Christian hate group put this through my door yesterday

[chang50]

Um, I don't grant the Bible any authority whatsoever.
I'm not attempting to use it to back up MY position, I am ( I repeat) not a christian. This is after many years of serious consideration (as I've said lots, mostly before you appeared on the scene).
But (once again) the "vast majority" of "Christians" accept evolution.
Go ahead and agrue it with them.

Your whole premise to arguing against me (that you are self-admittedly not even supporting yourself anyway) is that if someone claims something to be true- it must be true, regardless how little logic and rationale it contains. You STILL have not been able to provide me any evidence that the Bible supports evolutionism. Your only support for the Bible teaching evolution is that "because people claim it to be true- it must be true"- regardless of the fact that this claim is completely baseless.

You've totally missed his point,he and others have been banging their heads against a brick wall,trying to ascertain how NON-BELIEVERS can know which of all the competing interpretations is truest when Christians can hardly agree on much amongst yourselves.If the Catholics for example are right the others are necessarily wrong to some degree.You accused me of trolling a while back,either you are trolling or a bit slow..I mean why would a non-believer look to the Bible for evidence to support evolutionism,come on..??

You are confused. You are speaking of BigBallinStalin.
The reply that you just quoted was directed at jonesthecurl.
I suggest you read back through the past couple pages, you're mixing discussions.[/quote

I am not mixing up anything I was referring to your reply to jonesy.......

[thegreekdog]

So it's only those 'Christians' who see things differently to you that interpret the Bible (wrongly) because you have been soo blessed to know exactly what it all means,literally and figuratively. I Guess all the legions of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the subject must have mostly been wrong not being lucky enough to be as insightful as you.

This is a provocative comment with no actual basis. If you're trolling, like I presume you are, try harder.
If you're indeed serious, I apologise if that is the impression you have perceived from my comments. I in no way profess to "have all the answers".
Whilst some of the Bible has been contentious and no doubt a tad confusing for some over the correct interpretation/meaning, it generally is pretty straight forward.
For example, when I claim that confessing and being forgiven of sins by a man behind a screen in a booth is not biblical, I can back that up with scriptural evidence, and upon request of evidence that disputes this, get no real response. So by making this claim I'm not professing to be a genius, only to have an apt understanding of general scripture.

To sum up - "The bible doesn't say a man behind a screen can forgive your sins, so it must not be right."

As chang puts it, hahaha ignores 2,000 years of history and theology, nevermind that the Bible is hardly consistent and provides for various "to dos" that I'm relatively certain hahaha doesn't actually do (to be fair, no one else does either). I tend to get these types of anti-Catholic arguments from Christians whose religions are allegedly based only on the Bible. Historically, these religions sprang up mostly for political reasons and the "man behind the screen" quip is an example of this type of thing. A religion based on a literal reading of the Bible cannot possibly exist.

The early Roman church actually persecuted and slaughtered Christians, yet you are saying history should eb the basis of Christianity, not the Holy Scripture pertaining to Christ itself?
When Christ was on earth he made scathing claims against the pharisees of the church, the people who valued tradition and historical law over all else. He declared to them in Mark 7:8-9 “You abandon the commandments of God to follow human traditions.” He added, “You have no trouble rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your own traditions!".
Secondly, catholicism was the first religion to be forged for political reasons, so I'm not sure if you should be throwing these remarks around about other denominations.

Right, right. Rock, church, and all that. I do not doubt that Catholicism is and has been politically motivated. It's an historic fact. But keep in mind that you started this.

Here are some simple questions for you to answer. If you do not abide by these rules, then you are also violating the tenets of the Bible.

