Homosexual Discussion ForumHomosexuality and the BibleAre you serious? You didn't address any points at all?? Hold on, let me try to figure this.... Specific to what? Identify what I said exactly so not only myself, but everyone else can understand what you are referring to. Ok, what archeologists. What parts are historically proven to be accurate? Even if some parts are corroborated as historically accurate, how does that matter as to whether or not the events are relevant? But the "tradition" of the elders is grounded in SCRIPTURE. You can't be so dishonest as to not admit that the Torah CLEARLY stated that eating shellfish was an "abomination". You did not address that point at all. Even when I went to pains to give the only logical interpretation as to how Jesus stated his view on such a thing. There's so MANY! Even the most pious Rabbis freely admit that there is contradiction in the Bible. Agh. Do I HAVE to dig up specifics when I assumed this would be understood by someone so informed? I was presuming I was dealing with someone who really knew all this and had many explanations all prepared in detail.... I never mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah?? He did SO! And the examples I already gave proved that quite clearly. He directly contravened the Sabbath, the eating of shellfish and many other parts of the Old Testament. How can you deny this? Oh so because of one specific passage in the New Testament, it's automatically even MORE holy than the previous "gospel" of the lord? NOW it's ok to say that this is all that is applicable to people other than Jews? Even if this was true, where are you getting the divine right to interpret the broad definition of "fornication"? You seem quite confident in knowing it includes all of your examples. Can you spell out exactly HOW this is a logical fallacy? Then someone might be able to give you a counter-argument. Covered? Ok. Explain that in detail. Especially the decision of the council of Jerusalem. Is this an organization that should be considered an authority? Ok. How and why? It's no good to make sweeping generalizations. You can always preach to the choir, but do you have a good enough REASON to convince someone this is truthful? So simply because in the scriptures YOU believe are infallible, everyone in the world should automatically agree that this particular man was called as "special", and every word emanating from him was absolute truth? Even when he was in contradiction to more traditional views at the time, we should automatically assume he was the correct one? With no thought necessary? No rational thought process to determine for ourselves whether there is any sense in his views? Essentially our ability to reason and think critically is useless? False? Only useful as long as it doesn't apply to Christianity? Am I off base on what I am asking you? So in other words....this person is saying: You can associate with immoral people (ergo: people who do anything you believe is wrong), as long as they do not drink to excess...someone who NEVER envies another person even momentarily....a reviler? The dictionary definition is this: to criticize someone strongly, or say unpleasant things to or about someone Well, gee...That's pretty broad, isn't it Aineo? Sheesh! A drunkard? How do you judge that? Is one night enough? Does it have to be consistent as to 3 to 4 nights a week? Can't you honestly see how simplistic this is? I mean, be realistic. Is this modern reality with the understanding you should have now? I'm probably wasting my breath, but I just can't believe people can be so obtuse as to not see plain common sense!! Not only did you not address my points, you brought up a ton of other stuff that was far from defensible. Look, I'm not a religious hate-monger. I don't wish you or any other person ill will. I just want to see religious belief backed up with truth and common sense. If you can't, how can you live with yourself when you spout such things? It can be so HARMFUL to people! Can't you see that? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame