This thread is thoroughly depressing.

Agreed. Ilogical beliefs can be so dangerous.

The Sodom and Gomorrah story is a great test case for the seriousness of an individual's biblical study. If they say that the story is about the gays, then it's quite obvious that they are not serious about biblical interpretation.

The story is about two angels passing as two strangers on the road. They are shown hospitality as is biblically and culturally required. The men of the town gather and demand that they be brought out so they may be raped. Ultimately, God destroys the town. To hear this story and say, "the gays" is ridiculous. It's about rape. It's about violence towards the vulnerable. It's about not showing hospitality or serving the stranger when not doing so exposes them to suffering and death. "The gays" make up a few texts in scripture and their interpretation is not obvious (if you have any curiosity or skepticism at all). Protection of the vulnerable, the poor, and the stranger are some of the main themes of holy scripture and appear hundreds of times. Guess which theme this story hits?

Ezekiel 1:48-50 says it plainly, "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Jesus said it plainly too, ""And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town."(Matthew 10).

Judges 19, a sister story, also shows the point (an awesome and tragic story). The one wronged is the concubine. Those in power do not care for the weak and the result is violence, rape and death against the powerless.

Not that I should be surprised, but the biblical interpretation on this thread has been horrible. Meanwhile Christians continue to want legal protection and get upset when it is extended to groups they don't like and then refuse to address the legal justification (accommodation laws) on which these actions are taken. It's embarrassing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I agree. And if they campaign from the pulpit they should have to pay taxes too.

---

---

Churches would be smart to consider the tax exemption status, as it might prolong their being targeted by the LGBT activists and liberal left. That being said, 501(c) organizations can absolutely speak on current events. They may not however specifically endorse a political candidate, nor fund a particular campaign.
Again though, none of the 5 pastors that received subpoenas violated the tax exempt restrictions. Parker's wide scope included speeches, writings, or sermons on gender identity or homosexuality.

---

Wouldn't that be why they are requesting their sermons? were you at all their sermons to know they didn't violate tax exemption status?

While I abhor things that silence speech I'm unclear why this would silence speech if pastors weren't campaigning.

If they weren't then they just got more ears for their message.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Has she tried to stop anybody from preaching? Has she forcibly stopped anybody?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

She sought intimidation tactics and when it failed, she threw her our lawyers under the bus.

---

As bb mentioned most churches post their sermons online. Their sermons are public. I'm not sure why I would be intimidated if I was within the law. It really just gives people operating within the law a great platform to spread their message and question govt.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange flesh. ... like going after angels.

Who the hell is Tyson

the rest just reinforces my point

---

---

It's contrary to nature which sex with angels would be. ... but later it talks of natural impulses which I'm told homosexuality is not natural.

If you read the OT angel sex definitely is definitely there.

Then you claim Sodom and gomorrah are destroyed for homosexuality, and it was determined before angels came, but you use attempted Angel sex as the proof it was because of homosexuality.

How can you say it was already going to be destroyed then use adv event after it was to be destroyed to say it was due to homosexuality. It makes no sense at all.

Do you exclusively read kjv?

---

No, I have read the NIV, HCSB as well. Why do you discredit the KJV. I believe it to be the best translation for the English speaking language. Which contemporary versions do you feel are superior?

I am well aware of the Nephilim from Genesis 6. These were fallen angels (demons) that impregnated women on Earth (theologians argue if they actually had sex with them or not, as angels are asexual beings. Some believe through demonic possession they entered into human men and then through intercourse with the women created a defiled species). Their purpose was to completely defile the human race in hopes of corrupting the blood line of Judah, which would eventually give give birth to both David and Jesus Christ. This is why God flooded the Earth, to wipe out this corrupt population and repopulate the Earth with Noah and the 7 saved in the arc (which BTW, was a foreshadowing of salvation in Jesus Christ).

Jude addresses the Nephilim in verse 6 and states that these demons are currently chained in darkness until the day of Judgement. Satan and all other demons still have access to the third heavens, and of course roam this Earth in spirit form seeking whom they may devour (1 Peter 5:8). However, God viewed these demons that polluted the human race so vile that he removed them from the Earth. This should be proof of just how serious God takes his plan for humanity, and how his wrath will be on those that seek to alter gender roles, etc.

