, and other things written in, you know it isn't the same as the original. That's basic logic.

You know the truth by going to the source. Something you have not done.

"There are entire sections of chapters that are corruptions, that nevertheless appear in every single manuscript known to man. Luke 16:19-31, the "parable" of the "rich man and Lazarus" is one such fable. It's total fiction, at odds with the rest of the Bible, inserted by someone or someones who believed in the Greek pagan concept of eternal damnation in Hades."

Do you have any sources for this or are you just spouting nonsense now?

https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/EarlyChristianNTGridReferences.html
"2 Clement (120-140 A.D.) ch.13 p.254 quotes part of Matthew 9:13 and Luke 6:32 as Scripture. "And another Scripture saith, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." 2 Clement also refers to quotes Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13, in ch.16 p.252."

Sorry Luke 16 is an original.

What verse are you quoting when you say John said? I need some sources to verify your claims.

more claims with no sources.

You claim I have a counterfeit status but you do not back it up with anything at all.

The old style of English with thee's and thou's. Whatever you want to call it.

Oh wait, you used an ellipses in the middle of sentence in the wrong way, we should discount everything you've said right? Judge according to your own measure right?

Giant walls of text that I don't have time to respond to. Great Gish gallop fallacy there.

Also more attribution of what you think I'm thinking. Stick to the facts and maybe we can get somewhere.

I said old English not Old English, meaning its a form of English that is old and not spoken anymore.

I didn't corrupt anything. I paraphrased. Feel free to read the actual bible verse. I was talking about when Jesus was talking. He explained that he was talking of earthly things and they weren't understanding, how then can he talk of spiritual things.
John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
I'm telling you factual things about the bible and you are arguing about those things.

Most of your post is your fevered imaginations of what you think I'm thinking which is wildly incorrect.

My continuing to reply to your comments is showing great patience, long suffering, and when I get done, I'm completely at peace and moving on to the rest of my life.

I understand that you are not going to change your mind, no matter how many facts I reveal or sources I provide. However I do this for anyone reading the comments to show how wrong you are, so they are not deceived.

Its dependent on accepting the free gift. If you do this your spirit is awakened and when you lose the sin nature and come into Gods presence the 'chaff' will be burned away and what is left will live eternally in heaven with God and there will be no conflict.
If you don't get saved your spirit remains dead and tainted by sin. If you need verses to back this up, look up 'chaff' in the bible. I use: www.blueletterbible.org.

It makes them inferior because age doesn't mean they aren't corrupted copies. We know they are corrupted because of the missing verses, the corrections, and the overwrites.

The letter is the spirit. That's where your disconnect is. The bible is literally the word of God. If you are looking elsewhere for answers then you are being led astray. Many bible verses talk about following the original message and testing whatever spirits that try to guide you and rejecting them if they deviate.

You seem to have a misunderstanding. It isn't that I agree with or disagree with something. The facts state the King James is a superior translation. That's why I use that one. I will agree there's probably enough info to get people saved in the other versions, but they will have misunderstandings if they use them.

Abraham used a direct connection to God through the holy spirit, and wrote some of the old books (passed down to Moses who physically wrote them down).

The part you are confused on is a reference from the article that I linked. Not my words.

The vaticanus has the same issues as the Sinaiticus, both are used to make the more recent versions of the bible.

"Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and
lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.
Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.""
from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/vaticanus.html

It was capitalized for the start of a sentence, not as a proper name (which phones do automatically).

I knew all about Old English. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the older form of modern English that is no longer spoken.

Once again you are trying to disqualify an entire statement based on a technicality. This is also a logical fallacy. The entire statement is true, technicality notwithstanding.

Right here is your false attribution to emotion and motivation: "YOU do it because you're offended. So, you ascend your Ivory Tower, and speak from on high, haughtily dismissing me because I'm "not spiritual", so I obviously "wouldn't understand.""

Its a commonly known fact (known by Christians) that the holy spirit helps people understand scripture. This is what Jesus was talking about in the verse I quoted.

Every Christian is empowered to speak the message of Jesus to anyone.
You seem to be missing the point. Nicodemus was steeped in the Torah. Jesus was just discussing earthly things with him and Nicodemus couldn't comprehend. Kind of like what I'm doing with you. I'm not claiming anything spiritual. I'm only talking about the physical lineage of the bible and why some texts are better than others. You don't seem to understand about the corruption of the texts by the Egyptian gnostic sects and how a copy that was changed multiple times by different groups are not the unchanged word of God passed down by the early Church, how then are you going to understand about the Holy Spirit and the trinity?