(1) Have you ever worked on a Sunday? If so, were you killed (as required by Exodus)?
(2) Do you have any loans? Do you pay interest? See Leviticus.
(3) Do you do any of the following (as prohibited by Leviticus):
(a) Sow your field with more than one seed;
(b) Wear a cloth garment with two kinds of materials;
(c) Eat flesh with blood;
(d) Round off the hair on your temples;
(e) Have a tatoo;
(4) Have you participated in the stoning of adulterers? See Leviticus
(5) Have you had intercourse with a menstrating woman? If so, were you exiled? See Levicitus
(6) Do you tithe 1/10th of what you make to your religion?
(7) Do you allow non-Christians in your house?
(8) And the last one - do you humble yourself such that you grieve and cry? I kind of get that you don't given your username, so...

Sir, I do believe you are the one who claims to base your religion on tradition, and not the teachings of Christ, therefore wouldn't these laws of tradition for the ancient Israelites apply to yourself firstly, if anyone?
The epistles of Paul are very good at explaining the difference between the curse of the Law and the grace of God, and rather than give my own spin (that people seem to become upset about) I suggest you read it itself in it's pure original form.

Okay, you either don't get my point or do not wish to discuss something uncomfortable for you (castigating one religion for not holding 100% to the Bible, while your own religion also does not hold 100% to the Bible). I suspect it's the latter (as that seems to be what happens when I engage in these sorts of discussion with my Christian friends, so let's let it go.

[thegreekdog]

Well, you seem to think that you are better judge of what the bible means, based only on your own cognisance.

You've made this claim multiple times, and when queried about evidence for such a claim, never provide any. I've actually stated the quite opposite of what you're saying.

This is very very easy.
Lots of people, reading the same text as you, don't agree with you.
Who says you're right and they're wrong?

The Bible clearly states how the world, and humans, were created, and it certainly does not say we evolved from apes, and that the universe is the result of random particles and energy colliding. The Bible says that "Christians" who believe otherwise are wrong, not me. So yet again you've made a false claim that I proclaim to be an authority of knowledge without any evidence or quotes to back you up.

The Bible also clearly states that you must stone an adulterer (and the other 10 things I listed for you). And there are plenty more. So, if you don't believe that you should stone an adulterer, based on your logic (directly above here), the Bible says that "Christians" who believe otherwise are wrong. So, you're not a Christian if you're not stoning adultrers to death.

[jonesthecurl]

Um, I don't grant the Bible any authority whatsoever.
I'm not attempting to use it to back up MY position, I am ( I repeat) not a christian. This is after many years of serious consideration (as I've said lots, mostly before you appeared on the scene).
But (once again) the "vast majority" of "Christians" accept evolution.
Go ahead and agrue it with them.

Your whole premise to arguing against me (that you are self-admittedly not even supporting yourself anyway) is that if someone claims something to be true- it must be true, regardless how little logic and rationale it contains. You STILL have not been able to provide me any evidence that the Bible supports evolutionism. Your only support for the Bible teaching evolution is that "because people claim it to be true- it must be true"- regardless of the fact that this claim is completely baseless.

No: my premise to arguing against you is this: your interpretation of the bible is not the same as other peoples' interpretation. I'm not saying that their interpretation is true. But I am most certainly not going to say that your interpretation is true. There have been centuries of study by multitudes of people - some of them extremely clever - on what the bible means. If it was a clear as you say, or if people didn't feel the need to square the bible account with what they observe in the real world, then all these guys would have been wasting their time.

[2dimes]

I got it. I didn't know that. I've sent a text to my mom (she indicated to me in prior years that all tattoos were prohibited by the Catholic Church).

That could be. Most of the things making up my vague understanding of things Roman Catholic are stories from people that are no longer part of it because of some past thing. My buddy who describes himself as non-practicing. And nasty news or historical things. I have met more than one person that was catholic and seemed very pleasant. My mom was raised catholic but in as all town with out a Catholic Church.

The structure causes me concern such as the Pope being elevated, and I have difficulty with much of the perceived cover ups of actions by some clergy.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have not specified any "fundamental problems". It's hard to address an unaddressed problem.
In fact not only have you not mentioned any of these "fundamental problems",

Sure, I have. Go back to page 6 and reread. If you care to answer questions, then we can continue toward the fundamental problems. If you want to delve into tangents, then so be it.

