Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[hedrick]

They were written about 20 years later, were they not? Hardly "soon".

It's possible to say that Paul had lots of useful insights without saying that he has perfect answers to all of our questions. Indeed he would be the first to acknowledge that he wasn't perfect. Nor did he have any basis to judge the situation of Christian gays.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Could you tell me which criteria need to be met for one of the rules laid down in Leviticus to be classified as ceremonial and which are not?

The only rule would be to know the definition of "cerimonial", the rest is simple.

Actually, its all simple, but Im thinking when one is a bit too contrary to see it, it's a waist of time to try to convince them. Then I wonder why she cares anyway, I mean do you really think you can say anything here to dissuade Christians from their beliefs?

Good luck with that.

 

[Rajni]

If they are Christian, sure there is. If they are Atheist, there is going to be too much disagreement to bother.

Besides, though neither of you would admit it, I was the one called out on something I didnt even do, so naturally someone needed be set straight.

That's just it - you have been bothering with atheists in this very thread.
And no one was 'set straight' yet because you never addressed my question.
I will present it here again for you to ignore - or sidestep - again:

When an action is so-called "damnable", what component gets damned (sent to "hell", basically): The action, or the person?

 

[stevevw]

They were written about 20 years later, were they not? Hardly "soon".

Yet any other non-biblical historical account written 20 years after an event would be held up as accurate and accepted. Twenty years is nothing, its within a generation. That would be around the year 2000 for which many people are still around today and remember vividly what happened IE the Millenium bug as a big issue that people can clearly recall. Paul had a host of eye witnesses to the events of Jesus and his writings have been verified in many ways.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When an action is so-called "damnable", what component gets damned (sent to "hell", basically): The action, or the person?

Not playing your little game.

If you want to pretend you don't know what a damnable sin is, fine, but go waste someone elses time with your silly argument.

And no one was 'set straight' yet because you never addressed my question.

Of course they were straightened out...they were told I was being accused of something I didnt do. The little thing you have going on here is just to dodge the fact you all never had a charge against me to begin with.

 

[Rajni]

Not playing your little game.

If you want to pretend you don't know what a damnable sin is, fine, but go waste someone elses time with your silly argument.



Of course they were straightened out...they were told I was being accused of something I didnt do. The little thing you have going on here is just to dodge the fact you all never had a charge against me to begin with.

Nice try, no cigar.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let me try to be more clear...this conversation was over a few posts back, and there is no need for me to "try" anything.

Now if it's the last word you want, it's all yours.

 

[Kylie]

It's possible to say that Paul had lots of useful insights without saying that he has perfect answers to all of our questions. Indeed he would be the first to acknowledge that he wasn't perfect. Nor did he have any basis to judge the situation of Christian gays.

That's no reason to think that the views on homosexuality from one guy in a completely different culture 2000 years ago should be taken as being the right viewpoint for our society today.

 

[Kylie]

The only rule would be to know the definition of "cerimonial", the rest is simple.

Actually, its all simple, but Im thinking when one is a bit too contrary to see it, it's a waist of time to try to convince them. Then I wonder why she cares anyway, I mean do you really think you can say anything here to dissuade Christians from their beliefs?

Good luck with that.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer my question.

You couldn't even tell me what the one ceremonial law is.

All you did was make excuses why you shouldn't tell me.

 

[Kylie]

Yet any other non-biblical historical account written 20 years after an event would be held up as accurate and accepted. Twenty years is nothing, its within a generation. That would be around the year 2000 for which many people are still around today and remember vividly what happened IE the Millenium bug as a big issue that people can clearly recall. Paul had a host of eye witnesses to the events of Jesus and his writings have been verified in many ways.

Can you tell me any other such account that is accepted as literal fact?

(Please note, I'm not saying there aren't such accounts, just that I'm interested in knowing if there are any.)

BTW, without looking anything up, how much can you tell me about the Y2K bug?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually answer my question.

You couldn't even tell me what the one ceremonial law is.

All you did was make excuses why you shouldn't tell me.

Except your prior post didn't ask that, it only asked for criteria and I told you what that was.

 

[Kylie]

Except your prior post didn't ask that, it only asked for criteria and I told you what that was.

I don't see how knowing the definitions of "ceremonial" means one can tell which laws are ceremonial and which are not. You would need to also know the intent of the original authors - which isn't exactly possible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't see how knowing the definitions of "ceremonial" means one can tell which laws are ceremonial and which are not. You would need to also know the intent of the original authors - which isn't exactly possible.