Then in verse 7 of Jude, AFTER ALREADY ADDRESSING the Nephilim, he writes on unnatural sex desires (men with men, and women with women) and specifically names Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would write the same though twice in a row? Additionally, in both Genesis 19:5 and 19:9 the sodomites address the angels as "men" or "fellows" depending on translation (and not divine beings, because they had no idea).

If you read Genesis 18, you will clearly see that God intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the angels went to Lot's house. Lot's uncle Abraham pleaded with God to spare the cities, and through his intercession God went from demanding 50 righteous people down to just 10 people in order to spare it. Then using scripture with scripture, this takes us back to Jude 7 which states why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The "strange flesh" clearly wasn't not their ongoing sex with angels, but rather their homosexuality.

I'm well aware of feminist theologians like Carole Fontaine (and other modern day commentators) that twist scripture and justify sin through their intepretations. They're wrong and so are you about this. Listen, you might hate God and due to your pride find Jesus Christ repulsive. You might believe the Bible to be fallible and chocked full of mythical stories and fables. So be it. However, please don't seek to use the word of God as justify things God strongly condemns.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To be clear, the "cost" here, even if the subpoenas had been maintained and carried out, was they would have to provide a transcript of what they had said. Isn't the goal of a sermon to get the word out to as many people as you can? Don't a lot of big churches put that stuff online these days anyway? This sounds like the opposite of stopping. It's publicizing.

---

---

BB, I absolutely agree that the Genesis 50:20 rule is definitely in effect here!

---

Then you should probably stop lying by saying they were silenced or had their 1st Amendment rights violated.

---

So, Annise Parker cause all of this stir not to promote her own self-serving agenda but to glorify God?

Did you respond to the wrong post? Because I can't fathom how your post is in any way responsive to the one of mine that you quoted.

quote:

---

The Sodom and Gomorrah story is a great test case for the seriousness of an individual's biblical study. If they say that the story is about the gays, then it's quite obvious that they are not serious about biblical interpretation.

The story is about two angels passing as two strangers on the road. They are shown hospitality as is biblically and culturally required. The men of the town gather and demand that they be brought out so they may be raped. Ultimately, God destroys the town. To hear this story and say, "the gays" is ridiculous. It's about rape. It's about violence towards the vulnerable. It's about not showing hospitality or serving the stranger when not doing so exposes them to suffering and death. "The gays" make up a few texts in scripture and their interpretation is not obvious (if you have any curiosity or skepticism at all). Protection of the vulnerable, the poor, and the stranger are some of the main themes of holy scripture and appear hundreds of times. Guess which theme this story hits?

Ezekiel 1:48-50 says it plainly, "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Jesus said it plainly too, ""And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town."(Matthew 10).

Judges 19, a sister story, also shows the point (an awesome and tragic story). The one wronged is the concubine. Those in power do not care for the weak and the result is violence, rape and death against the powerless.

Not that I should be surprised, but the biblical interpretation on this thread has been horrible. Meanwhile Christians continue to want legal protection and get upset when it is extended to groups they don't like and then refuse to address the legal justification (accommodation laws) on which these actions are taken. It's embarrassing.

---

You conveniently skipped Jude, but that's no surprise. (And no, they weren't 2 angels "passing on the road"). Read Genesis 18. They were sent there to warn Lot. So even if you deny the reason S&G were destroyed, this wasn't a simple test to see if the good folks in the community would offer them some tea.

What's your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:10? Romans 1:26-27? According to you, Spurgeon must not have been a "serious Bible student". Look, I know God's word is neither popular nor easy. That being said, you and ever other professing believer (if you are one), has to stand firm on truth or assimilate into the demands of the culture around them. Tragically, you seem to have chosen the latter.

quote:

---

Did you respond to the wrong post? Because I can't fathom how your post is in any way responsive to the one of mine that you quoted.

---

No sir. You essentially said that nobody should be saying she's trying to take their first amendment right away, or intimidating others who speak the fundamental truths of their religion. You seemed to justify her actions since this ordeal was published on a national level, and thus the Word of God went out to masses. I mentioned Genesis 50:20, which shows that while antagonists like Parker mean things for evil, God can use the situation for the greater good. Then, you inferred I should swallow a glass of shut-the-heck-up and be happy about it. So them I asked, Parker's goal was simply to glorify God all along? Weird.

