Miss California and Gay marriage

[pattygreen 5]

It is clear to me from the character of the bible that it is not the work of man. It details with seathing and unsparing severity the sins of its greatest men, as Abraham, David, Jacob, Moses, charging them with falsehood, treachery, pride, adultry, cowardice, murder and gross licentiousness, and presents the history of the children of Israel as a humiliating record of ingratitude, idolatry, unbelief and rebellion, and it is safe to say, that the Jews, unguided and undirected by the Holy Spirit, would never have chronicled the sinful history of their nation. 2 Timothy says, "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION OF GOD." God directed men to put into writing such messages, laws, doctrines, historical facts, and revelations. as he wished men to know. Inspiration means "God breathed". God through the Holy Spirit told men of old just what to write. God not only spoke directly to men (like Moses), He also spoke to them in the person of Jesus when God was manifest in the flesh. Jesus spoke not of himself, but of what the Father himself gave him commandment to speak.He told men what to write.The bible says this: "The Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The Lord said to Moses, "Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou must say." Exodus 4:10-12. If God could speak to men, he could tell them what to write.

[plain 12]

No one claims to ever have seen God write anything. No one claims to have seen God. They claim they have seen God IN things, but not God Himself in a physical form. That's one reason why there are no pictures or paintings of God. One must use their imagination or spiritual beliefs to envision God.

Moses saw some of God (the back end, heehee). God covered Moses because no human could gaze at such power and holiness directly and live through it.

So tell me, how can God physically write something if he doesn't manifest himself in a physical way?

Ok, I think we're getting to the meat here. I don't know of anybody personally, or know of any denomination that believes that God physically wrote the Bible with his own hand. I believe that when people say "God wrote the Bible", they mean that God directed each author divinely to physically write. Kinda like a metaphysical dictation. Like what you believe.

If anybody following this thread believes God physically wrote the Bible, please jump in (or if you're shy, PM me). I'm interested in these matters and would like to discuss!!

[pattygreen 5]

Actually Beth I don't put much thought into what is written in the bible. I figure since God himself didn't write it how can I trust in people that claim to be prophets and are supposedly not doing it for narcissistic reasons. It's kind of like playing telephone. The bible has been altered so many times since it was started that I cannot in good faith believe ALL its pages. I know others do and find comfort in it and I think that's great, but not me. I have too many doubts.

Satan was the creator of the seed of doubt. It was deposited in the heart or mind of Eve by Satan's question,"Yea, hath GOD said?" This led Eve to question the love of God. This

microbe of unbelief the human race has inherited from her. Men do not openly deny the goodness of God so much as they question the statements of the word of God. They say,"Has God really said we must not do thus and so? Have we not misunderstood what He has said, or misinterpreted His meaning? Surely God is too loving and merciful to eternally punish the wicked?" When Satan told Eve "Go ahead, eat the fruit, you shall not surely die." from there it has been incorporated into the religious systems of today that teach that man shall not be eternally punished. By punishment, I believe it is giving man just what they have desired all their lives, a separation from God. He is a gentleman. If anyone doesn't want him to be a part of their lives, he will not force them. He gives all mankind free choice to choose to believe in him and live according to his words or not. Hell is eternal separation from God, and God is LOVE.

[plain 12]

Ok, I'm the most guilty of this, but dang!! Look at how far off topic we are. I think we should maybe get back to the original thread of Miss Califorina (uh-oh....semi nude underage pics found!) or at least gay marriage in general. Do any of you agree, or is everybody happy with "letting 'er go" as is?

[pattygreen 5]

What's the difference 'how' she got her beauty? Some people lengthen their eyelashes with mascara, some have their boobs enlarged. So what.

[gamyj 0]

I don't beleive in satan... i think ppl have good and bad in their nature, not being swayed by the devil. I sort of sum it up to the scare tactics the church uses on ppl, along with sin and damnation.

[plain 12]

What's the difference 'how' she got her beauty? Some people lengthen their eyelashes with mascara, some have their boobs enlarged. So what.

Hey, I'm all in favor for boob jobs. I was referring to early semi nude pics that she took (topless, but arms covering the boobs) when she was 17 that somebody is now releasing (presumably to smear her reputation). All this because she answered a question that was asked of her.

[pattygreen 5]

Oh, see. I didn't hear about that. I would respond by saying that we all do something in our lives that we may regret. And who knows, maybe she doesn't regret it, but even so, at least she didn't fully expose herself. When christians do anything wrong, it's the rest of the worlds 'job' to focus on it and make sure everyone knows about it. Don't you know that?

Edited May 7, 2009 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

I don't beleive in satan... i think ppl have good and bad in their nature, not being swayed by the devil. I sort of sum it up to the scare tactics the church uses on ppl, along with sin and damnation.

