SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Just curious - based on some posts lately and an ah ha kind of moment for me, it seems that a few regular posters here may be believers in the ATI or Vision Forum philosphy.
I don't have any opinion on those beliefs, but am just curious if you are.
....and how divorce or marrying a divorced person works with your philosphy.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I'll throw my philosphy out there....
I am Catholic. It took a lot of soul searching for me to file for Divorce. I don't like the idea of annulment because I do have children, so I don't see myself ever getting married again.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
You don't have to get an annulment if you marry again. My wife is catholic and got married to me. You just don't get married in the church (then again, she wouldn't have been married in the church again anyways, since she was marrying a non catholic who wasn't going to convert to catholicism)
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
A legal annulment and a religious annulment are two completely different things. A legal annulment generally requires that some aspect of the fundamental nature of a marriage was absent such as, a non-licensed person marrying the couple or a marriage produced by fraud, coercion or duress.
A Catholic Annulment requires that you demonstrate tha tyou entered into marriage without the proper intent (married too young, did not understand what you were doing). It has no impact on the leal aspect of the marriage. It is purely a function of religion that allows you to remarry again in a Catholic service. My sister had her marriage annulled in the Catholic church. Family member submitted letters to the priest that pronounced the annulment indicating what we believed occurred to fracture the marriage.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
From EWTN's website:
...the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion.
Basically, you have to get an annulment before being remarried if you want to take part in the sacraments of the church such as Holy Communion and Confession.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
Lol...it hasn't stopped my wife from getting communion and going to confession.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
According to Catholic.com: The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.
If your wife doesn't want to ask for an annulment, then why doesn't she find a church more in line with her beliefs?
I still wonder about the very religious on here that marry a divorced person or even get divorced - especially those that may be Vision Forum, ATI, ILPB, etc... Again, I don't have an opinion on this, I am just curious.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
All her family still go to the same catholic church in leavenworth...too much of a hassle to switch.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
In order for your wife to be able to participate in holy communion without an annulment you and she would need to be living as "brother and sister" absolutely no intimate relations. Given your professions here about your wonderful attractive wife I would venture a guess that you are not living as brother and sister.
She really needs to get an annulment to participate in holy communion or you can become Catholic and of course there is the brother/sister no intimate relations option....
I would love to participate in holy communion but we do not have an annulment of my husband's first marriage and we do not live as brother and sister. I was told that to participate in holy communion without the annulment or living as brother and sister is a sin, a really BIG sin (I know a sin is a sin but the diocese was crystal clear on me not participating in holy communion).
Now if my hubby would just become Catholic....
Actually we do plan to get an annulment of his first marriage, which we have been told will be granted because it was a marriage that should never have happened - baby at 17, married at 18, they only lived together for 8 months after the marriage because she could not stop cheating - even had a child with another man.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
We are not Catholic. Most Christian denominations accept divorce in certain circumstances. I do not agree with the Catholic churches interpretation of Christ's words (that he meant you could only SEPARATE from your spouse under certain circumstances - remarriage was never allowed). BM had an affair and had a baby that was not DH's. There was no question as to the circumstances. Nor is their any doubt in his mind (or mine) that the Bible permitted him under those circumstances to divorce her. So I guess that is how that fits into our beliefs.
And I find it particularly troublesome that the Catholic church would concern itself with a marriage they never sanctioned in the first place. They (DH and BM) were not married in any church as they were not religious. They would (if they converted while married) have to solemnize their vows. But we would (if we wished to join the church) annul that union? Totally nonsensical. And I got this straight from a priest.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
Edited by elliesmom (05/08/12 02:27 PM)
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
EM - are you Gothard/ATI? I am just curious about that lifestyle and the beliefs.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
There are a few things I think the Catholic church needs to look at differently....
I think a priest should be allowed to marry and a woman should be allowed to be a "priest" to name a few.
I also think that because my husband was not married in a church and neither him nor his ex were baptized into any faith (or followed any faith) that we shouldn't have to annul his first marriage but it isn't up to me.
If hubby and I ever divorced I would be free to marry in the church without issue if the man was not previously married, which I think is rather dumb given I have been married nearly 22 years. The fact that the church would have no issue with me having been married for 22 years and divorcing and then marrying in the church without having to "do anything" just seems absurd....
|
Avaya
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/09/06
Posts: 9816
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
I don't even know what that is so imma say I don't believe 'in' it.
As for the annulment mentioned in the next post, annulment is a MAN MADE idea/process so personally it wouldn't factor into my beliefs at all. Many of the catholic beliefs are man made, not God made or God centered (and cannot even be traced to anything in the bible).
--------------------
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
We are not members. I looked at it when we were homeschooling. I had no issue with it. I was, uncomfortable, with the fact that in order to join we would have to justify DHs divorce. To me, that is private and not something I want bantered about where my kids might overhear (and god forbid say something to their sibs).
I guess I also don't exactly agree that the woman must be the SAHP. I do think families should have a parent stay home, but I see no reason why it can't be Dad in some situations. I don't think genitals determine your ability to parent or provide.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Christian religious beliefs are interpretations of what the Christian bible says. Interpreted by man.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I was just curious, EM. I think they have some interesting beliefs - not bad - just interesting. Gothard seems a bit creepy, but I kind of like some of his homeschool thoughts.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7947
|
|
Lol...if everyone who got communion was following the rules, there'd be about 3 catholics who got communion annually. You've got catholics in the church who live with other people, you've got others having premarital sex, others mastubating, others having affairs etc....and with full intentions of continuing to do so. The church might set these arbitrary rules, but if they start banning everyone who doesn't follow them, they'll have no one left to give them what they want most...$$$$$. So they choose to ignore what they want to ignore as long as the $$$ continue to come in, like pretty much every religious group.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I think you might be suprised, spinner. There are a lot of people that actually live their faith - more than you think.