Okay, g'night sir.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm well aware of feminist theologians like Carole Fontaine (and other modern day commentators) that twist scripture and justify sin through their intepretations. They're wrong and so are you about this. Listen, you might hate God and due to your pride find Jesus Christ repulsive. You might believe the Bible to be fallible and chocked full of mythical stories and fables. So be it. However, please don't seek to use the word of God as justify things God strongly condemns.

---

The KJV is one of the worst translations ever compiled in English. Chock full of mistranslations based on error-filled Latin and Greek sources set to a use of language completely apart from what we understand (and what was even popularly understood by the 17th Century). As for the quoted paragraph, take it up with Talmudic scholars who also emphasized the failure of following basic norms of hospitality. Norms well understood in the Hebrew community and emphasized by the story of the Angels visiting Lot. They didn't want sex. They wanted rape and murder. There were plenty of stories in the Jewish community about Sodom. They all revolved around generosity and reciprocity. This obsession with homosexuality is a Christian interpretation.

---

Sapper, last time we sparred you played the simply it was due to their lack of hospitality card. Now we've upgraded to rape and murder? Next time you'll probably add in identify theft, tax fraud, and cyber crimes - anything but homosexuality! You're insane if you believe the KJV is one of the worst translations ever compiled in English. (I'm not a KJV onlyist, but you're completely absurd). Humor me though and tell me which version is more accurate and why so.

Holy crap this guy talks like the Mom on Carrie.

And still, a whole day of this thread and no one will answer my question about whether you'd be ok with removing religion from the list of protected classes? It's a very simple question so I don't get why it's gone completely ignored.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I have read the NIV, HCSB as well. Why do you discredit the KJV. I believe it to be the best translation for the English speaking language. Which contemporary versions do you feel are superior?

---

---

---

---

---

The KJV is one of the least respected versions of the bible.

quote:

---

I am well aware of the Nephilim from Genesis 6. These were fallen angels (demons) that impregnated women on Earth (theologians argue if they actually had sex with them or not, as angels are asexual beings. Some believe through demonic possession they entered into human men and then through intercourse with the women created a defiled species). Their purpose was to completely defile the human race in hopes of corrupting the blood line of Judah, which would eventually give give birth to both David and Jesus Christ. This is why God flooded the Earth, to wipe out this corrupt population and repopulate the Earth with Noah and the 7 saved in the arc (which BTW, was a foreshadowing of salvation in Jesus Christ).

---

None of this is relevant to anything I said.

quote:

---

Jude addresses the Nephilim in verse 6 and states that these demons are currently chained in darkness until the day of Judgement. Satan and all other demons still have access to the third heavens, and of course roam this Earth in spirit form seeking whom they may devour (1 Peter 5:8). However, God viewed these demons that polluted the human race so vile that he removed them from the Earth. This should be proof of just how serious God takes his plan for humanity, and how his wrath will be on those that seek to alter gender roles, etc.

---

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

We're talking about people in Sodom who wanted to sex angels. Jude 6 addresses fallen angels, not nephilim. Nephilim have nothing to do with this since we are talking about guys trying to have sex with angels. These angels didn't have sex with men so they aren't locked in a dungeon. nothing in verse 6 has anything to do with gender roles like you claim.

Nothing you are saying has any relevance to the argument.

quote:

---

Then in verse 7 of Jude, AFTER ALREADY ADDRESSING the Nephilim, he writes on unnatural sex desires (men with men, and women with women) and specifically names Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would write the same though twice in a row? Additionally, in both Genesis 19:5 and 19:9 the sodomites address the angels as "men" or "fellows" depending on translation (and not divine beings, because they had no idea).

---

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


Nothing in Jude addresses Nephilim. Fornication is many things other than gay sex and strange flesh isn't clearly homosexuality especially considering the history of people and angels screwing combined with the fact that the biggest verses claimed against homosexuality refer to people who wanted to screw angels in sodom and gomorrah.

