The Sins of Carrie Prejean

What a joke of an essay. Not only is it full of garbage, it’s poorly written.

I wish this was in a newspaper or magazine so that I’d have something to line my birdcage with…

P.S.-Oh yeah, and I bet you’re a typical Obama-cult loving liberal who has a man crush on him. (Pssssst…he has the same views that she does…)

Just admit it, man, you’re pissed because you can never get a date with her…

40% at least. Out of curiosity what is the suicide rate of pageant viewers/participants?

I’m just trying to visualize me on a date with Carrie Prejean… wow, that would go badly. …Wait, what was the question again?

Perez hilton is a moron. If it wasn’t for him no one would have paid attention to her at all, she would have lost and that would have been it.

Well, yes. Agreed.

You apreciations are out of context, your explanation is not even logic,you are the one who is commiting all those sins you mentioned, not her. You don´t know much about the Bible dont´t you?,who are you to judge her?, the Bible says homsexuality is a sin. I think you are projecting your sins, (projection), you are sinning exactly in those things you are accusing her, but in your case those sins are real.

The Old Testament says that homosexuality was a sin (and it’s only mentioned once, in Deutronomy, where it also says that you can stone slaves to death, among other things…)

But in the New Testament, Jesus says that he’s come to replace the old law, and he never says anything about homosexuality being a sin. Do you think that he forgot? Did he not have time to mention it, during three years of preaching? Or do you think that maybe he decided that hating gay people was incompatible with a message of universal love? I know which option I’d go with.

You are a pathetic excuse for a human. You even look angry in your photo. Actually, you like more like the psycho killer that the talking heads sing about. Get a life.

Oliver, Oliver, Oliver…hush little baby, don’t you cry. Man up and realize that Miss Prejean was expressing her beliefs. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. Millions of us agree with her, and it’s such a lame and pathetic strategy to cry ” hater!!!” simply because somebody holds a different view than you do…please….is that the best you can do?

“But in the New Testament, Jesus says that he’s come to replace the old law, and he never says anything about homosexuality being a sin. Do you think that he forgot? Did he not have time to mention it, during three years of preaching? Or do you think that maybe he decided that hating gay people was incompatible with a message of universal love? I know which option I’d go with.”

Since you want to play the NT card, let’s do it starting with the gospels.

In the synoptic gospels, Jesus did indeed stated what His opinion of marriage was to be: 1) between man and woman, 2) it was that way from creation via Adam and Eve, and 3) and what God made, let no man break.

So pretty much, when Prejean give the answer on what she believes marriage is, she gives the answer that is the same as Jesus did, and as Obama did (ironic no one trashed Obama from your camp, it seems, despite the fact Obama was far more blatant about speaking in religious terms than Carrie was at her pageant).

And let’s see about homosexuality in the rest of the NT. Each time it is mentioned, it is condemned, in places such as Romans and 1 Corinthians.

And Jesus spoke of universal love.

What you left out was that He spoke of that on God’s terms- love meaning He died for our sins, so that we by faith be reconciled to God. He still said to the woman to go and sin no more. Jesus did condemned whole cities for failing to repent of their sins, saying their fate would be worse than Sodom.

Or did you forget those parts of the gospel, too?

Your idea of love is God allowing you to do what you want. That’s not what Jesus said in the gospels. That’s not what Paul said in his epistles. Or anywhere else in the NT.

God’s love is defined in the NT as while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

It says nothing about going on sinning that grace may abound. In fact, Paul contradicted that very idea in Romans 6.

Jesus did not say He does alway with all of God’s law. Where did you get that?

The only parts of God’s law done away with was the ceremonial aspects, whcih are shadows to the cross(Col. 2:16). The punishments for our violations against the law are done away for those who believe the gospel that Christ died for us(Galatians 3). We are no longer prisoners of the law in regards to the law’s condemnations. But Paul also wrote through faith we uphold the law. If we love God, we want to do things that please Him, even though we are now forgive sinners, who remain sinners to the rest of our lives striving against sins.

Your article reveal much-it shows you don’t know much about the NT, and you simply cherrypick what feels good to you to bash another human being.