Whatever faith they choose, not just Catholic, btw.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
I kind of agree with you except...I do agree with there only being certain reasons for divorce in the Bible...adultery. In those cases, the Bible is silent on if you can remarry. It doesn't say we can or can't. My husband's ex committed adultery. He divorced her. Almost 2 years later, he married me. I don't think he is committing adultery since he divorced for the "allowed" reason.
I wonder, often...where the Catholics get their rules. They are Christians, but I've never heard about some of these rules being in the Bible. Not trying to start an argument or anything...I've just always found the Catholic faith (and others) confusing.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
LOL, of course you will get the answers, "Well, I follow MY religion, just not like THOSE {insert other flavor of Christianty} folks", LMAO!
Interestingly enough, you would think that an ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, OMNIPRESENT individual like "God", would have written his book a little more CLEARLY than the current book, which is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it has caused the shattering of the Christian "faith" into thousands of flavors.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
Man did that, not God. Man has a bad habit of twisting God's words/teachings. And making up new ones as they go along. Free will and all that.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Then how can you POSSIBLY know what gods ACTUAL word is?? EVERY WORD, EVERY VERSION is MAN!!!! God doesn't speak. Doesn't have his own voice.. Everything. "supposedly" said, HAD to go through man, bc "God" cannot speak directly for himself.
So NO ONE, ANYWHERE knows what God really said, or intended, or anything else.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Nope, according to YOU, God wrote the bible THROUGH man. But as lb said, if any of the bible is suspect, which you just alluded to, then the whole thing is suspect.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It's when man tries to twist the Bible to suit their own purposes when the problems come. Kind of like what King Henry 8th did and a slew of others. I asked before...where are the rules that the Catholics go by located in the Bible? I honestly want to know. Same goes for Jehovah Witnesses...and other branches of religion. If it's not in the Bible, it's not part of my beliefs, my Faith.
My brother is studying the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and is comparing them to a few different versions of the Bible he has. He, along with pastor, said that the closest translation from the original texts was the NLT...and the NIV Bible (there is another one I think, but I don't remember which one he said). I went out and bought a NLT Life application study Bible a few months ago and I am now in the process of reading the Bible from front to back (just started, so I am still in Genesis). I'm not wanting to argue with you, gr8dad. Just stating my beliefs and why I am confused about certain other beliefs. It's easy to misunderstand or take out of context, especially if you are looking for problems. I don't think that any of the Bible is "suspect". I said that man twists the Bible to suit their own purposes, IMO, and has for centuries.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
There is no argument to be had. You disagree with OTHER interpretations of the bible and label them as man twisting the meaning for his own gains. But that describes the WHOLE bible. Nothing was written directly by a supposed supreme being, it was ALL man's interpretation of what the writer saw or heard at the time, even the original writers. But then on the other hand, all of the versions are poorly written and confusing, but come from a God that you claim wants us to understand him and follow him. I am a father. When I want my children to follow something, I write or say things clearly and concisely. What you are following is more like a PUZZZLE. "WELCOME to Rubiks Salvation. Figure out what it means and win eternity in heaven!" Why didn't God write ONE BOOK, Make it available to everyone and make it clear? If he wants me to follow.him, why give other MEN the opportunity to draw me astray with bibles claiming to be written by him? Why? Because God is imaginary and is made up to attempt to control people. Once you realize that YOU are in charge of your destiny and YOU make your own opportunity, you will realize what you are capable of accomplishing.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
....and how divorce or marrying a divorced person works with your philosphy.
---> It works just fine because God's beliefs are the same as mine...we both support divorce. Where do ya'll think 'fault' divorce came from?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I think they are group of interesting stories written by various men and collected together. Some of the newer versions are easier to read in American English than others - like NIV. I have a collection of stories about the women of the bible that is interesting reading, too (called a Woman's bible).
I would like to learn more about some of the Christian theologies like Calvinism.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
As usual on this subject, we will agree to disagree. Fact is, many atrocities happened because of man's loose interpretation of the Bible or rules they made up themselves because they didn't like something...such as some people being burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin (just an example). Show me where it says to do that in the Bible? It doesn't.
Anyway, we will agree to disagree. Have a great day.
|
Avaya
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/09/06
Posts: 9816
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
[quote] He, along with pastor, said that the closest translation from the original texts was the NLT...[/quote]
That surprises me. That's a fairly new version and as I recall, controversial.
--------------------
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
|
Avaya
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/09/06
Posts: 9816
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
[quote]I would like to learn more about some of the Christian theologies like Calvinism. [/quote]
They believe in 'elect' (Jesus only died to save some). Other than that they are very similar to Baptist.
--------------------
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Interesting article from WIKI about the NLT Bible.
New Living Translation is meant to be easily accessible to readers of modern English. As part of this effort:
Weights and measures, money, dates and times etc. are described in modern terms, with footnotes giving the literal translation.