It's so simple to discern one from the other, that I figured the definition of the term was all that was holding you back.

 

[Kylie]

It's so simple to discern one from the other, that I figured the definition of the term was all that was holding you back.

No it's not, because you don't know the motivations of the original author.

If there was something that said you had to burn some specific type of leaves on a plate, and carry it around the altar so the smoke from the leaves drifted all over the place, would that be ceremonial or would it have some greater purpose?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No it's not, because you don't know the motivations of the original author.

If there was something that said you had to burn some specific type of leaves on a plate, and carry it around the altar so the smoke from the leaves drifted all over the place, would that be ceremonial or would it have some greater purpose?

Ok, I see what your going to do...by saying the author "could" have meant whatever, youu feel you are going to shoot down every possibility, and create/assume confusion where there is no confusion.

If thst doesn't work you will create another way to confuse the issue, so what is the point of this conversation?

Anyway, give me an example from the bible, something along tne lines of your example given will be fine....I just need a real one so I can see it in context.

 

[Kylie]

Ok, I see what your going to do...by saying the author "could" have meant whatever, youu feel you are going to shoot down every possibility, and create/assume confusion where there is no confusion.

If thst doesn't work you will create another way to confuse the issue, so what is the point of this conversation?

Anyway, give me an example from the bible, something along tne lines of your example given will be fine....I just need a real one so I can see it in context.

Now you are trying to turn the tables on me.

I've already asked you to show me how to tell if a law was meant to be ceremonial or not, and your only answer was, "It's just obvious."

You also claimed that only one of the laws was ceremonial, yet you refused to say which one, and you refused to tell me how you reached that decision.

And now you have again refused to answer my question.

And yet despite your near total to refusal to answer my questions, and your absolute refusal to answer my questions clearly, you expect me to answer yours?

Good luck with that. I'm not jumping through your hoops. Show me you are willing to have a reasonable discussion by actually answering my questions, then we can start answering yours, okay?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've already asked you to show me how to tell if a law was meant to be ceremonial or not, and your only answer was, "It's just obvious."

That is not true...I just ssked you for an example so we could clear this up, but you would not provide that.

Instead you gave reasons why I was at fault for your excusing yourself ftom the conversation (common tactic at this stage). And I would guess you went that route becsuse, I was fixing to show you how simple and "obvious" it was.

Oh, and where did I make the following claim?

You also claimed that only one of the laws was ceremonial, yet you refused to say which one, and you refused to tell me how you reached that decision.

 

[Kylie]

That is not true...I just ssked you for an example so we could clear this up, but you would not provide that.

Instead you gave reasons why I was at fault for your excusing yourself ftom the conversation (common tactic at this stage). And I would guess you went that route becsuse, I was fixing to show you how simple and "obvious" it was.

You've got a whole bunch of examples. You can find them in the book of Leviticus.

Oh, and where did I make the following claim?

I must have misread, my apologies.

 

[Kenny'sID]

[Q[UOTE="Kylie, post: 75745435, member: 343110"]You also claimed that only one of the laws was ceremonial, yet you refused to say which one, and you refused to tell me how you reached that decision.[/QUOTE]

You've got a whole bunch of examples. You can find them in the book of Leviticus.



I must have misread, my apologies.

As I suspected..you dont want to get to the meat of tne issue.

 

[coffee4u]

I think @Tree of Life 's point is that he doesn't think his religion can dictate how people who don't share his religious beliefs live. Which is quite correct. If I'm not a conservative Christian, why should I have to live by the implications of your belief?

Freedom of religion is a widely recognized civil right now among most traditional Protestant churches, and also to a great extent, in Catholicism.

It isn't just about how they live though. I doubt I would give the whole movement much of any thought at all-but they make it our thought. They insult us and tell us that we must accept it as a valid and okay way to live. Why should we?

Well it's not fine and I won't ever be saying it is. The same way heterosexual couples living together without getting married is not fine and I won't be saying it is. No different and they are not special.
As much as I might like to define what is sin I don't get to do that, God does. It would be far easier for me if the Bible did not outline that sex outside of marriage is sinful, but it does. Even a man looking upon a woman with lust is sin.

If you are not a scripture believing Christian then you will go and do whatever you want to do, but why do you want our approval for it? And don't say they don't care, if they didn't care we would not get so much hate. Any mention of sin is meet with insults. So basically they can insult us as much as they please but we better have nothing to say about it. Nice. Respect flows two ways. If I am being called rude names you can be sure I won't be feeling any respect for whoever is hurling them.