Guess what? What Prejean said is correct. As a believer, she is chosen of God.

It is written all over the gospels and the NT that those who believe are chosen by God. Christ Himself said that in John 15:16-19. Paul stated that in Romans 8:28-34, 9:16-24, 11:5-8, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5, 2 Thessaloians 2:13, Ephesians 1:3-12, etc., Peter stated that in 1 Peter 1:2, 2:9-10, 2 Peter 1:5-10, and so on.

Being chosen as believer and made to handle circumstances do not require perfection, as you imply to mock Carrie. It means simply to step up and be bold for your faith, which Prejean did.

And since you want to claim the Bible for yourself, how about start displaying humility yourself, since there is nothing in the article that shwos you are what you demanded from Prejean to be in that and other regards?

I’m looking for the part in the article where I said that she shouldn’t be allowed express her beliefs. Not finding it. She expressed her beliefs, Perez Hilton expressed his beliefs, and now I’m expressing my beliefs, via a satirical column where I make fun of her. Freedom of speech in action, working just the way that it’s supposed to…

The problem isn’t that she’s expressing what she believes; the problem is that she’s dumb as a rock, and therefore is a terrible spokeswoman for what she believes.

“4) Greed. “Even though I didn’t win the crown that night, I know that the Lord has so much of a bigger crown in heaven for me.” Okay, that’s really greedy. Yeah, Carrie, you’re still pissed that you lost the Miss USA contest because you gave an answer that the judges didn’t like.”

That part you truly embarrassed yourself. Read the gospel of John where Jesus said He left the earth to come prepare a place for His believers? Read the synoptic gospels where Jesus spoke of great are our rewards in heaven if we endure persecution for His sake?

Apparently, by your rationale, Jesus was promoting greed.

And yet you try to appeal to Jesus for your cause? How ironic and rich.

“5) Envy. “And God chose me for that moment. He chose me for that moment, because he knew that I would stick up for the truth.” God chose you to make a poorly-worded contradictory statement at a beauty pageant? For this category, the sin of envy actually applies to me: because I am authentically envious of the clueless way that dumb people believe that God cares about every stupid detail of their crappy lives.”

Then by your logic, Jesus was promoting the sin of envy each and every time He stated that we are to store up our treasures in heaven as well as not to worry, since God provides for all our needs. And by your logic, the whole NT as well promotes envy, since we have passages from Philippians 4 stating that God will provide for all our needs in Christ Jesus.

Looks like Prejean, for all her sins (which are forgiven by God) is biblically correct, and you are just biblically inept to bash her for saying those things that just happen to be in the New Testament, while in the same breath appeal to the New Testament for your arguments against Prejean as if you believe the New Testament.

“3) Sloth. “And I am disgusted at the way some people can be so intolerant. It disgusts me.” …Okay, that is seriously retarded, Carrie. That is intellectually lazy and therefore the sin of sloth. That is some next level oblivious-level shit. Come on. You can’t see the irony of complaining about intolerance when you’re famous for not tolerating a historically-persecuted minority group? I can’t even make a joke here, because your statement is so obviously dumb that there is no joke to be made. Congratulations, Carrie. You have defeated me. You have defeated comedy.”

Congratulations, you just trashed Jesus for Himself saying marriage is between man and woman in the synoptic gospels and you just trashed the rest of the New Testament for blatantly and repeatedly saying homosexuality is a sin against God, even under the New Testament.

I suggest strongly you don’t claim support from the New Testament for your beliefs when it is against you.

Yes, we are to love homosexuals. But that is on God’s terms. That means love them enough to show them their sins have consequences and show them Christ died for those sins, too. But nowhere does the Bible say love means we promote sins.

“Plus, dude, you’re only twenty-two. Life is long. Even assuming that you would get into heaven if you died right this second, you still have plenty of time to fuck up and do stuff that would invalidate you from going to heaven.”

And where does the Bible say if one sins once, be it falling into gay lust, or falling into sex with member of different sex before marriage, one becomes automitically lost? The only places I see in the Bible that speak of falling away from salvation speak of those who completely have no repentance and no faith and no desire to return to grace. It does not say one sin makes one lost again.

