remember its “Sir” Ian McKellen, besides he can rip whatever parts out of the bible he wants, Haven’t Christians been adding and taking away for years, ?
There is another issue. In destroying property belonging to someone else, he is breaking another commandment. Is he also going to tear out all references to stealing? Does he want all Christians and non-Christians to ignore that one? I think that the fact that he is doing this to Bibles belonging to other people is a much bigger issue than his own desire to customize the Scriptures.
Not if he doesn’t own said Bibles. Sir Ian can do what he wants with his own property. Vandalizing what belongs to others is childish at best.
– Mark L. Chance.
Lol! Good thing he does not know about Romans 1:25-30!
I mean, those passages are SUPER straight forward about homosexuality and he is missing them big time.
Sir Ian has his work cut out for him
here’s one more
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
some people can’t handle the truth. :rolleyes:
Okay…I may not agree with what the Bible says on that point, but it’s not his place to go vandalizing books for no reason. It’d be like me going out and burning every Glenn Beck book I see, just as I don’t agree with it.
He should have to pay for the replacement of all of them….as it is vandalizing private property…Though, for him, it’d only be pocket change….but still, law is the law.
DID HE BURN BOOKS FROM THE LIBRARY? :eek:
Him? No. But it’s the same thing. If I walked into the library and ripped out pages, I’d be expected to pay. The Bible’s that he vandilized where in hotels, and owned by the hotels…therefore, he was ripping out private property, and have to pay a fine…though, he IS an actor, so that plays in his favor…
It’s a good sign he’s tearing the part that bothers him. Truth hurts.
Oops… Iposted that on the wrong thread…
I was suppose to post on the thread about baptist burning bibles for halloween.
NO!!! its that* guy*- :eek:
that nice old man??? omahgawshhhh…what blatant blasphemy and disrespect…you know, he could always just- not open the bible. what is it they want all this equal respect but they deface and devalue our most sacred beliefs…
In many ways what he does is childish and stupid. But it does have at least one good thing about it. And thats finally A homosexual/atheist has finaly admitted that there are Passages(at least one) in the bible that condems homosexuality. I have lost count how many time i have been told that the bible does not condem it.
AYE! Always amazing what progressives will tacitly admit to in a fit of absentmindedness when they are busy grandstanding. He wins my Negative Witness to Truth Award.
The argument is that as the Bible was written in a historical context, the writers would obviously not have understood this day and the way we do things.
In Leviticus, homosexual sex is called an abomination, which in the original Hebrew text refers to something more like a societal taboo than a sin.
Homosexuality was a societal taboo among the Jews when Leviticus was written because they needed to increase their population, which is also why masturbation was an abomination. It was not accepted by society because neither of these practices bore children.
In ancient societies, homosexual relationships were virtually non-existent. It was imperative to have a wife in order to have children so the family would survive. Therefore, all that existed was adultery in the arena of homosexual relationships.
The writers of the Bible could never have imagined that one day, homosexual men and women could enter into loving, consensual and committed relationships, and the Bible does not refer to those in Leviticus.
Plus, with today’s rampant overpopulation, perhaps homosexuality is God’s form of population control.
– Mark L. Chance.
Biblical Scholarship is admittedly not my area, so at this point I won’t debate. I’m sure you’ve studied this more than I have.
And I WAS misinformed about the original Hebrew text, I cross-referenced it, and that article was correct. However much I may disagree with its conclusions, its arguments defeat mine. At this point at least.
On topic, though, I do not think Sir McKellan had the right to destroy private property as he did, even in protest.