Some phrases are translated into contemporary English; e.g. "they beat their breasts" (Luke 23:48) is translated as "They went home in deep sorrow" with again footnotes providing more literal interpretations.
Gender-inclusive language is used where the editors believed that it was appropriate
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
[quote]Nope, according to YOU, God wrote the bible THROUGH man. But as lb said, if any of the bible is suspect, which you just alluded to, then the whole thing is suspect. [/quote]
--------->> Thank you!
|
Avaya
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/09/06
Posts: 9816
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
[quote].... with footnotes giving the literal translation. [/quote]
That's the only part I personally would like.
--------------------
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
Eh, my philosophy's rules are pretty clear.
Mark 10:11-12 "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and maries another, she commits adultery."
I didn't see anything after that says, EXCEPT in cases of A, B, C or X, Y, Z.
My hubby is an adulterer according to the Bible. Not sure how that fits his philosophy. Does that mean he is Hell-bound? Does that mean he will be forgiven is he repents? I mean it's in the Big Ten...how does that work? (rhetorical questions)
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
" Fact is, many atrocities happened because of man's loose interpretation of the Bible or rules they made up themselves because they didn't like something...such as some people being burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin (just an example). Show me where it says to do that in the Bible? It doesn't."
Actually, it DOES say that in the bible. It lists the offense of heresy as punishable by death. The church saw this as heresy and thus, punished them with death. The problem with YOUR thinking is that you like to pretend that the horrible parts of the bible are made up, and they aren't. Adultery is punishable by death, homosexuality is punishable by death. Interestingly enough, slavery is rewarded and okey dokey in the bible. Bottom line, the bible is a set of VERY harsh, arbitrary rules, made up by MEN. You can point out the HORRIBLE things done by men, but those things are BASED on things the original bible said were okay, such as the above mentioned things.
Let put it simply, if the bible said KILLING someone, for ANY reason other than self defense, was wrong, ALL of the attrocities you have mentioned would NEVER have occured. But because the bible okays horrific acts for none horrific things, men have decided that doing the same is okay by God.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
See Matthew 19:9 (Christ himself giving the exception for adultery) and Matthew 5:32.
I have discussed this with priests, because the Catholic church does not allow divorce period, and was told that these scriptures allowed for you to LEAVE but not divorce your spouse. I wholeheartedly disagree since it clearly states "and marry another."
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Actually, it DOES say that in the bible.
---> Says what...exactly? I looked up 'heresy', which was a common term for that time, and found only one instance of it in Acts 24:14 (in context Acts 24:12-15).
The church saw this as heresy and thus, punished them with death.
---> Which is what M5M5 said, MAN interpreted.
Interestingly enough, slavery is rewarded and okey dokey in the bible.
---> Was it 'okey dokey'? Or is it MAN'S interpretation? As an example...in the original KJ version, the word 'slave' is only used twice, but in the NKJ version, the word pops up 65 times. So I grabbed the second instance of the word (since the first was about Joseph) and it says:
Genesis 43:18 - Now the men were afraid because they were brought into Joseph’s house; and they said, “It is because of the money, which was returned in our sacks the first time, that we are brought in, so that he may make a case against us and seize us, to take us as slaves with our donkeys.”
---> Here is the original translation:
And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph's house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses.
---> Bondmen, NOT slaves...there is a difference.
---> Here is another one:
(KJV) Exodus 21:7 - “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.
(NKJV)And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
---> A 'maid/menservant' is NOT a 'slave'. And yes, I see the word 'sell', but it wasn't about selling people, it was about selling services. Bondsmen later became to be called 'indentured servants'. Today, we call them 'employees'.
---> And yet another example:
(NKJV)Leviticus 25:44 - And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.
(KJV)Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Wow.. just wow.
|
Avaya
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/09/06
Posts: 9816
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
[quote]Actually, it DOES say that in the bible. It lists the offense of heresy as punishable by death. The church saw this as heresy and thus, punished them with death. [/quote]
Does the bible say that MAN should punish by death or does the bible say 'punishable by death' and possibly (probably) mean 'death' as in the death one suffers by losing their life AND their soul (meaning going to hell. We are ALL going to die, and those who are saved will escape hell while those who are 'dead in christ' will not escape it. 'Punishable by death' doesn't mean man is tasked with killing.
[quote] things done by men, but those things are BASED on things the original bible said were okay, such as the above mentioned things.[\quote]
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, does the bible SAY those things were okay OR does the bible DOCUMENT that they occurred?
--------------------
Eternity is too long to be wrong.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Wow.. just wow.
---> I agree...how you can confuse slavery with bondsmen (indentured servants) or apprentices.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
There are many instances in the Bible where it is said that God calls for someone to be stoned to death. But honestly, how is that any different from our own death penalty? Some could argue that it was 'horrific' for adultery to be punishable by death, but then again, we once had laws that made horse theft a hanging offense...or running away from your 'master'.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
[quote]Wow.. just wow.
---> I agree...how you can confuse slavery with bondsmen (indentured servants) or apprentices. [/quote]
-------------->> Both just more "pc" terms for the same thing.. SLAVERY. Period. You can spin it however you like but it remains the same. The "wow, just wow" was the lengths to which you'll go to justify what is unjustifiable, unsupportable with ANY semblance of actual FACT. But that's okay. Seems to make you feel better, far be it from me to judge.. I'll leave that to you "christian" folk ;)
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
The "Church" saw that as heresy, but was it really? No. Man made decisions and rules.