You are grasping at straws.

@Thuyen

Without getting into a long thing… Paul does say that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus doesn’t. Paul also said that women should not be allowed in church with uncovered heads. Shouldn’t you be freaking out about that too? I see women with uncovered heads in church all the time! Scandalous! …But no one’s freaking out about that. And I don’t see a lot of people giving away all their money to the poor, as Jesus commands in Luke 18:11.

And that’s okay; it’s hard to do everything that Jesus instructs. But there seems to be a TON of attention to the fact that homosexuality is a supposed “sin.” When Jesus himself never said that. And if it was THAT important, don’t you think that he would have mentioned it himself?

My New Testament rule is to go with the Gospels and ignore the letters and epistles. I’d rather just hear what Jesus had to say. I’m skeptical of Paul and other people who came up with new stuff after he was dead, even though Paul seems like a pretty great guy. But that’s just me, and I’m not a born-again Christian.

I see passages where Jesus gets really upset about divorce, but I don’t recall a specific passage where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and woman, and definitely not one where he said that it was ONLY between a man and a woman. But I don’t have total Bible recall. You didn’t quote one directly, but you have that quote, then quote it.

It seems like about 75% of the synoptic gospels are focused on helping the poor and being nice to everyone all the time no matter what. And 0% of the synoptic gospels are focused on homosexuality being a sin. That’s my thesis, and I’m sticking to it.

“The problem isn’t that she’s expressing what she believes; the problem is that she’s dumb as a rock, and therefore is a terrible spokeswoman for what she believes.”

Let’s see here- she is dumb as a rock according to you for saying she is chosen of God. Guess what? Jesus Himself said believers are chosen of God. Nowhere does it say believers chosen of God for tasks are great speakers either. Moses admittedly was slow of speech!

She is dumb as a rock according to you for saying marriage is between man and woman. Guess what? Jesus Himself said that in the synoptic gospels, repeated by Paul in Ephesians 5:25-27.

She is dumb as a rock according to you for believing that her riches are in heaven. Guess what? Those are the very words of Jesus and His apostles for all believers in all four gospels as well as various parts of the rest of the NT, particularly Revelation 21!

So basically you call her dumb as a rock for when she said things right out of the New Testament, yet you claim she is poor spokesperson for her views (which you reveal you know little about), and yet you in the same breath claim the New Testament for yourself when it suits you.

If I were you, I would look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of being dumb as a rock, since all your arguments are so woefully ignorant of what the New Testament teach yet you claim she is poor representative for those who believe in the New Testament.

Oliver,
If being well spoken and brilliant were criteria for being a spokesperson then isn’t that just a tab bit hypocritical? The previous poster just tore apart your “translation” of the New Testament and yet you are allowed to publish your highly erroneous interpretation of the Bible for all to see! You are in a sense a spokesperson for the Left so should you be censored because of your ignorance of scripture?

Also, Thuyen, it needs to be pointed out here that my job description is “writer of satirical columns about the news.” I don’t know how you came to this essay, but it says “Nonsense News” right at the top. It’s in the “Nonsense” (= humor) section of this website. I have no problem with politely debating the Bible with you, but I did think I would point that out.

@obi: Nope. I don’t think anyone should be censored. I don’t think that Carrie Prejean should be censored either.

“I see passages where Jesus gets really upset about divorce, but I don’t recall a specific passage where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and woman, and definitely not one where he said that it was ONLY between a man and a woman. But I don’t have total Bible recall. You didn’t quote one directly, but you have that quote, then quote it.”

Here it is: Jesus defined marriage in terms of male and female as God created from creation:

Mark 10
5″It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6″But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7′For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Jesus’ own words that state believers are chosen by God, which would include those who committed far worse sins than Prejean had ever done so far:

John 15
16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Okay. That doesn’t say anything about gay people though. It doesn’t say that only men and women can get married, it says that they WILL. And we could have a long textualist debate about that if we wanted to. ….But look. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe in God. But I do think that Jesus was one of the greatest guys who ever lived.