Your "fundamental problems" as specified on page 6 were...

Do you take everything in the Bible literally?

Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally?

And, how old is the Earth?

...actually questions.

*sigh

Problem 1:

I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects arbitrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative.
Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect? (insufficient answer)



Problem 2.

hahaha: I take story X literally!

Do you take everything in the Bible literally? (no answer)
Did God state that everything in the Bible must be taken literally? (no answer)
And, how old is the Earth? (no answer)

Depending on your answers, you may wind up contradicting yourself, thus requiring you to not take the Genesis story literally. There's several other possibilities too, but I think by now you can see the oncoming train wreck with your position.

[puppydog85]

Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?

It's a book of literature. You interpret it like all other such books. God did not give it and say,"here go smell the color 9". Unless you are into deconstruction and all that you pretty much should be on the same page with me.

I'm not really all that into the age of the earth stuff, though I do hold to a young earth position. But I don't see a problem with what you said, could you take another go at it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?

It's a book of literature. You interpret it like all other such books. God did not give it and say,"here go smell the color 9". Unless you are into deconstruction and all that you pretty much should be on the same page with me.

I'm not really all that into the age of the earth stuff, though I do hold to a young earth position. But I don't see a problem with what you said, could you take another go at it?

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?


Why is that question so difficult for these cultists to answer?

[PLAYER57832]

Um, I don't grant the Bible any authority whatsoever.
I'm not attempting to use it to back up MY position, I am ( I repeat) not a christian. This is after many years of serious consideration (as I've said lots, mostly before you appeared on the scene).
But (once again) the "vast majority" of "Christians" accept evolution.
Go ahead and agrue it with them.

Your whole premise to arguing against me (that you are self-admittedly not even supporting yourself anyway) is that if someone claims something to be true- it must be true, regardless how little logic and rationale it contains.

No, be honest, now. His position is that you don't speak for "Christianity" or even the majority of it. Beyond that, the argument is that evolutionary theory agrees with the EVIDENCE that is verified and tested. It has nothing to do with what the majority of people believe, though at some point, when you have 10,000,000 people disagreeing , it behooves you to at least understand the debate. See, the biggest problem with most supposed evolution disputers is that they tend to argue things that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution at all. If you wish to challenge this AGAIN (been brought up more than a few times, with regularity) try visiting one of the several threads already begun. Its not that I, personally mind going over this.. AGAIN, its just that it tends to bore a lot of folks and, well at least reading the previous debates more or less ensures you won't simply repeat what has already been said and refuted many times over.

You STILL have not been able to provide me any evidence that the Bible supports evolutionism. Your only support for the Bible teaching evolution is that "because people claim it to be true- it must be true"- regardless of the fact that this claim is completely baseless.

Jones probably won't bother, because, as he told you, he doesn't consider himself a Christian. I am. I am also a scientist. I am more than happy to answer/address ANY of your challenges, but in another thread, since that is not the topic of this thread. As noted above, you might start with a review of what has already been posted on this subject in the various other evolution versus creationism threads.

To get you started a little, here is a synopsis.

#1 The Bible says that God created the Earth and all, in 6 days. EXCEPT.. the Bible says "days", not "24 hours" or "one revolution of the Earth". The term "day" in Hebrew, like the term day in English, like the terms "evening" and "morning" in both English and Hebrew all can be used to mean a specific time period OR to mean a more general block of time... eg "the evening of his life".. etc. If you bother, you can delve into historical Jewish documents/history and you will find this is pretty consistant. NOTE.. while Christ changed a lot, he did not change the historical Jewish view. Think about that, as you make the claim that this is some kind of fundamental point.. and yes, it WAS one of many long standing debates (how old the Earth might be, etc).

#2. The order, listings of species match the order of appearance seen in the fossil evidence. Ironically, there are HUGE gaps in the Biblical account. No mention at all is made of many species, species just not known to the ancient Jews. No mention at all is made of species that died off, such as the brontosourus, Terradons and other prehistoric flora and fauna. These things like the processes involved in evolution, were not mentioned because they had no meaning to the ancient Jews and no real bearing on whether God created the Earth or not.