I have no problem with the Bible saying sins are punishable by death. We all deserve to burn in hell for our sins. Thank God Jesus came and with him, a new covenant.
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Here is a letter that has circulated the internet in many forms pointing out how literal interpretation of the bible may not work too well. In this incarnation, it is presumably a letter to Laura Schlessinger who is against gay marriage and supposedly -observed that it is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
_______________________________________________
Dear Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Both just more "pc" terms for the same thing.. SLAVERY. Period. You can spin it however you like but it remains the same.
---> LOL Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. hehehehe. Yes, using TODAY'S standards, you can SPIN those things as a FORM of 'slavery', but therein lies the problem...you CANNOT use today's standards.
The "wow, just wow" was the lengths to which you'll go to justify what is unjustifiable, unsupportable with ANY semblance of actual FACT.
---> Explaining something is NOT justifying, but you know that. Problem is, the explanation nullifies the argument and you can't have that so you have to SPIN it.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I have read that several times and still get a big kick out of it.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
So, during TRANSLATION, the meanings got skewed, right? Any chance they got skewed on OTHER stuff? Like maybe they DIDN'T mean people who are sexually attracted to the same sex, but those who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but have sex with the same sex?
But I digress. Why would the ALL POWERFUL GOD allow such mistranslations to happen? I mean this is IMPORTANT to him, right? He WANTS us to find him and follow him and praise him, o why allow the confusion? Oh, yeah, I know, to TEST us...but what is the right answer? There is ZERO concrete evidence as to which translation is correct. And there isn't even a WAY to figure out which version is correct without asking for a TEST, which we know God has outlawed.
So DON'T question God, or his rules, but DECIDE which version of his rules are correct. Oh, and you won't know until you DIE and it is too late, whether or not you choose correctly.
All this from our FATHER. Well, guess what, I gave my kids a choice of 5 clear glasses of water. Four contained a colorless odorless POISON which will cause them to die a FIERY PAINFUL DEATH, the fifth is water. They may not ask me ANY questions, nor is there ANY way to determine which one is which. Am I a good Dad?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
I find it interesting that you find it funny, because those are all rules from your bible. You know, the one MAN twisted to fit his needs. So which one of the quoted texts are from GOD< and which are from man, and WHY.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I find it interesting that you find it funny, because those are all rules from your bible.
---> I don't know why you would find it 'interesting' that I have a sense of humor.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
A sense of humor about GOD? How about this one, Jesus walks into a motel in Jerusalem, throws three nails on the counter and says, "Can you put me up for the night?"
The point being, you cannot take a book RIFE with violence and killings sanctioned by God, then say that SOME of the killing was a misinterpretation. Why not ALL the killing? Lets be honest, your God is a vindictive sort. He has had innocent women and children MURDERED. Look at the story of the test of Baal in Kings. He tells the followers of Baal to PROVE he exists, and when they cannot, he tells HIS followers to MURDER THEM. Yet his OWN rules state it is a SIN to test him to see if he exists.
Sorry, NO insult intended, but if ANYONE else did this, you would be the FIRST to call them a TOTAL D!CK.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
You and Maury are a riot. Thanks for the laughs :-)
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
It is kind of funny, the book is flawed because man wrote it, and man's interpretation is what makes it flawed, just ask man. Part of it is wrong, so it is all subject to being wrong, when science is wrong, it is a part of the scientific process. Maybe just the fact that people ask why didn't God do it this way, or why did God do it this way shows that people will never understand it. Maybe one day, one of the theories of evolution will be proven, maybe one day, one of the theories of creation will be proven, maybe none of them will. But until then, just seems like the world has a bunch of theories to believe in and they are all wrong, except the one you believe in.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
Good job, Redd. IMO, you are right for the most part.
Some of us aren't sure which theory is right, want to learn about other theories, but really enjoy the beliefs, culture and traditions they were raised with.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
[quote]See Matthew 19:9 (Christ himself giving the exception for adultery) and Matthew 5:32.
I have discussed this with priests, because the Catholic church does not allow divorce period, and was told that these scriptures allowed for you to LEAVE but not divorce your spouse. I wholeheartedly disagree since it clearly states "and marry another." [/quote]
Thanks EM!
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
[quote]But until then, just seems like the world has a bunch of theories to believe in and they are all wrong, except the one you believe in. [/quote]
Yes this exactly! And You being the collective you, not any one person here.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Creationism is not a theory, its a belief. For something to be a "theory" it has to, first of all, be testable, second of all, it has to currently be TESTED. They are looking for more information and proof of evolution. Creationists say, "This is how it happened, end of story. No need to research or test it."
"Part of it is wrong, so it is all subject to being wrong, when science is wrong, it is a part of the scientific process."
EXCELLENT comparison. At one point, it was believed that organisms could self initiate, in other words, a sealed vial containing NO organism could, through some process, at some point CONTAIN organism's. Pasteur proved that wrong. So any theiory or belief BASED on that needed to be reexamined.
So when a religious theory is proven wrong, doesn't it make sense to re-test the theories that it is based on or that follow it? But you are not ALLOWED, per his word, to "test" God...so you can't.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26679
|
|
Research it all you want, test it all you want, feel free. No one is stopping you, it is the same with evolution, multiple theories, multiple testing. Multiple churches are looking for proof of god, multiple people are looking for proof of Darwinism, evolution, and or God, or intelligent design. The theories are not incompatible, or there would be no scientists who hold religious beliefs. There are a ton of them out there. None have irrefutable proof. All have some elements of provability. it is up to the person to decide, there is no one set of beliefs that is 100%.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
I think it is healthy to test your own as well as learn about other religious theories. I don't want to blindly believe what someone tells me is the truth.