I have some issues with interpreting the Gospels literally, since they contradict each other, for instance. Say — for example — the fact that in the four gospels, there are four (or maybe three) different accounts of Jesus’ last words. So I don’t see how something can be interpreted completely literally when it contradicts itself. It’s a flawed book about a great guy written by flawed human beings. But I do worry that people like Carrie Prejean who say that “every single word of the Gospels is completely true” haven’t looked closely enough at the Gospels. …Unless the self-contradiction of the NT can be explained away via the “through a glass darkly” argument. But I’m not convinced that it can be.

I do restate my position that if the sinfulness of homosexuality was such a big deal to Jesus himself, then he would have mentioned it directly. But that’s just me.

And on that note, I’m gonna take a break from the comment section for a while…

“It seems like about 75% of the synoptic gospels are focused on helping the poor and being nice to everyone all the time no matter what. And 0% of the synoptic gospels are focused on homosexuality being a sin. That’s my thesis, and I’m sticking to it.”

Guess why that is weak? By your reasoning that homosexuality is acceptable to Jesus because He did not condemned it as sin, then that must mean rape and other gross acts are acceptable to Jesus because He condemned them in 0% percent of the gospels as well!

Guess why? The reason is that there is no dispute from any side among believers then that those things, like rape, homosexuality, etc., were sins in the eyes of God. Christ clarified aspects of the law while expounding on others, such as where it says not to murder, He expanded the law to mean do not hate, which leads to murder, or do not lust which leads to adultery.

Your argument falls flat for that reason.

And for one other reason:

Matthew 5
17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

“I have some issues with interpreting the Gospels literally, since they contradict each other, for instance”

Then why appeal to the New Testament for your arguments? Why bash someone as poor spokesperson for a view if you really believe that view has contradictions?

And, for all the claim of it is just humour you make, it was a bash, and not a good valid one at that.

The problem for you is still Jesus stated marriage originated with God, and Jesus directly quoted Genesis 1, which is in the Old Testament, and where God made it as between “male and female.”

Nowhere does Jesus allow for any deviation from that. Any sin that takes away from marriage, including homosexuality, is adultery in the eyes of God.

I only see a sea of negative comments, so let me say I think this article is well-written and relevant. (Also let me remind fellow readers that it is under “nonsense”). Many of you say that Carrie is expressing her beliefs, but she is really expressing the Bible’s beliefs, is she not? She believes to be a sin what God considers a sin. Why can’t we think outside of the Bible? Logical thinking over what is said in a book? It is logical and moral that we allow anyone the right to get married if they chose to do so. After the Holocaust and slavery, it saddens me that these kind of prejudices still go on in our country, which is “the greatest in the world.”

I am aware of Obama’s views on gay marriage, but I am also aware of his willingness to change laws even if they go against his own personal beliefs.

The “sloth” section was indeed my favorite part of this article. It disgusts me as well, Carrie….

The reason why the article was challenged was because of its claim Prejean failed to live up to the Bible’s morals by the things she said, like she was chosen by God, marriage is between man and woman, her rewards are greater in heaven, etc., when those are the very things the Bible said!

The reason why we use the Bible against what the article stated is because the author chose to go that route, especially in the New Testament.

“That is some next level oblivious-level shit. Come on. You can’t see the irony of complaining about intolerance when you’re famous for not tolerating a historically-persecuted minority group? ”

That is where those who bash Prejean look ridiculously bad. Tolerance refer to being able to disagree in agreeable way. Prejean disagreed in an agreeable way, and stated her views the same as the liberal President Obama.

On the other hand, those who bash her cannot agree to disagree with her and resort to slinging muds and attacking her for things they themselves have problems doing themselves. That’s hypocrisy on their part, not hers.

Prejean has yet to even condemn gays. She may not agree with gay marriage, but how is that condemning gays?

Why are those bashing her giving Obama a free pass? Sure he make give lip service to giving gays rights that equal to others, but that does not change what he said, which is even more overtly religious than anything Prejean give at the pageant.