#3. Even if you dispute the facts supporting evolution, that doesn't mean its OK to simply add in another theory that fits none of the data known and verified. Christ teaches us truth, not to deny it. People who claim that fossils are all just fakes, that all mention of transition species are fraudulent all flat out lie. Ironically, they often even us scientific criticisms to make the claim that the science is false.

Most people who are Christians, along with most Jews do accept evolution. That is not a biased opinion, unless you insist on using one of the narrow groups definitions of who is and is not a Christian. For me.. I stick with the Bible. Christ said all who believe in me shall not perish, not all who deny evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

Since there's no part in the Bible which states you must take everything literally, then it's up to the reader to separate the literal from the figurative. You chose your standard, and other people will choose their standards. Both sides can use the exact reasoning of your last paragraph and arrive at different conclusions. Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

RE: the question on the age of the Earth. If one takes the Genesis story literally--as well other parts of the Bible literally (in order to calculate some date), then wouldn't one confine oneself to an age of the Earth which can be falsified? I believe so, which in turn opens the Bible to error in this aspect---if taken literally. How does one overcome this problem?

It's a book of literature. You interpret it like all other such books. God did not give it and say,"here go smell the color 9". Unless you are into deconstruction and all that you pretty much should be on the same page with me.

I'm not really all that into the age of the earth stuff, though I do hold to a young earth position. But I don't see a problem with what you said, could you take another go at it?

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?


Why is that question so difficult for these cultists to answer?

For one thing, folks here are not cultists. The definition of a cult isn't just a belief you disagree with, its a group that doesn't let its members think freely, that uses various forms of decietful entrapment. That definition certainly fits some groups that claim to be Christian, but it also fits many other groups, including some supposed atheistic groups.


As for how we know we are correct... well, its belief, not "know", and we come to our beliefs the same way you come to yours. We learn from people around us, observe, listen, feel, and test. We then form ideas of what we believe to be correct based on all that data. The idea that dismissing anything you cannot absolutely prove through measurable means is no more logical or correct than accepting other types of proof.

[thegreekdog]

I got it. I didn't know that. I've sent a text to my mom (she indicated to me in prior years that all tattoos were prohibited by the Catholic Church).

That could be. Most of the things making up my vague understanding of things Roman Catholic are stories from people that are no longer part of it because of some past thing. My buddy who describes himself as non-practicing. And nasty news or historical things. I have met more than one person that was catholic and seemed very pleasant. My mom was raised catholic but in as all town with out a Catholic Church.

The structure causes me concern such as the Pope being elevated, and I have difficulty with much of the perceived cover ups of actions by some clergy.

I suspect my mom just doesn't want me to get a tattoo (she's a eucharistic minister and goes to church almost every day so I don't think she has a vague understanding of the Catholic Church). My wife constantly reminds me of my own vague understand. I didn't go to Catholic school so I didn't get the same theological education that others have received (like my wife). I do want to learn more, but it's difficult given current time constraints. In any event, as you may know, I also have difficult with the cover-ups recently and I do my best to attempt to fix them (although, I think they are being fixed currently - Pope Francis is kicking ass and taking names in that regard).

[2dimes]

Where's Andy? He should be here to say, "Pope Francis is 'not Assisi'!"

[PLAYER57832]

(although, I think they are being fixed currently - Pope Francis is kicking ass and taking names in that regard).

I have to say, even not being Roman Catholic, Pope Francis has amazed me so far. He actually seems to have a clue about how people actually live and the real choices they face, not just esoteric writings and thinking.

[thegreekdog]

(although, I think they are being fixed currently - Pope Francis is kicking ass and taking names in that regard).

I have to say, even not being Roman Catholic, Pope Francis has amazed me so far. He actually seems to have a clue about how people actually live and the real choices they face, not just esoteric writings and thinking.