I already laughed at the point that Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently destined for destruction according to you. This was apparently the case before the angels were there according to you. Then you claim that after the angels showed up to warn of destruction that the cause of destruction was because of supposed homosexuality directed towards angels. I simply find your position lol roflmaoable.

quote:

---

If you read Genesis 18, you will clearly see that God intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the angels went to Lot's house. Lot's uncle Abraham pleaded with God to spare the cities, and through his intercession God went from demanding 50 righteous people down to just 10 people in order to spare it. Then using scripture with scripture, this takes us back to Jude 7 which states why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The "strange flesh" clearly wasn't not their ongoing sex with angels, but rather their homosexuality.

---

This only further proves my point.

quote:

---

I'm well aware of feminist theologians like Carole Fontaine (and other modern day commentators) that twist scripture and justify sin through their intepretations. They're wrong and so are you about this. Listen, you might hate God and due to your pride find Jesus Christ repulsive. You might believe the Bible to be fallible and chocked full of mythical stories and fables. So be it. However, please don't seek to use the word of God as justify things God strongly condemns.

---

Sure. It's all feminists and God haters railing against you and your true interpretation of the KJV bible.

I find your argument woeful. It's frankly obvious from your multiple claims that Jude talks about Nephilim when that's patently untrue. You should start reading your bible so ignorant infidels like me can't so easily shrug off your patently false assertions.

quote:

---

And no, they weren't 2 angels "passing on the road

---

I didn't say they were. I said they are passing as two strangers.

I've read Genesis 18. Nowhere does it indicate that God will send two angels nor what its sin is. The angels seem to be trying to find righteous people in the city as indicated by the end of Genesis 18. Instead they find men who want to rape them.

quote:

---

this wasn't a simple test to see if the good folks in the community would offer them some tea.

---

Dismissing or minimizing hospitality laws is ridiculous. They are among the most important moral demands of scripture.

quote:

---

You conveniently skipped Jude, but that's no surprise

---

There is nothing to indicate that after ezekiel and jesus had already shown what the sin of sodom was that jude should be interpreted as homosexuality - angel rape perhaps. But if you want to advance your interpretation of jude's unclear statement about sodom over the clear statements of ezekiel and jesus, go ahead.

quote:

---

What's your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:10? Romans 1:26-27

---

Ah, here's the biblical test. Bring up an unrelated text to see how its interpreted to attempt to discredit the other - the exact same thing Pharisees did to Jesus.

I attempt to put the texts in their socio-historical contexts, like I do every text. The conclusions aren't always easy but given that you've already placed me as guilty of assimilating to the demands of culture, instead of, you know, agreeing with you, you probably won't believe me anyway. Still, I try, rely on grace, and ask forgiveness.

In Romans, Paul is using same gender sexual activity as an example of sin, something everybody reading would agree with to get them to affirm his statements. Ultimately he turns it around to implicate the listener. Given that virtually all Jews would have seen these practices as sinful at the time, the rhetorical ploy is very effective.

In 1st Corinthians, Paul is repeating Roman household codes about standard assumptions of vice which would include temple prostitutes, rapists and child molesters.

I think making these statements to be about modern homosexuality is hermaneutically lazy. It completely ignores marriage and sexual norms of jewish, especially ancient agrarian jewish, society without ever asking why these laws and norms would be in place anyway. It also ignores the people who are engaging in these practices as well and why it might be wrong. The "why" matters just as it does on hundreds of other laws and moral norms from jewish society that we no longer follow. But then again, i just assimilate to modern demands of culture so im a lost cause anyway.

Jim / Tyson.

The nephilim were the result of Jude 6. I believe the KJV is the best English Bible version due to the word-for-word translation of the Textus Receptus. All others translate chunks of passages, and there are some glaring omissions in the NASV, NIV, etc. Which version do you feel is superior to the KJV and why so?

P.S. Thanks for sharing your "deconversion" testimony on the other thread. I genuinely found it moving.

quote:

---

Jim / Tyson.

The nephilim were the result of Jude 6. I believe the KJV is the best English Bible version due to the word-for-word translation of the Textus Receptus. All others translate chunks of passages, and there are some glaring omissions in the NASV, NIV, etc. Which version do you feel is superior to the KJV and why so?