Those who bash Prejean totally misdefine tolerance. It does not mean acceptance of or agreement with another’s beliefs.

The word tolerance in fact implies disagreement. One has no need to tolerate those one agrees with in the first place!

I think Thuyen was clear enough, Oliver:You mean there is only one verse talking against homosexuality? well with one verse it´s enough don´t you think? when you say the law was abolished, you mean that killing people is not a sin any more, or raping people? Throwing stones was the death penalty of those days, for those who broke the law; it was not a national sport.By the way here are some verses that you probably haven´t read in your Bible;
OT: Gn19.5; Lv18:22; Lv 20:13; Dt 23:17; Job 36:4; 1Kings14:24. 15:12; Judges 19:22.
NT: 1Co 6:9; 1Tim 1:8-10; Rom 1:27.
There is no way to justify homosexuality using the Bible, homosexuality is not the only sin in the Bible, but it is a sin.Peace.

I don’t give Obama a free pass. I disagree with him on gay marriage.

I mean, seriously, though. The New Testament does contradict itself… So it can’t be literally true. So that’s kind of an… issue. And I was a born-again Christian (for a very short period when I was eighteen), and one of the reason that I stopped was because… well, it CAN’T all be literally true. If you’d like to address that problem/issue, Thuyen, here’s your chance.

Among all the parts of the New Testament, this is the part that I like best:

“Master, in the law, which is the great commandment?

He said: That you should love the Lord your God in all your heart and all your spirit and all your mind. That is the great commandment, and the first. There is a second, which is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments all the law and the prophets depend.”

That seems like what Christians should be focusing on. That’s what Jesus said to do. When the final judgment comes (assuming that such a thing would ever happen), the big question won’t be: “Did you oppose gay marriage?” It’ll be: “Did you love God? Did you love your neighbor as you love yourself?” I’m pretty convinced of that.

“Unfortunately, during your speech, despite all your born-again Christian holier-than-thou righteousness, you committed a number of errors — or “sins,” as you might call them.”

Where did Carrie claim to be holier than others? More than enough times can I count that she said she is not perfect nor righteous in of herself.

Guess what? Christians do not consider themselves righteous on the basis of what they do. They are called righteous by God on basis of what Christ did and on basis of the righteous of Christ. It is not anything Christians did. They are not righteous themselves- Christ is, and God simply imputed the merits of Christ to our accounts when we believe.

In other words, we are not sinless when we are Christians. We remain sinners, abeit, forgiven sinners, striving daily against sin til the day we breath our last.

So the article started on a false presumption in the first place.

“That seems like what Christians should be focusing on. That’s what Jesus said to do. When the final judgment comes (assuming that such a thing would ever happen), the big question won’t be: “Did you oppose gay marriage?” It’ll be: “Did you love God? Did you love your neighbor as you love yourself?” I’m pretty convinced of that.”

You shouldn’t be telling Christians what they should believe when you are not a Christian yourself. And did you forget the last part of the quote you give: where the law and prophets hang?

Loving God and loving our neighbor are in fact what Christians believe.

Your idea of loving neighbor is saying that we should not see gay marriage as sin. You are dead wrong. God’s love does not extend to telling us to state what is sin is not sin and what is not sin is sin. Loving neighbor in fact at times mean warning them of God’s judgment for their sins and then telling them about God’s love and His gospel which provides forgiveness for all their sins.

It is just as any other sin. But your problem is you would not apply your arguments to other sins such as murder, incest, rape, etc. Replace the word gay marriage with any of those sins, and would you really believe your own argument then?

Your idea of love is not what Christ taught at all. You simply quote him to justify your version of what love is when Christ Himself tied our need to love God and others to His very law, which you yourself have objections to.

“I mean, seriously, though. The New Testament does contradict itself… So it can’t be literally true. So that’s kind of an… issue.”

Then that invalidates your whole article. If you don’t really believe the New Testament and feel it contradicts itself all over the places, then how can you claim anyone is better or worse spokesperson for it than Prejean?