How do I know that my Pastor has interpreted things correctly? Sure, they many have a doctorate in religious studies but depending on where they went to school it may lean towards a specific theology.
-----eta: I like this, Redd. The theories are not incompatible, or there would be no scientists who hold religious beliefs. There are a ton of them out there. None have irrefutable proof. All have some elements of provability. it is up to the person to decide, there is no one set of beliefs that is 100%.
Edited by SRS (05/10/12 10:12 AM)
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
The theories are not incompatible and string theory and every other theory has failed to explain the singularity (Big Bang) which is where our physics presently tends to fall apart - which I find interesting.
"Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
|
Buckeye
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/08/05
Posts: 7857
|
|
I'm coming in at the end of this and haven't read all the comments, but part of the problem is that you have to understand the customs and regulations are they were written in Jesus' time.
Take the phase "turn your other cheek". It isn't meant what most people think - doing those times, a person was only allowed to hit a slave or underling one time. If they were hit two times, the person doing the hitting would have been arrested.
During those times, a soldier could make a person carry his belongings a mile but no more than a mile or they would have been beaten.
So, it is important to understand what was going on during those times.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
A sense of humor about GOD?
---> You think God doesn't have a sense of humor? Have you ever seen a naked man run?
The point being, you cannot take a book RIFE with violence and killings sanctioned by God, then say that SOME of the killing was a misinterpretation.
---> You can if it is true. Consider all the different religions that use the Bible as a basis; you have your three main groups...Catholic, Protestant and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. Out of those you have your Adventists, Pentecosts, Baptists, Calvins, Presbyterians, Puritans, Methodists and Lutherans just to name a few. Again...EVERY one of them is reading the SAME book, but they ALL are interpreting it differently.
Lets be honest, your God is a vindictive sort.
---> Duh.
He has had innocent women and children MURDERED. Look at the story of the test of Baal in Kings. He tells the followers of Baal to PROVE he exists, and when they cannot, he tells HIS followers to MURDER THEM.
---> You ever thought about entering politics...'cuz you sure do 'spin' a good story. You tell just enough of it to make it sound 'bad', but you don't don't the whole of it. The story you are talking about is known in the NKJV as "Elijah’s Mount Carmel Victory" (1 Kings 18:20-40)
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:20-40&version=NKJV
1. There were NO women and children killed and/or "MURDERED". If you read verses 22 and 40, it is very clear that it was 450 MEN that were killed.
1 Kings 18:22 - Then Elijah said to the people, “I alone am left a prophet of the Lord; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men."
1 Kings 18:40 - And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
2. Technically...there was only ONE "follower" and that was Elijah (see 1 Kings 18:22). He is the ONE that killed the 450 men (see 1 Kings 18:40), but admittedly he had help...the followers of Baal (see 1 Kings 18:39-40).
1 Kings 18:39-40 - Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
Yet his OWN rules state it is a SIN to test him to see if he exists.
---> Not sure where you are getting this because what do you think the above was? So okay...it was more of a CONtest, then a test, but I have never heard anywhere that we weren't allowed to 'test' God. Must be one of those 'interpretations'.
Sorry, NO insult intended, but if ANYONE else did this, you would be the FIRST to call them a TOTAL D!CK.
---> Bullcatmonkeyshit! When aren't you insulting? Seriously...you want to have a discussion about my religion, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you, but no more bullcatmonkeyshit. NO comparing apple and onions or wild-ass extremes (#784523), NO 'fairy tales' insults. If you want to ask ME how I feel about this thing or that thing...ASK, do NOT attack. You might be surprised at the answers you receive.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
For something to be a "theory" it has to, first of all, be testable, second of all, it has to currently be TESTED.
---> You do know that Newton's theory of gravitation was accepted as fact WITHOUT being tested. It wasn't until 220 YEARS later that Einstein came along with his theory of relativity, that Newton's was tested. And not all of Einstein's theories, including relativity, were testable at the time he made them...and many still aren't.
They are looking for more information and proof of evolution.
---> Which by your own words, means that is not a theory, its a belief because it's 1) NOT testable and 2) NOT being currently tested.
---> The most ironic thing...science was born of religion.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
SweetLight
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/07/10
Posts: 2003
|
|
Far be it from LexieBelle to judge, LOL! Or Gr8.
EGO = Edge God Out. Have a great weekend, everybody!
ETA- LB calling you out for the lengths you will go is comical, there is not an irony hammer big enough. ;-)
Edited by SweetLight (05/10/12 11:11 PM)
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"---> You can if it is true. Consider all the different religions that use the Bible as a basis; you have your three main groups...Catholic, Protestant and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. Out of those you have your Adventists, Pentecosts, Baptists, Calvins, Presbyterians, Puritans, Methodists and Lutherans just to name a few. Again...EVERY one of them is reading the SAME book, but they ALL are interpreting it differently."
Nice dodge. Now try addressing what I SAID. You are saying MAN has committed acts of violence in the NAME of the bible, but the BIBLE authorizes acts of violence, DIRECTLY. Maybe if GOD didn't OKAY murder, man wouldn't think it was okay.