P.S. Thanks for sharing your "deconversion" testimony on the other thread. I genuinely found it moving.

---

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwellingthese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Still has absolutely no relevance to sodom or gomorrah.

Pretty much every version is better than yours. Kjv is laughable from every context.

Can I hire you to speak to my Christian friends? I'd love it. You're the best reason to run from Christianity

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jim / Tyson.

The nephilim were the result of Jude 6. I believe the KJV is the best English Bible version due to the word-for-word translation of the Textus Receptus. All others translate chunks of passages, and there are some glaring omissions in the NASV, NIV, etc. Which version do you feel is superior to the KJV and why so?

P.S. Thanks for sharing your "deconversion" testimony on the other thread. I genuinely found it moving.

---

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwellingthese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Still has absolutely no relevance to sodom or gomorrah.

Pretty much every version is better than yours. Kjv is laughable from every context.

Can I hire you to speak to my Christian friends? I'd love it. You're the best reason to run from Christianity

---

Tyson, I was being sincere about the deconversion experience you shared. It sounded like you went through a lot of pain and anguish. I can relate to similar experiences in the past, if that matters at all.

That being said, have you been drinking? I know when you posted as Tyson (if that's who this new sock is, as others have inferred), you used to post while intoxicated. It made your posts hard to read, and you didn't seem to comprehend much after midnight.

I'll type slow for you and even break out each point numerically.

1. Jude 7 specifically references Sodom and Gomorrah.
2. You dismissed this as "sex with angels".
3. I showed you Jude 6 references the fallen demons that copulated with women of the Earth, creating a defiled species (Genesis 6).
4. Jude isn't forgetful enough to post the same message in subsequent verses. Jude 6 and Jude 7 address different things, not "angel sex" twice in a row (even though there's really no angel sex in the sense that humans were holding down angels and raping them. In the case of Genesis 6, it was the other way around and hence a subhuman species was created).
5. To make it simple, you're right Jude 6 has no relevance to Sodom and Gomorrah (yet you're playing the "sex with angels" card. If you were going to play that card, Jude 6 would have been the place to play it, but you can't since it's not mentioned).

So neither you nor Sapper can tell me which English translation of the Bible is superior to the KJV? Sometimes I feel like an idiot for wasting the time I do on here, typing rebuttals against someone who is completely disingenuous and essentially ends every diverging exchange with "Nanny nanny boo-boo".

Every translation is better than kjv and I hope I can respectfully never serve your ilk...oh wait I'm forced to by the same laws you whine about

Your points are just as fallacious the tenth time as the first. Learn to read the bible.

This is a reasonably comprehensive list of the problems with the KJV from a declared Christian. Figured you would listen to this better than a scholarly article.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

quote:

---

Every translation is better than kjv and I hope I can respectfully never serve your ilk...oh wait I'm forced to by the same laws you whine about

Your points are just as fallacious the tenth time as the first. Learn to read the bible.

---

Okie dokie. Good talk, tyson.

quote:

---

Okie dokie. Good talk.

---

We can both be happy that we'll never have to see each other in the afterlife. I couldn't imagine deal with such hell.

Maybe one day laws will change and I can refuse to serve people like you. I can only hope!

Darn you autocorrect

quote:

---

This is a reasonably comprehensive list of the problems with the KJV from a declared Christian. Figured you would listen to this better than a scholarly article.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

---

Sap, I'll take a look at this. I've never heard of Nettelhorst nor the Quartz Hill School of Theology. I do see Zondervan as the first source, which publishes the NIV (and is owned by Harper Collins, which brought us the satanic bible). Interesting. Might they have a vested interest in discrediting the KJV? Nonetheless, I'll take a look and read it. (Are you actually familiar with R.P. Nettelhorst or was this the first thing that popped into your search engine?). Also, which English version should I be reading? Thanks!

quote:

---

quote:

---

We can both be happy that we'll never have to see each other in the afterlife. I couldn't imagine deal with such hell.

---

Maybe one day laws will change and u can refuse to serve people like you. I can only hope!

