Conservative Christians Struggle With Christianity

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
How is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI trying to meddle with your sexuality?

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
you can disagree, but you cant prove that the J-man ever wanted the title of The Christ.
lots of things run thru the bible...most of them silliness. but not much prove anything...

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
seems only xtians are filled to the brim with themselves. seems to be their biggest failing. their egos so bloated because of a belief system. Im special, Im saved. god talks to me! I know god personally!
not me. I deflated myself of self and false beliefs that some supernatural beings are intervening in this world many many years ago...been all much lighter since.

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
outside of what?

ccrider wrote:

In the story about the guy that died, Frankul, in PA, it said that God was not mentioned; with one exception. Instead, attention was paid to the "good works" of this man. It's good that man has good works. I guess it's good even if the man is not a Christian, HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that that man (not necessarily this guy but anyone) will go to be with God based upon his good works. Good works won't save you because you can't save yourself. Only God can do that through the work of Jesus. Since at lot of the attention was on Conservapedia and Beck, I thought I would throw that in.

Judged:

1

1

seeker wrote:

It should be titled conservative christians struggle with their sexuality

Michael Ejercito wrote:

<quoted text>
How is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI trying to meddle with your sexuality?

Catholic created gay wrote:

<quoted text>
I've said before, the Bible is a belief book. Christ said blessed is the man who believes but has not seen (Him). That I believe.

Catholic created gay wrote:

<quoted text>
"Only Christians are filled to the brim with themselves" Not hardly. We gays are as full of ourselves as anyone is.
Making generalizations about Christians is the same as making generalizations about gays. That be the case, we are all pedophiles, sodomites, etc. We don't want to go there.

Catholic created gay wrote:

<quoted text>
Closed off to the possibility of believing. Hence,'outside'.

McMike wrote:

I'm just waiting for a conservative to pick up this Bible and declare it as the Holy Truth and the Word of God since it's in the "Bible". If we ever needed any definite proof men have drastically changed the Bible to fit their bias in the past this is it.

happypioneer wrote:

<quoted text>
It is true that men "twist the Scriptures to fit their own ideas. The Bible acknowledges this would happen.(2Peter 3:15,16) However, proof exist that the Bible that is read today adheres to the orginal manuscripts. To say otherwise demonstrates a lack of knowledge. For example: In one study, scholars compared the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scroll with the Masoretic text produced a thousand years later. The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of the study:“Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word ‘light,’ which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly.. . . Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.”
Professor Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analyzing their contents, came to a similar conclusion:“Many of the differences between the . . . Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.

Mcduff wrote:

<quoted text>
run-on sentences and thoughts are a really great way to communicate.
there is nothing in the thin-line of consistency of manuscripts that proves the god...there are enough wrong things with the many copies, of copies of copies to allow for the conclusion that the bible is not inerrant, nor telling us the true story of this man called Jesus...