"---> You ever thought about entering politics...'cuz you sure do 'spin' a good story. You tell just enough of it to make it sound 'bad', but you don't don't the whole of it. The story you are talking about is known in the NKJV as "Elijah’s Mount Carmel Victory" (1 Kings 18:20-40)"
Yep, KILL people who believe differently than you do. Seems pretty clear to me. Seems many Christians criticized Muslims for doing this, but it is AUTHORIZED by GOD.
"1. There were NO women and children killed and/or "MURDERED". If you read verses 22 and 40, it is very clear that it was 450 MEN that were killed."
Re-read what I wrote. I said God HAS murdered woman and children. Not that he did it in THIS case. Of course, considering that back then, the average age to survive was probably about 30, so I BET a lot of those "prophets" were under 18, and hence, children.
"---> Not sure where you are getting this because what do you think the above was? So okay...it was more of a CONtest, then a test, but I have never heard anywhere that we weren't allowed to 'test' God. Must be one of those 'interpretations'."
Try reading Luke 4:12, JESUS said it.
"---> Bullcatmonkeyshit!"
Really? So you would have NO problem with a person who does ONE thing, and then DEMANDS that the SAME thing NOT be done to them? Really? Cool, I'll remember that.
But since you are now saying you CAN test god, cool, lets try that. You are believer. You have faith. Does your faith equal that of a mustard seed? So ask the mountains in Nevada to MOVE. Jesus says you can do it in the bible, you believe in the bible, so ask for it. Not much, just enough to prove God can do it through you. I will become a believer, and probably a whole lot MORE people will believe as the story leaks. SO go ahead and ASK for it to be done.
Or even better, lets pick something smaller, so as to not upset the ecology. Find an amputee. Maybe a vet, there are plenty of them online. Ask that their limb grow back. You would become and instament of GOD, people would believe, and a deserving individual would have their limb back, NO downside. So ask and it shall be provided to you.
"If you want to ask ME how I feel about this thing or that thing...ASK, do NOT attack."
See, I simply listed some inconsistencies, very respectfully, and you see it as an ATTACK, which it was not.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"---> You do know that Newton's theory of gravitation was accepted as fact WITHOUT being tested. It wasn't until 220 YEARS later that Einstein came along with his theory of relativity, that Newton's was tested. And not all of Einstein's theories, including relativity, were testable at the time he made them...and many still aren't."
Yep, testable and was tested. Seems pretty simple.
"They are looking for more information and proof of evolution.
---> Which by your own words, means that is not a theory, its a belief because it's 1) NOT testable and 2) NOT being currently tested."
Huh? Evolution ISN'T being tested? How in the WORLD do you get, from the statement and FACT that evidence and relationships backing evolution are still being tested and looked for as proof that it ISN'T testable and isn't being tested? I really do not understand that.
"---> The most ironic thing...science was born of religion."
Yep, and AS science advances, the "things" that religion is in control of decreases. For example, we now know that it is the rotation of the earth that causes the sun to rise, not Ra, the SUN GOD. We know that a RAINBOW is not a promise from God not to flood the planet anymore, it is a prismatic effect of the sun shining therough drops of moisture in the atomesphere.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
I bet in Biblical times 18 was not a child, especially if people only lived to 30. That's midlife crisis age in the Bible. Just sayin' don't forget if you're going to use Bible time to debate you shouldn't interject with current definitions like a child is 18.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
So gr8 have you ever been a believer? Did something happen to you to change that? Did you feel forced into religion early on? How do you prevent that from happening to your children?
If you don't mind my asking anyway and I'm not on here as frequently as before so if u answer and I don't return just give me some time.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
I was raised Roman Catholic. At about 30, I began having a crisis of faith. I began to question the teachings. As I was raised in a primarily Catholic area, I had no exposure to other faiths other than the teaching at the Catholic school I went to, but it was limited to basically HOW they came into existence. So during my crisis of faith, I researched and "practiced" other religions. I looked into the protestant faiths (Methodism, Baptist, Lutheran, etc). When those did not meet what I was searching for, I looked outside the mainstream Christian faith. I looked at Judeism (sp?), Morman, even the eastern religious, Toaism, Buddism, etc.
What I discovered was that they all pretty much say the same thing. I ceased searching for a EXTERNAL force, and began looking inward.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Nice dodge. Now try addressing what I SAID.
---> What dodge? This is what you SAID:
"The point being, you cannot take a book RIFE with violence and killings sanctioned by God, then say that SOME of the killing was a misinterpretation."
---> And THAT is what I responded to. If you would like to address something DIFFERENT than the above, then do so.
Yep, KILL people who believe differently than you do. Seems pretty clear to me. Seems many Christians criticized Muslims for doing this, but it is AUTHORIZED by GOD.
---> Make up your freaking mind on what you want to talk about. Geez Louise!
Re-read what I wrote. I said God HAS murdered woman and children. Not that he did it in THIS case.
---> Maybe YOU should read what you wrote. You made a statement, then to backup that statement, you provided an example. If you meant for you statement to be separate...then you should have stated it separately...otherwise, I can ONLY respond to what you wrote.
Of course, considering that back then, the average age to survive was probably about 30, so I BET a lot of those "prophets" were under 18, and hence, children.
---> Even you have to admit that this is a really stupid statement.
Try reading Luke 4:12, JESUS said it.