---

LOL WUT? tyson, get some sleep man. I'll do the same.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is a reasonably comprehensive list of the problems with the KJV from a declared Christian. Figured you would listen to this better than a scholarly article.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

---

Sap, I'll take a look at this. I've never heard of Nettelhorst nor the Quartz Hill School of Theology. I do see Zondervan as the first source, which publishes the NIV (and is owned by Harper Collins, which brought us the satanic bible). Interesting. Might they have a vested interest in discrediting the KJV? Nonetheless, I'll take a look and read it. (Are you actually familiar with R.P. Nettelhorst or was this the first thing that popped into your search engine?). Also, which English version should I be reading? Thanks!

---

Satanic bible. ...lolol

Seriously. Spend some time learning about the bible.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is a reasonably comprehensive list of the problems with the KJV from a declared Christian. Figured you would listen to this better than a scholarly article.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume1/tr.htm

---

Sap, I'll take a look at this. I've never heard of Nettelhorst nor the Quartz Hill School of Theology. I do see Zondervan as the first source, which publishes the NIV (and is owned by Harper Collins, which brought us the satanic bible). Interesting. Might they have a vested interest in discrediting the KJV? Nonetheless, I'll take a look and read it. (Are you actually familiar with R.P. Nettelhorst or was this the first thing that popped into your search engine?). Also, which English version should I be reading? Thanks!

---

Sigh. Here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_text_of_1769

Makes for fascinating reading on the tangled history and problems in translation and transcription for the KJV. Oh, and even better by your standards, doesn't appear in a search for problems with the KJV! It's like I know this stuff somehow...

Oh, as for which one to read, there are a number of major retranslations that have occurred over the last 75 years. None are perfect. Why? Because getting the cultural context of BC Hebrew society and what a verse meant is really ****ing hard.

Might as well try again:

Those of you who are against public accommodation laws being used to protect gay people - would you support removing religion and religion alone from the list of protected classes? I'm not talking to the "scrap the laws entirely for everyone people.

Turns out the mean ol' gays haven't actually even filed any complaints

Also, the ordinance in question has broad exemptions for all religious organizations.

quote:

---

When contacted by The Press for comment, Don Knapp [the owner] said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation.

---

So again, this is not an example of what the OP and the hysterical article linked therein claim it is an example of.

quote:

---

Sigh. Here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_text_of_1769

Makes for fascinating reading on the tangled history and problems in translation and transcription for the KJV. Oh, and even better by your standards, doesn't appear in a search for problems with the KJV! It's like I know this stuff somehow...

Oh, as for which one to read, there are a number of major retranslations that have occurred over the last 75 years. None are perfect. Why? Because getting the cultural context of BC Hebrew society and what a verse meant is really ****ing hard.

---

They are not perfect because by their own admission, the original is corrupt.

Baron,
Great find.

quote:

---

Gridley also noted that on Oct. 6, the Knapps filed an LLC operating agreement with the state indicating that the Hitching Post is a "religious organization." He told the Knapps' attorney in the letter that if the Knapps are "truly operating a not-for-profit religious corporation" they would be specifically exempted from the city ordinance.

"Their lawsuit was something of a surprise because we have had cordial conversations with them in the past and they have never disclosed that they have recently become a religious corporation," Gridley wrote.

---

It sounds like this wedding chapel filed as a "religious organization", after being in operation for 25 years, then immediately filed suit.

Another interesting point is that the sudden legalization of same-sex marriage in Idaho didn't affect their status under the Coeur d'Alene ordinance. If someone had wanted to complain during previous years, they totally could have. I guess someone dropped the ball at our Gay Agenda meeting.

quote:

---

I guess someone dropped the ball at our Gay Agenda meeting.

---

What happens at gay agenda meetings should stay at gay agenda meetings.

BB, you guys need to clean house. Obviously THE GAYS are based on the Nazis. Thus, I think a "Night of the Fabulous Knives" is in order.

quote:

---

Another interesting point is that the sudden legalization of same-sex marriage in Idaho didn't affect their status under the Coeur d'Alene ordinance. If someone had wanted to complain during previous years, they totally could have. I guess someone dropped the ball at our Gay Agenda meeting.

---

Unreal. I bet seamaster won't apologize for provoking an anti-gay thread with faulty information. The LGBT mafia must be so strong that they can actually change the past. What a joke.