Already addressed your attempt to mischaracterization of what I typed.
Its the same kind of characterization. "Aha, I found a single misunderstanding therefore everything you say is wrong." Well I found something wrong with your comment, therefore all your comments are invalid. The same thing.
Of course its a misunderstanding since I didn't say "Old English" I said "old English" meaning it is an older unused type of English that is no longer spoken.

Textus Receptus is completely relevant. I'd be willing to see the same methodology applied to all of the known texts now as those in the Textus Receptus, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find it. I'm not sure it would be significantly different than the Textus Receptus anyway.

I don't engage in religion. I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm presenting well known facts. Its up to you what you do with them. Religion is when you create a structure around a belief and try to control what is believed. I personally don't care what you believe as long as you don't spread falsehoods.

The Catholic Church backed the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and after a certain point in time they declared they knew better than the bible and that there declarations superseded it. You referenced the Catholic Church when you mentioned the reformation and King James politics.

All who accept Jesus will be saved sure.

Not arrogance. Just truth. I understand you may not believe, but these are the things the bible says. You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with the bible.

lol, you are incorrect on a lot of accounts.

King James has nothing to do with it. He commissioned it but it has gone through the test of time and the 'revisions' you talk about are minor corrections to spelling and sentence structure. Nothing that changes the meaning.

The documents that you say are much older as I already explained are the vaticanus which was found in a trash heap and was likely a bad copy that was thrown out. There are a few others, but they all show tampering and don't agree with the hundreds of other copies that they found in different lines dating all the way back to the early church.

The textus receptus takes the text where it agrees in most lineages of the copies, the few older texts don't agree, so they are left out in those instances.

This is superior to a few copies found in trash heaps that had corrections in the margins, that originated in the gnostic Egyptian sects that were not christian (they removed references to Jesus's divinity).

The differences between Koine and classic are very minor: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html mostly the amount of usage of words and some words replacing others in common usage, but the meaning is not different.

Those who prefer the King James don't do it to be 'religious'. I abhor religion. It is a pestilence and should be wiped out. I personally use KJV because it is the most accurate version.

You are comparing the Catholic Church with actual Christians again. The real Christians were the ones that wanted the bible translated into English in the first place to make it easier to get people saved by showing them the word.

"Example?

Just one will suffice."

I gave an example in another comment. Here are more:
"things in church that sound good to you, and you've accepted them uncritically."

No, the Churches I've attended all use multiple different translations. I've studied up on them and found out that the King James is the only uncorrupted version out there through actual research.

"You are preaching GNOSTICISM, and you don't even know it."
Nope. I'm explaining the genealogy of the bible.

"Nice! It's always nice to see arrogance from the "believers."
Nope. I'm merely showing the genealogy of the bible.

I could find more, but I barely have time to reply.

Actually Erasumus's text was updated many times to include more and more manuscripts. It uses the "majority text" method to determine which text is correct. That means where most of the manuscripts agree, that is the text to use.
Whereas all the other translations use the vaticanus and sinaiticus which we know to be inaccurate.

King James
Psa 5:6 - "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."
Abhor is not hate.

Mal 1:2 - "I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,"
In context, the hate is coming from Israel, not God.

You do realize you can love and hate at the same time right?

Quote it and I might. King James only.

Do you?

I would only be speculating if asked to consider whether a divine being experiences anything resembling human emotions.

But if you know the answer to this one, fire away

Because they’re in no position to know what God hates, either.

The statement “God hates f*gs” is a totally transparent projecting of one’s own feelings about gay people into God.

It’s disgusting and frankly cowardly to do that.

No, attributing your hate to God is not a get-out-of-jail free card the nullifies the hatefulness of bigoted speech. In fact, it makes it worse because it implicitly threatens the target with eternal damnation.

Hope that helps.

We are all condemned already. Only those of us that receive the gift of God are not.

My bad, it was Jesus:
Mat 22:31-32
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

You are attributing a lot of emotional content that just isn't in my posts.

Actually Paul did argue with religious leaders and point out where the Torah spoke of Jesus and told them to read it (I'm paraphrasing). They used phrases like "Does it not say in <book> that <information>?"