---> I KNOW that you're not a stupid man, so why do you persist in doing this stupid sh*t! How many times do I have to kick your ass before you learn that I'm not an idiot like you? Have it your way:
"And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not TEMPT the Lord thy God."
---> TEMPT...NOT 'test'. Luke 4:1-13 (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204&version=NKJV). It's the story of how God sent Jesus into the wilderness for 40 days and nights to be TEMPTED by Satan. Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and said he would give it all to him if only Jesus worshiped him instead of God. When Jesus said NO, Satan got pissed and quoted Psalms 91:11-12, because, you know...Satan was an 'angel'. But Jesus was falling for his BS and so reminded of Deut 6:16 (in context Deut 6:10-25). "Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time."
Really? So you would have NO problem with a.....
---> Dude...you DO realize that your previous post didn't disappear? I know you WANT to pretend that you didn't say what you said and I didn't [again] kick your ass, but HELLO...still there.
---> I thought I made it clear above...if you want to ask me something, then actually ASK me. Enough of the game playing.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
"---> And THAT is what I responded to. If you would like to address something DIFFERENT than the above, then do so."
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am not talking about the violence in the bible based on misinterpretation, I am talking about the violence that all sides AGREE is in there. I am sorry I was not clearer.
"---> Make up your freaking mind on what you want to talk about. Geez Louise!"
It was a multitopic post. You know this, as you responded to multiple topics.
"---> Maybe YOU should read what you wrote. You made a statement, then to backup that statement, you provided an example."
Actually, it was two statements, sorry I wasn't clearer. While I do not think it will make a difference to your avoidance of answering things, I will try to be clearer.
"---> Even you have to admit that this is a really stupid statement."
Ah, and here comes the insults.
"---> I KNOW that you're not a stupid man, so why do you persist in doing this stupid sh*t! How many times do I have to kick your ass before you learn that I'm not an idiot like you? Have it your way:
"And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not TEMPT the Lord thy God."
Ah, not ONLY insults, but this one has signs of WIGGLING. Yes, Tempt/Test, depending on the translation. But what is it in REFERENCE to? Jesus and the devil have a fairly long conversation. He asks Jesus to turn a stone into bread, Jesus says "Man does not live on bread alone" Then the devil says I will give you all of this if you worship me, Jesus says it is written that you shall only worship GOD. He then suggests a TEST of the power of God. Is the devil offering God some CANDY, or is he asking him to DO something to PROVE he is God? You know the answer. He is telling Jesus to throw himself from the great height to TEST if God will send his angels to protect him.
"---> TEMPT...NOT 'test'. Luke 4:1-13 (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204&version=NKJV). It's the story of how God sent Jesus into the wilderness for 40 days and nights to be TEMPTED by Satan. Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and said he would give it all to him if only Jesus worshiped him instead of God. When Jesus said NO, Satan got pissed and quoted Psalms 91:11-12, because, you know...Satan was an 'angel'. But Jesus was falling for his BS and so reminded of Deut 6:16 (in context Deut 6:10-25). "Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time."
Nice out of context quote, the correct one is easily found. He says the tempt/test line after Satan ask him to throw himself off a great height to prove that God will save him. You can call me stupid all day long, but it is you who is WRONG, on thisd and on a lot more. Especially about the idea that you may have "kicked my ass" at ANY point in the past.
"---> I thought I made it clear above...if you want to ask me something, then actually ASK me. Enough of the game playing."
I asked you a number of things, you LIED, quoted out of context and INSULTED, but failed to ANSWER any of it. I agree, the games should stop...so when will you?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Perhaps I was not clear enough.
---> No, you were very clear, and therein lies the problem. You do this all the time Gr8Dad...you ask a question or make a statement, I provide a answer or response, you don't like it, so you change the question or statement and then accuse me of not answering or responding.
---> Below is your original statement and your 'clairfication'...they aren't even the same.
#784527: "The point being, you cannot take a book RIFE with violence and killings sanctioned by God, then say that SOME of the killing was a misinterpretation."
#784590: "I am not talking about the violence in the bible based on misinterpretation, I am talking about the violence that all sides AGREE is in there."
Actually, it was two statements, sorry I wasn't clearer. While I do not think it will make a difference to your avoidance of answering things, I will try to be clearer.
---> Huh? Ever since you got pissed that I laughed at Maury's post, because I do have a good sense of humor and can appreciate the irony of it, I have CONTINUIOUSLY responded/answered you. And since I have...were is the avoidance? Additionally, you cannot accuse me of avoiding what is not clear in the first place.
Ah, and here comes the insults.
---> Where was the insult? I didn't say YOU were stupid, in fact, I have pointed out that you AREN'T man (you even reposted it). But the statement WAS stupid and you damn well know it...you just don't want to admit it.
Ah, not ONLY insults....
---> I am soooooooooo sorry. I promise to never again say that you aren't a stupid man.
...but this one has signs of WIGGLING.
---> Unlike your point about Baal?
Yes, Tempt/Test, depending on the translation.
---> And/or interpretation and...we're back to square one.
But what is it in REFERENCE to? Jesus and the devil have a fairly long conversation.
---> Agreed...Being forty days tempted of the devil.
He asks Jesus to turn a stone into bread, Jesus says "Man does not live on bread alone"
---> Agreed..."It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Then the devil says I will give you all of this if you worship me, Jesus says it is written that you shall only worship GOD.