You are forced to rely on this argument since your arguments that Prejean failed to live up to what the Bible says based on her words alone were so ridiculously bad and totally refuted by what the Bible says.

No actual, solid thoughts on the whole NT contradicting itself issue? Besides the fact that it somehow invalidates *my* argument? And how come you dudes aren’t launching a crusade against women who enter church with uncovered heads? That’s what Paul would have wanted you to do, according to his own words.

Man, I love arguing about the Bible. I am such a geekazoid. But I need to stop and eat dinner soon.

I mean, it does contradict itself, right? Jesus had one set of last words, right? Not three different sets of last words? But what were his last words? It’s impossible to say, according to a *literal* reading of the Bible.

This is, by the way, the point in a debate with a born-again Christian where they generally (1) Stop talking or (2) Respond with something that is wildly off-topic.

What were Jesus’ last words as he was dying on the cross? It shouldn’t be a complicated question. But it is. But if the Bible is literally true in every aspect, then people should be able to answer a basic factual question RIGHT AWAY. But they can’t.

The long-winded answer sometimes given at this point is that, well, we see through a glass darkly, and the ways of God are not ours to understand, and my faith allows me to reconcile these things. Fine. Kind of a cop-out, but fine. But millions of other Christians read the Bible and come out of it with the belief that Jesus had no problem with gay people, and that he would love them as he loved his neighbor. So let them have their interpretation too, since yours is as equally based on faith as theirs is.

It is finished.

So there.

Those were Christ’s last words.

My point was that your arguments against Prejean were not in the first place claims that the Bible contradicted itself, but that her own words failed to live up to the Bible. If the Bible contradicted itself, then that totally invalidates your arguments someone failed to live up to the Bible on the issues. How can you in the same breath claim the Bible contradict itself on the issues then accuse anyone of failing to live up to the Bible on those very issues? It is sheer nonsense to call someone dumb as a rock and a poor spokesperson for that set of beliefs you claim contradict themselves. If those beliefs contradict themselves, you do not have a leg to stand on to claim any person is a poor spokesperson for that view, since by such a logic, anyone could have spoken for that view.

The person giving the cop-out is you in this case, as pointed out.

And since you refer to those folks who say they believe the Bible and state Jesus does not have a problem with being gay as sin, guess what? Most of them by the way also reject the authority of the Bible as infallible. So they hardly are reliable sources on what the Bible say when themselves admittedly for the most part don’t accept what the Bible say as absolute truth.

You are being very selective with your claim that since Jesus said love our neighbor somehow must mean we believe being gay is not sin. So by your logic, since Jesus said that, it must mean we are to believe murdering is not sin, since we are to love murderers as ourselves.

In other words, your reading of the Bible, which you do not even believe in the first place, do not have a leg to stand on.

If we go by loving our neighbor meaning we can never say anything is sin, that a neighbor does, then it must also apply equally to murder, rape, incest, theft, kidnapping, other forms of adultery etc., etc. Don’t just stop at the issue of gays. After all, if you say loving our neighbor meaning accepting anything they do, then you will have to accept murderers, etc. did nothing wrong.

You might say Jesus spoke out against murder and adultery. Fine.

“This is, by the way, the point in a debate with a born-again Christian where they generally (1) Stop talking or (2) Respond with something that is wildly off-topic.”

Think again.

And that’s rich. You mock Prejean as lacking in living by the Bible, particularly the New Testament, for what you said, then when it is pointed out by what the Bible said, specifically in the gospels as well as the rest of the New Testament, you resort to going wildly off-topic by claiming the New Testament contradicts yourself.

It is what I called face saving device.

The reason why I went silence was not because I could not answer your question, but because I went to the gym for one hour to grow some muscles and drink some protein shake. You give yourself too much credit there.

“What were Jesus’ last words as he was dying on the cross? It shouldn’t be a complicated question. But it is. But if the Bible is literally true in every aspect, then people should be able to answer a basic factual question RIGHT AWAY. But they can’t.”

I just did.