I agree. He's very popular right now with laypeople (even in the U.S.).

[puppydog85]

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?


Why is that question so difficult for these cultists to answer?

I'm reminded again what a dick you are Ballin. I don't write 10 paragraph answers to questions about the nature of reality on Risk forums. I'm not meaning to give exhaustive answers. The standard I gave is a commonly accepted one, if you don't agree with it then tell why you disagree and I can give more detail. Right now you are like a kid saying, "why?" to everything.

For the record, this is the standard I am saying the Bible should be held to: The same way all literature is interpreted. History is read as historical fact, allegory is read as allegorical fiction, proverbs as proverbial.

Why should you believe me and not the guy who says that a day really means 10 million years? Well, for starters he is arbitrary and inconsistent. But I am not going to list how and why, as I suspect you are not interested in that, all you care about is feeding your ego and jerking people chains.

[BigBallinStalin]

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?


Why is that question so difficult for these cultists to answer?

I'm reminded again what a dick you are Ballin. I don't write 10 paragraph answers to questions about the nature of reality on Risk forums. I'm not meaning to give exhaustive answers. The standard I gave is a commonly accepted one, if you don't agree with it then tell why you disagree and I can give more detail. Right now you are like a kid saying, "why?" to everything.

For the record, this is the standard I am saying the Bible should be held to: The same way all literature is interpreted. History is read as historical fact, allegory is read as allegorical fiction, proverbs as proverbial.

Why should you believe me and not the guy who says that a day really means 10 million years? Well, for starters he is arbitrary and inconsistent. But I am not going to list how and why, as I suspect you are not interested in that, all you care about is feeding your ego and jerking people chains.

Sorry, I'm just getting impatient, and No, I'm not interested in feeding my ego. My self-esteem has been at a sufficient level for years.

All you said was, "people interpret it like all other books of literature."
You confirmed (or seem to have confirmed) that God does not explicitly state: "everything in the Bible must be taken literally."

OKay. So when hahaha reads the Bible, the Genesis becomes literal. When others (like PLAYER) read the Bible, the Genesis story becomes figurative. This is a dilemma because we have contradictory positions here. Both can't be true--in an objective sense. Which is why I ask:

Given this dilemma, how do we know your standard is correct while the standards of others are incorrect?

People interpreting it like literature doesn't resolve the problem of separating the fact from fiction. "How do we know" refers to some process/method for determining/striving toward truth. We already know people engage in some filter/process which separates the two into distinct categories. But an answer to my question would have to explain how person A's process of separation leads to sound conclusions.

(if the conclusion isn't sound, then people like hahaha can't claim that their interpretation is correct/true. They can only say, "I believe that it's true, or I have faith that it's true," but such statements do not make his claims objectively true. They're only 'true' to him (i.e. subjectively)--which brings us to an important point you mentioned:

RE: the underlined, I think that route gets you closer to a better answer. The process depends on the tools employed. The literalists and (basically) the scientist employ different tools of analysis. For example,

We know that people's interpretations are guided by beliefs/theories/analytical frameworks; however, people use different kinds of methods (tools) for different kinds of observations. In some contexts, one set of tools is not sufficient for explaining a phenomenon (e.g. relying only on faith/Bible to defend the Big Flood claim is insufficient; you'd need to stretch into geography and what not to either refute or lend more credence to that claim).

In regard to the literal interpretations of the Bible, faith/belief becomes dominant while any scientific/philosophical approach becomes eschewed. In other scenarios, e.g. 'does hahaha actually exist?' or 'how old is the Earth?', most people lean much more on the sci/phil. approach while eschewing the faith/belief--as a sole crutch.

Another example, the '10 million year' hypothesis is not as arbitrary and inconsistent---as compared to the literal interpretation because (1) the 100% literalists have to admit that everything in the Bible is literal. If not, then they're open to the dilemma of my question (they don't have any objective means for supporting that position). And (2) if God doesn't command that everything must be taken literally, then we must conclude that their own beliefs guide them, thus they lose the appeal to God's authority in their position. In turn, they lose the foundation of Truth which stems from God. All they should be saying is, "I don't know, or I have faith that my interpretation is correct," but the dilemma isn't overcome because that stance implies that others' must be false.