You keep saying I'm boasting when I'm just repeating facts from the bible. This is known as the call to emotion fallacy. Its a red herring. Instead of responding to the facts I present you set up a strawman of what you thing my emotional state is, and then proceed to knock it down. Please stop and actually address the facts. If you did that and had facts of your own I might even change my mind. I certainly won't if you keep strawmanning.

You have to choose someone to be appointed. That's basic logic.

Eternal damnation is in the Torah, please read it. Here are a quick few excerpts:

Daniel 12:1-2 "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Job 17:16. "Shall it go down with me to the gates of Sheol, or descend together into the dust?”

Job 31:12. "For it is a fire that consumes to destruction [Abandon], and would root out all my increase."

Psalm 49:14. "They are appointed as a flock for Sheol. Death shall be their shepherd. The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning. Their beauty shall decay in Sheol, far from their mansion."

Isaiah 5:14. Therefore Sheol has enlarged its desire, and opened its mouth without measure; and their glory, their multitude, their pomp, and he who rejoices among them, descend into it.

lol no. Your view of God is skewed. Its not impossible for him to do whatever he wants. Its his mercy that stays his hand. It would be like you not wanting to destroy a small ant hill and instead relocating it out of your yard.
Of course his anger grows day by day and one day it will overflow and he will not restrain his hand. That day is coming soon.

Mmm no. Its a statement of truth. You can either accept it or reject it.
The "truth" accepts everyone. Its as simple as believing the biblical account of Jesus.

I'll skip the already called out emotional fallacy and false emotional attribution.

Jesus said in many places that he chose them to represent the 12 tribes of Israel and to be his emissaries to the world (paraphrasing in case you can't tell).

"The word there in Hebrew translated as "everlasting" is " 'owlam" (Strong's H5769), which means "an unknown end, forever, a very long time", the root of which is " 'alam" (H5956) which means "secret" or "hidden.""

You literally said it can mean forever. The translators picked the best translation using the context. I'll trust them over a random person on the internet that can't show other scholars that have a different view.

Sheol wasn't death and the grave. It was a place underground where the souls went. Similar to the Greeks Hades. Please try to keep up.

Abaddon means eternal destruction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon that link also shows that Sheol is a 'place of the dead' which is eternal. Yes wikipedia isn't a good link to use, but check out their sources.

lol, go back through and read them. Any place you use the word "you" is likely to be such an attribution.

Sheol the place where the dead go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon

Also stop with the grammar Nazism. You can read and understand what I'm typing. If it every comes to a point that it is not understandable, let me know. I'll clarify.

Also just noting more false attribution of motive and emotion. It seems most of what you post are logical fallacies.

I will escape Gods wrath because he protects those that believe in him and follow his ways. The saved.

Here's a way you can think about it to understand: A parent has three children. 3 of them are normal and only occasionally get into minor trouble. The third one tries to burn the house down on a regular basis. After years of this the parent moves and takes the 3 non-pyro children with them. The pyro child gets ent to an asylum where they can't hurt the other 3.
Would you want to share a perfect paradise with people that burn, loot, and murder?

Still not boasting. Just stating facts.

The apostles were chosen to lead. Everyone is invited to be saved from eternal d**nation. "Not willing that anyone should perish".
You need to actually read the Bible to understand it.

Nope. You are attributing an emotion that is not present. Its the emotion fallacy.

Typos and auto-correct stupidity. Get used to it.

At this point you are just arguing to argue. I'm done with this nonsense.
Proverbs 26:4-5.

You can say I'm incorrect, but its meaningless unless you provide facts and sources to back it up. It looks even worse when you surround it with false attributions of my emotional state and motivations.

The basics of logic are these: facts and statements of truth are consistent. Emotional appeals are fallacies and have no bearing on the truth.

If I say "the power is off" you cannot say "the power is on" one of us is wrong.

Which claim did I not prove? I've proven the King James bible is a superior translation to the others because of its use of the Textus Receptus and that the vaticanus and sinaiticus which are used for the rest of the modern translations are inaccurate and changed versions.

What can a mortal do to gain knowledge of the divine?

Well, gee. My example sparked a deep but totally tangential discussion about God and the Bible.

At 2 days old, this discussion thread is practically ancient at this point, but as a wise person once said (Kylie, I think), it’s never too late

So: If there’s any gas left in the tank of this discussion

Even simpler example: White person labels a black person the N-word with derogatory intent

Hate speech or nah?