And besides that has zero to do with your article mocking Prejean with claims her words totally contradict what it means to be a Christian or what it means according to the New Testament. Neither is the claim of the Bible contradicting itself has anything to do with that, other than just trying to save face to your wrongful claims that statements chosen by God, marriage between male and female, and our treasures are in heaven are in fact statements right out of the Bible, even directly from Christ Himself!

“You might say Jesus spoke out against murder and adultery. Fine.”

I forgot to add Jesus did not label kidnapping, rape, incest, etc., as sins nor did He specificially condemned those. So giving that you said since Jesus never condemned homosexuality specifically, then He must have been for it, we can also by your logic Jesus was for kidnapping, rape, incest, incest, etc. After all you did claim that if Jesus was against something, He would have said so.

Do you really, really want to go by that logic? It is a train wreck waiting to happen.

And you have not pointed out one time in the gospels where Jesus said He did away with the law to justify your claims Jesus promoted a view many see as sin. You would have better off claiming Paul on the law then Jesus there, if one can spin Paul out of context. lol

And besides where did the Bible contradict itself on storing up our treasures in heaven or believers being chosen by God? You mock Prejean for saying these things, yet I can produce score of verses that state those very things right out of the Bible, including the gospels!!!!

I am done debating. Others can have that floor.

Nice discussing things here.

Back to watching football and listening to metal music!

“‘It is finished.’

So there.

Those were Christ’s last words.”

But you’re just quoting the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of Luke says that his last words were “Father, into your hands I give up my spirit.”

Matthew says his last words were: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mark says his last words were — again — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Are you saying that John was right and the other three Gospels were wrong? They can’t all be right. So does that means that part of the Bible can be wrong? Does that mean that Paul’s statement about homosexuality could be wrong? Or that any other part of the Bible could be wrong? You’re arguing that this book contains God’s direct literal truth about everything, but you’re having a lot of trouble answering a very simple question. If one part of the Bible can be false, then that’s a very major issue, right?

Were there two thieves present at the crucifixion? Did Jesus talk to them? Were they kind to him? Or did they mock him? Because the Gospels give very different answers there too. …And I could go on and on with these types of questions…

I can see why you want to avoid these types of questions, but that doesn’t make them go away.

Oliver Miller: But you’re just quoting the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of Luke says that his last words were “Father, into your hands I give up my spirit.”

Matthew says his last words were: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mark says his last words were — again — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Me: Nice try there, but Matthew and Mark did not say those were His last words. You quoted Christ in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.

Guess what, buddy?

Those were NOT Jesus’ last words!!!!

Let me quote later on in both gospels for you, in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37:

Matthew 27:50: “And when Christ had cried out in a loud voice, He gave up His spirit.”

Mark 15:37: “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed His last.”

Those verse coincided with this passage:

John 19:30:
“It is finished.” With that He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

The only cause you have is with the gospel of Luke. That is if you can prove both gospels state those were His last words. He could have said both things.

But even if we take into consideration that you might those two gospels contradict each other (which you failed to prove since neither stated those were His only words, and He had time to state those things), it shows your shoddy claims that you claimed those words you quoted from Matthew and Mark were His last words, when even both gospels contradicted you.

Which makes how ridiculous your triumphant display you constantly put forth, first falsely accusing me of going silent over your initial question on this to avoid your question, when I was at the gym, then claim I avoid your question when I did attempt to answer, KNOWING full well what you would say, which is what you precisely said with the other three gospels.

“Are you saying that John was right and the other three Gospels were wrong?”

No, I am saying you are wrong. You did not even get your facts right on Matthew and Mark. Both stated Jesus said something else after the quotes you gave from Him. While neither gospel stated what He said afterwards right when He breathed His last, it is still disprove your claims that those two gospels contradicted John.

“They can’t all be right.”

No, you totally selective cite verses (again) and ignore the fact the subsequent verses in Matthew and Mark did indeed state Jesus spoke out right before He died in a loud voice afterwards.

“So does that means that part of the Bible can be wrong?”

No, it means you are wrong.

Just as you were wrong when you claimed Prejean was stupid for saying she was chosen by God, with the mockery that she was going against her own biblical faith, when in fact the Bible does state many times over, including in four gospels, that those who believe are chosen of God. In actuality, you embarrassed yourself before those who actually know what the Bible says.