---> Agreed..."Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
He then suggests a TEST of the power of God. Is the devil offering God some CANDY, or is he asking him to DO something to PROVE he is God? You know the answer. He is telling Jesus to throw himself from the great height to TEST if God will send his angels to protect him.
---> Disagree. Satan isn't testing God...he's testing Jesus. Starting with the bread deal, Satan says, "If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread." Then Satan says, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hense....." because if he is, then as you noted, God will send His angles to protect him.
Nice out of context quote the correct one is easily found.
---> It wasn't out of context...it's the last line of the story. Then you shouldn't have any problems posting it.
He says the tempt/test line after Satan ask him to throw himself off a great height to prove that God will save him.
---> (shaking head) First of all, it's not dialog...it was just a line to let folks know that Elvis had left the building...that the story was over [for now].
---> Second...I know where the line goes, that's why I put it there. Dude...I posted a link to the whole story (Luke 4:1-13). But you can't be bothered can you...you're just so sure that you are 'right' and what happens...you ended up looking like a fool:
- When Jesus said NO (verse 8)
- Satan got pissed (verse 9)
- and quoted Psalms 91:11-12 (verses 10-11)
- But Jesus wasn't falling for his BS and so reminded of Deut 6:16 (verse 12)
- "Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time." (verse 13)
You can call me stupid all day long.....
---> I NEVER called you stupid, but obviously I was mistaken.
...but it is you who is WRONG, on thisd and on a lot more.
---> Prove it.
Especially about the idea that you may have "kicked my ass" at ANY point in the past.
---> LOL
I asked you a number of things, you LIED, quoted out of context and INSULTED, but failed to ANSWER any of it.
---> Where did I lie? Where have I quoted out of context? Where did I insult you? Where did I fail to answer?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
My posts speak for themselves, have a great day.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
My posts speak for themselves...
---> I know...I can hear them whimpering in defeat.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Runswithscissors
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/29/04
Posts: 13381
|
|
I just LOL'd.
|
SweetLight
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/07/10
Posts: 2003
|
|
Me too. But I wanna hear who is in the "ATI or Vision Forum philosophy" bucket. I think we're about to get to that part. Shhh!!!!!
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
I guess this is you respecting that I don't want to speak to you and NOT throwing the first punch, right?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I guess this is you respecting that I don't want to speak to you and NOT throwing the first punch, right?
---> Yo dufass...she was responding to ME. So pull your panties out of the crack of your ass.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Yo, dumbass, she was responding to YOU being snarky ABOUT HIM. Sooo yeah, that's a "dig" on HIM THROUGH YOU. I love how people seem to think responding indirectly is somehow less of a dig? Amazing.
Again, The Oracle has spoken :)
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
she was responding to YOU
---> Exactly.
---> Seriously, are we now going to prohibit people of the second part from responding to people of the third part who have responded to people of the first part? Because that is what you're saying...that RWS can't respond to anyone who is responding to Gr8Dad.
Again, The Oracle has spoken :)
---> Yes I have and you should take heed.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
"you should take heed"?
I think I just pissed my panties... LAUGHING.
Thanks for the giggle. Lightened up the day.
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
[quote]she was responding to YOU
---> Exactly.
--------------------->>> Nice try. Selective editing might change your silly argument, but that's what you do soooo.. it's expected :)
---> Seriously, are we now going to prohibit people of the second part from responding to people of the third part who have responded to people of the first part? Because that is what you're saying...that RWS can't respond to anyone who is responding to Gr8Dad.
----------->>> Umm... yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. When you do said response STRICTLY to be indirectly snarky to someone you really SHOULD be avoiding? Yeah, then you really should NOT be responding.
I'd have a lot less issue with it if it were DIRECT. Like, I have an issue with you, I'm not going to respond to Gr8's comment to someone else about you. That's just passive aggressive and sneaky. If I think you're a stupid biotch, then I'm going to respond to U and YOUR post. I'm not going to respond to RWS's post to Gr8 calling you a stupid biotch. You can't pretend you're not part of the problem/argument/debate if you're playing silly little games like that. Well, you CAN, but everyone with half a brain will know what you're up to and totally lose respect for you when you claim to not be playing games.
It's really not that complicated and you can't say that I'm wrong.. or if you do, I think you'd have a hard time justifying it because I'm absolutely, 10,000% RIGHT.
Now, go ahead and try to selective edit your way out of THAT oh Great Gecko..
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 170
|
|
Wow. Lots of nutjobs at this site.
|
Runswithscissors
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/29/04
Posts: 13381
|
|
Actually both of you are dumbasses... You and gr8dad....my post was to gecko and had nothing to do with him....I am not even reading his [censored]....I pulled a sherron and responded to the last post.....had zero to do about the jackass...... And I have spoken....
|
Runswithscissors
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/29/04
Posts: 13381
|
|
I've never been considered passive aggressive...I just think you were looking for something that wasn't....you have an issue when I called him fat ass, you have an issue when I LOL to something totally not doing with him.. frankly, I don't care nor have time to deal with what you do or do not have an issue with....its just not on my list today, tomorrow or next week...... I assure you if I want to LOL, I will....if I want to call him a fatass, I will......with or without your approval.....however, again...you are wrong on this incident...I will be more clear when I want to slam the fatass.....(clear enough for you)?
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Sure that's what you meant. Got it, my bad for misunderstanding, lol
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30199
|
|
Oh, see I thought you said you would only call me faraway if I called you Caro. I didn't do that, so I guess you lies, huh?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
