"Nasty tackle," more like a blown call. The inconsistency by this referee was horrible. Still the Sounders didn't play like a good team. The passing was sloppy, they got off to slow starts at the beginning of both halves, and the defense gave up open shots. The bad calls just turned a rough game into a no-contest flop.
Evangelicals are on the other side of the issue. Who else is to make a case to defend their theology? Likewise, Ehrman is on the opposite side of the debate and obviously comes from a polarized view. Should his criticism be thrown out, just because? Metzger certainly differed on the idea of divine inspiration of scripture. Also, to get to the heart of it all, what "alteration" specifically exists that remains in our current Bible translations AND fundamentally changes doctrine?
And in the next sentence you accuse me of hatred again, against people I have never met, which was a proposition you deemed absurd not too long ago. The problem here, if you truly believe that people have, "absolutely no control over who they are," is of starkly different worldviews. In your view, there is no God, and therefore no divine basis for morality, and humans are merely soulless, choiceless, complicated machines. For instance, by your standards, lust could not be immoral. After all, sexual attraction is just a "natural" part of the human existance, but it is, in fact, immoral. Why? Because people are more than just biological machinery.
I can see we have made little to no progress here. "Show me one shred of valid scientific evidence that shows that all gays are gay by choice alone." Why? Where have I said that in my argument? Have you actually read my posts? If not, read this again- "However, I have no doubt that homosexual feelings arise naturally in this world, whether from outside or biological influences. " And right away you are back to name-calling. Can you not fathom that people might disagree with you outside of bigotry?
Noted scholars with the opposite view include Bruce Metzger, of whom Ehrman was a student and co-author, D.A. Carson, Daniel B. Wallace, and many others. Other scholars and theologians reject his methods and logic. In fact, show me a simple majority of scholars who agree whole-heartedly with Ehrman's view. You do realize that the sheer amount of scriptural documents requires that 1. There will undoubtedly be errors and 2. The amount of unerring scripture easily overcomes the errors, and also 3. Most of the errors do not even have to do with translation of doctrine.
Funny how your own APA says, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." However, I have no doubt that homosexual feelings arise naturally in this world, whether from outside or biological influences. Stop yelling "ignorance!" at your straw men. It is also incredibly misinformed to throw out all of the Bible over inconsequential errors in copying or conspiracy notions of political changes. Were all of Paul's books fabricated, or was he just suffering for an allegorical Jesus?
Read my post above again. Whether traits come by biology or not, biology in itself passes no judgement on morality. Because someone is influenced by biological means does not make their actions moral, laudable, or even beneficial to society.
Do we need to circle around again? Love and commitment is not a singular basis for giving a union the new rights of marriage, although marriage requires both. See your comment above. My point was that 1. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals and 2. Giving homosexual couples the new rights of marriage cannot be based simply on love and commitment because that in itself is not a reason for elevating the status of a relationship.
Therefore, the question comes down to whether there is a societal and moral benefit to elevating homosexual couples to the institution of marriage which until now has been served well by only including heterosexual couples. I do not believe that redefining marriage in this way would be beneficial. Again, this is not about making relationships equal.
You don't understand. Perhaps you didn't reflect on what I actually wrote. I did not say "Homosexual couples," I said Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. The idea that couples of the same gender have the rights of marriage is a new idea, and one that cannot be based simply on "love" or "commitment."
And noted scholars whose works have stood the test of peer reviews and are recognized by scholars the world over can give perfectly rational arguments against him. Can you get through a paragraph without calling your opponent "ignorant" just because you read books written by someone with your view? The problem with considering yourself well educated is that you don't realize just how much you still don't know, and therefore you determine that everyone else is ignorant.
And my point stays the same also. Whether traits come by biolog or not, biology in itself passes no judgement on morality. Are you a biologist yourself who has done extensive research and come to the only correct conclusion? To take a quote from an unbiased source.
"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment,[2] or no genetic influence." Wiki
Biology has not been shown to be the sole factor, and good luck ever proving that it is.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Ruckus