If you are going to call some dumb and poor representative for what Bible believing Christians, at least get your facts right.

Likewise, for your remarks calling her dumb over saying her riches are in heaven, which is what precisely Christ taught in the synoptic gospels as well!

“Does that mean that Paul’s statement about homosexuality could be wrong? Or that any other part of the Bible could be wrong?”

Well, you constantly lose credibility on your claims about the contradictions of the Bible when you throw out false evidences from a couple of the gospels about Christ’s last words contradicting each other. No, it means you have zero credibility with those who know their Bibles.

“You’re arguing that this book contains God’s direct literal truth about everything, but you’re having a lot of trouble answering a very simple question.”

No, I answered your question.

You are stooping to dishonesty now.

I did indeed state Jesus said “it is finished.”

You asked, I answered.

Your bogus basis is that I took too long. Duh! I got a life outside the net, such as hanging with friends and going to the gym. Just because I did not answer right away does not mean I avoided you.

When I did answer, you pretend I did not then offer your “proofs” of contradictions.

And you got shot shot again.

“If one part of the Bible can be false, then that’s a very major issue, right?”

And if just about everything you say about the Christian faith and the Bible is false to defame someone like Prejean, then that’s a very major issue with your credibility to call someone like her dumb as a rock in regards to whether or not she represents the Bible or the Christian faith, is it not?

“Were there two thieves present at the crucifixion? Did Jesus talk to them? Were they kind to him? Or did they mock him? Because the Gospels give very different answers there too. …And I could go on and on with these types of questions…

And I have no problem with any of them. They are EASY QUESTIONS for me,

The thiefts taunted as Matthew said, then one repented, as Luke stated, and asked Jesus for forgivenes and was assured of being in paradise that night.

You did not ask questions I have not been asked and answered a million times.

“I can see why you want to avoid these types of questions, but that doesn’t make them go away.”

No, I did avoid them.

You lied about it when you claimed I avoided them because I did not respond right away. Some folks have a life outside the net. You throw out that bogus claim, then when I did answer, you try to prove that my answer is contradicted by other verses (including bogus evidences that I shot down), while claiming I avoided these questions.

No, the reason why you throw out these questions to claim the Bible is because you embarass yourself plenty good when you make claims about someone’s supposed lack of knowledge by her words of what faith and Bible is, then I produced passages from the Bible that validates what she said.

So you have to argue the Bible contradicts itself.

Hello?

That has ZERO to do with your article about Prejean and your claims she is a poor spokesperson for her faith, for the things she said, which turn out lo and behold came straight from the Bible, down to pretty much the last word.

Regardless of whether the Bible contradicts itself, you completely throw a very bad article that made you look foolish, not her.

Maybe to anti-Bible folks you looked good, but to objective folks who know what the Bible say, your attempt at smear humour at someone for speaking her faith from the Bible just come off as juvenile.

Trying to hide behind the Bible contradicts itself compounds how bad your article only looks.

“And how come you dudes aren’t launching a crusade against women who enter church with uncovered heads? That’s what Paul would have wanted you to do, according to his own words.”

We also go by context. And also by what is natural law or what is Paul’s instructions for a congregation according to norms of that times (and the situation which involved completely unruliness in that particular congregation).

I suggest you research what Christians and why they believe.

The issue of murder, adultery, gay, theft, etc., fall into the category of moral aspect of the law, aka natural law, as Locke, Calvin, Aquinas, etc. puts it.

“And you got shot shot again.”

I meant “and you got your arguments shot down again.”

“No, I did avoid them.”

I meant “no, I did NOT avoid them (the questions).”

That’s what I get for typing too fast and not editing before posting. I am going to rest and calm down.

This is not even challenging for me.

I know just how Carrie feels. I had an invisible friend once, too. When I was 8.

Don’t argue with Bible thumpers. They will never ever listen to reason. It is completely pointless to engage these delusional psychos.

Here’s some awesome win:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7GaRETDNg