I believe people have good and bad in their nature, too, but I also believe that Satan works in the world to influence people in the wrong direction. Slowly, bit by bit over time, gradually making what is 'wrong' in God's eyes 'right' in the eyes of man and what is 'right' in God's eyes 'wrong' in the eyes of man. The homosexual thing is a good example of this. At one time, this sort of relationship would never be tolerated by society. God said it was sinful, everyone knew it was sinful and had no problem saying so. Today some people say it is 'normal'. They even go as far as to say 'God' made them that way. The fact is that 'God' did not make them that way, but that they choose to have sex with the same sex. No one can make you do anything. Even if in your mind, this is what you desire, you should not do it because it is a sin. (Personally, If it were true that you are born gay, and I was, I would go without sex for the rest of my life if I knew God said it was a sin and it would displease him who created me, and if I was tempted and occasionally failed, I would feel badly that I disobeyed God and repent of it just like I repent of every other sin I commit.) Some people become celibate for God for no reason at all. Look at the catholic priests and nuns. They don't get married and stay virgins all their lives and nowhere is it written that this is necessary or what God desires of them to be able to be ministers of the gospel. They just made up some rule or doctrine of their own and it became their custom.

Desiring to have sex with the same sex is not the sin. It's acting upon that desire that is wrong.

Lastly, Damnation, as you call it, is NOT what the church preaches. We preach God's love and forgiveness for mankinds sins through belief in his Son. Is it our fault that man doesn't want to acknowledge that they are sinners?

[BJean 16]

The problem with what you're preaching about homosexuality, patty, is that in the past and sometime in the future, people ridicule homosexuals, abuse them physically and even kill them because they think that they should embrace God's word that homosexuals are an abomination - and they hear it every Sunday spouted regularly by evangelicals, right wing extremists and other holier than thou folks.

You said it yourself, God gave man free will and God created mankind. He didn't create just heretosexuals. In a perfect world, everything would be perfect. God punished Adam and Eve and we have something much less than perfect. In every way.

For people to condemn homosexuals for who they are and how they choose to lead their lives, and whom God made anyway you look at it, is being judgmental and it results in lots of human beings being hurt.

But thanks for your lesson on the Bible. That sure cleared that up for me. Sorry for the sarcasm. I've heard everything you wrote all my life in various forms. As I'm sure you have heard everything I've written all your life in various forms. The difference between you and me is that you're going to heaven and I'm going to hell, eh?

[BethFromVA 5]

Hey, I'm all in favor for boob jobs. I was referring to early semi nude pics that she took (topless, but arms covering the boobs) when she was 17 that somebody is now releasing (presumably to smear her reputation). All this because she answered a question that was asked of her.

But don'tcha know, Plain? That's what these kinds of people do.

[BJean 16]

plain I'm not sure that you know the motivation of someone posting semi-nude photos of her. It could be her BFF who's just trying to extend her 15 minutes. Or she could be like Paris, having someone do it for her.

So how do you think the gay community got hold of random photos of her??

[luluc 6]

But don'tcha know, Plain? That's what these kinds of people do.

i think it's hillarious, the spokes idgit for marriage has a past....LOL. goodness everyone has a PAST.

honestly she looked better w/out the new boobs - but hey that's me....

i heard on the news this AM that the pagent officials in CA are wanting her precious crown not just for the racy pictures, but because she broke the rules by speaking out for causes w/out permission. not sure what that actually means, i personally think they're going out of their way to dump her for her answer to the gay marriage question & i don't think that's necessarily fair.

[want_so_bad 0]

nanook- i never meant to offend you with my question about pansexuality! i was really confused about it and wanted some clarification. i never intended it to be a "joke". i am sorry you took it at as such! bjean did a wonderful job of explaining it to me. and plain further voiced my same questions on the topic. glad to know i am not alone in my way of thinking on the topic. i just wanted you to know i was not in any way making a joke on wanting more info on it. sorry if i offended you as that was not the intent in any way!

[BethFromVA 5]

i think it's hillarious, the spokes idgit for marriage has a past....LOL. goodness everyone has a PAST.

When I heard about these "racy pics," I thought there was WAY more to "them" (which I found was only one, it seems) than there is. It's just ridiculous -- I've seen more on primetime television, for cryin' out loud. If that's her past, it's still tamer than most.

honestly she looked better w/out the new boobs - but hey that's me....

What got me when looking through some of her older pics (I think it was for the Miss California contest) was her pubis bone! Omg, it's either so prominent -- or she needs to shave BADLY -- that it almost looked like she had a rolled-up male member in there! :thumbsup:

i heard on the news this AM that the pagent officials in CA are wanting her precious crown not just for the racy pictures, but because she broke the rules by speaking out for causes w/out permission. not sure what that actually means, i personally think they're going out of their way to dump her for her answer to the gay marriage question & i don't think that's necessarily fair.

If that's true, that's pretty crappy since SHE had no control over the question that flame Hiltonn asked her. But then again, that's the way some of these people are. Had she answered "correctly," there would be NO investigation (or rumor of one) into "speaking out for causes without permission." I guess they're going to make an example out of her to ensure that NOBODY ever gives their true opinion on a matter when asked. I think it's a very shitty way to handle this. Nobody needs to agree with her, but the fact is, she WAS asked.