The literal stance doesn't make sense unless one demonstrates that their method of interpretation produces true knowledge (hence my question, which no one can really overcome because the tools employed are distinct from the tools of science/philosophy). Recall how crispybits kept going on about how one groups plays basketball and the religious (especially the fundamentalists/literalists) want to play baseball. The baseballers bring their tools and rules into the game of basketball, and the b-ballers all look at them as if they're mad (for good reason).

[Gillipig]

I suppose if you love something to an extreme extent you start hating anything that threatens or goes against it. So maybe the problem is their love? Is there ever hate without love?

[BigBallinStalin]

For the record, this is the standard I am saying the Bible should be held to: The same way all literature is interpreted. History is read as historical fact, allegory is read as allegorical fiction, proverbs as proverbial.

History is interpreted through various lenses, i.e. theory/methodology. By applying different theories, you get different 'facts' of history; therefore, this standard of yours doesn't overcome the dilemma.

By applying different methodologies to the Bible, you'll get different conclusions. For example, if group A applies logic to the Bible, then they discover the oft-mentioned circular reasoning upon which any relevant claims rooted within the Bible are based. If group B applies 'the methodology of faith' to the Bible, then group B 'overcomes' this logical nuisance by insisting on faith (thereby eschewing logic). But from the perspective of those who appeal to logic (Group A, the b-ballers), group B is playing baseball within the rules of basketball.

Therefore, group B's approach--within the realm of logic/philosophy*/science--becomes nonsense (and pretty much any standard of group B's as applied to interpreting the Bible also becomes nonsense---compared to the methodology of group A). Of course, this position doesn't exclude the generation of useful knowledge from the Bible--just as much as it doesn't exclude the generation of useful knowledge from other artifacts like 1984 and The Three Little Pigs.

*Metaphysics is another debate beyond the scope of this post.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[jonesthecurl]

What makes you think that Paul got it right?

[thegreekdog]

There are two incorrect aspects to that one statement.
Firstly, as I've already stated to you in another thread, read the epistles of Paul!. You get upset if I give my paraphrased versions of scripture, so read it yourself to understand how Levitical law (which you are quoting) applies to us as Christians today. I assume you have no issue with "wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Secondly, you have stated that a condition of being a Christian is keeping the law (on the premise that stoning adulterers to death is still a valid law), which is not correct, in fact I would argue the opposition. Being a Christian is relying on Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross to cover your sins, ie. to cover your failure to keep the law. If you are trying to be found just, by means of the law, you have been separated from Christ (Galatians 5:4).

You seem to be confusing the term "incorrect" with the term "interpretation." What you've done here, in the post above, is interpret the Bible. You've taken one portion of the Bible (Leviticus) and interpreted it in the context of another portion of the Bible. So, my post is not incorrect. Rather, Levitical law must be interpreted in the context of another portion of the Bible and therefore cannot be read literally (it has to be interpreted). Yes, I'm being purposefully repetitive.

And there are two problems with you admitting that Christians (no matter the denomination) must interpret the Bible. First, it undercuts your premise for why your brand of Christianity is better than, for example, Catholicism (when the main argument against Catholicism is "you guys don't do what the Bible says"). Second, it undercuts your premise that some parts of the Bible are truths while some must be interpreted (incidentally, determining which parts of the Bible are truths and which must be read in context is, itself, an interpretation). So, you can say "Yeah, but Leviticus needs to be read in context and not literally given Paul and Galatians and etc." but it makes you look silly when you then say, "And Genesis needs to be read literally." You can read jones' question, for example. Why is Paul right and Leviticus wrong? And is that not an interpretation? And if it is an interpretation, how can you call yourself a true Christian?

EDIT - My purpose in this thread is not to denigrate your religion so don't take it that way. My purpose is to get you to stop denigrating my religion under the premise of "Catholics don't follow the teachings of the Bible." There are other things you can denigrate about my religion, but when you use that premise you're being unbelievably hypocritical.

[2dimes]

Well Greek, I'm at least honest about the fact that I cling to the Doc Holliday quote from Tombstone.

My hypocrisy knows no bounds.

That is a confession not an accusation. In case anyone is feeling in touch with it or hoping I was directing it at them.

I disagree with your idea that Levitical law much be interpreted. I believe it must be replaced. Upgraded in fact.

Love is a temple of a higher law.

Not the reformed Pharisee guy who changed his name from Saul, the Catholic one that changed his name from Paul. He sings his statement.

Trying to follow the levitical laws and interpret them to decide on important things such as, "Do I eat this? Should we throw rocks at 2dimes for being married, drinking single malt and lusting after that hot milf and her daughter? Is it ok to shoot this fag to save fetuses?" Can only lead to trouble.

Plus the Romans tore down the building needed to follow much of it to get the gold used in it's construction, for those of us who believe it was not just figurative. Of course I will not be allowed near it if they build a new one.

[thegreekdog]

Well Greek, I'm at least honest about the fact that I cling to the Doc Holliday quote from Tombstone.

My hypocrisy knows no bounds.

That is a confession not an accusation. In case anyone is feeling in touch with it or hoping I was directing it at them.

I disagree with your idea that Levitical law much be interpreted. I believe it must be replaced. Upgraded in fact.

Love is a temple of a higher law.

Not the reformed Pharisee guy who changed his name from Saul, the Catholic one that changed his name from Paul. He sings his statement.

Trying to follow the levitical laws and interpret them to decide on important things such as, "Do I eat this? Should we throw rocks at 2dimes for being married, drinking single malt and lusting after that hot milf and her daughter? Is it ok to shoot this fag to save fetuses?" Can only lead to trouble.

Plus the Romans tore down the building needed to follow much of it to get the gold used in it's construction, for those of us who believe it was not just figurative. Of course I will not be allowed near it if they build a new one.

And I agree with that. I think you're still missing my point, but that's okay. I'll try again. The Catholic Church has interpreted the Bible and has (albeit slowly in some cases) tried to fit its teachings to fit daily life, while, at the same time, retaining the major tenets of the Bible (e.g. love one another as I have loved you). I take some umbrage with the criticism by other Christian faiths of the Catholic Church for doing this, especially given, as you described, the inconsistencies within the Bible itself. It's hard to for hahaha3hahaha criticize Catholics for not following the Bible when he can also not follow the Bible. Much more intelligent people than you and me, associated with the Catholic Church throughout the centuries, have critiqued, interpreted, and explained the Bible and the religion to a point I'm comfortable with.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[2dimes]

I think you're still missing my point, but that's okay.

Probably.

I'll try again. The Catholic Church has interpreted the Bible and has (albeit slowly in some cases) tried to fit its teachings to fit daily life, while, at the same time, retaining the major tenets of the Bible (e.g. love one another as I have loved you).

I often miss my own point which is. After Yahushua came we no longer need a human priest between us and God. He is still doing that job. It's covered in a verse the Latter Day Saints use to try to claim one of their two priest hoods.

I take some umbrage with the criticism by other Christian faiths of the Catholic Church for doing this, especially given, as you described, the inconsistencies within the Bible itself. It's hard to for hahaha3hahaha criticize Catholics for not following the Bible when he can also not follow the Bible.

I should not speak for him but I find it pretty easy. My wife and her Church of England friends seem to be good at it. I can't help but say. "You guys are just Catholic light."

Much more intelligent people than you and me, associated with the Catholic Church throughout the centuries, have critiqued, interpreted, and explained the Bible and the religion to a point I'm comfortable with.

Many people that seemed much more intelligent than us were not really. 1 Corinthians 1:18-20