Christian hate group put this through my door yesterday

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[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.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

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.

I'm not trolling.You just don't seem to see how claiming 'an apt understanding of scripture'.is anything but humble,considering the mountains of words devoted to it by thousands of 'experts',and the diversity of opinion thus produced.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

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.

I'm not trolling.You just don't seem to see how claiming 'an apt understanding of scripture'.is anything but humble,considering the mountains of words devoted to it by thousands of 'experts',and the diversity of opinion thus produced.

Then I do apologize, I did not mean to give off that impression. Again, as I've already stated, I do not pretend like I know all the answers, but there are certain undeniable truths found in Christ's teachings that are not "subject to interpretation"- and I believe these are the ones I have been stating, separate to my own opinions and interpretations.
At the moment you generalizing, and are being careful not to mention anything specific. Would you like to specify what matter you're referring to when you speak of diverse interpretations?

As an atheist I don't believe any of them,you could choose any doctrinal difference,the point is there are so many not the details of whether you consider them correct or not,and all as fiercely held as yours.

[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...

[AndyDufresne]

(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...

TGD, wins.


--Andy

[2dimes]

We've all stoned various sinners I hope, it's one of the things that separates us from other species.

If you're a pharisee like myself I hope you re-read a couple of the laws Greek. You can get a tattoo there is just restrictions regarding why.

[thegreekdog]

We've all stoned various sinners I hope, it's one of the things that separates us from other species.

If you're a pharisee like myself I hope you re-read a couple of the laws Greek. You can get a tattoo there is just restrictions regarding why.

I put more faith in people that are smarter than me and came before me. If Francis of Assisi says the Bible says to get a tattoo, I'm going to trust him over a CC user or a religion that was formed in 1982.

[2dimes]

You could always get a tattoo even if you are circumcised. Just treat my posts like the bible it's self, ignore what I actually wrote.

Just consult with Frac about what I'm trying to say, what's his opinion on Avatars?

[BigBallinStalin]

"What about the Genesis story?" Well, it's meant to be taken figuratively--not literally.

What gives you that impression? I'm interested to here your theory on why creation is figurative and not literal.

I'm not here to defend that argument; I'm simply explaining how Christians and particular sects aribtrarily behave by flipping between the literal and the figurative. It's a fact that it occurs, and that's the relevant point here. So,...

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?

[thegreekdog]

You could always get a tattoo even if you are circumcised. Just treat my posts like the bible it's self, ignore what I actually wrote.

Just consult with Frac about what I'm trying to say, what's his opinion on Avatars?

He's pro Star Wars (thankfully).

[2dimes]

Could I get a reference to the grieve and cry business, plox?

[thegreekdog]

Could I get a reference to the grieve and cry business, plox?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... cepts.html

James.

[2dimes]

Ok James, thanks I guess. So you like to read a guy's website that explains how the bible is balogna, sexy. I might take a browse later.

For now though, could you narrow it down to anything close to answering my question? I'm ok if you won't, I foolishly thought you could.

[thegreekdog]

Ok James, thanks I guess. So you like to read a guy's website that explains how the bible is balogna, sexy. I might take a browse later.

For now though, could you narrow it down to anything close to answering my question? I'm ok if you won't, I foolishly thought you could.

What questions are you asking? I think I missed it. I thought you were being funny with the tattoo and pharisees references.

The crying reference is from James (i.e. James in the Bible).

[2dimes]

The tattoo statements do not seem funny on my end but thank you. The law regarding tattoos is quite specific. Sorry about giving you a hard time here but you are being held to a higher standard because of some posts you have made. If you were crummy at catholic apologetics I would have left you alone already. It's healthy for me to learn why you would be a member

I would like to read the part of the Bible about grieving and crying.

[thegreekdog]

The tattoo statements do not seem funny on my end but thank you. The law regarding tattoos is quite specific. Sorry about giving you a hard time here but you are being held to a higher standard because of some posts you have made. If you were crummy at catholic apologetics I would have left you alone already. It's healthy for me to learn why you would be a member

I would like to read the part of the Bible about grieving and crying.

I'm still not sure what you're driving at here. Are you taking umbrage with my being religious (and/or specifically Catholic)? Are you taking umbrage with my critique of hahaha3hahaha? Are you taking umbrage with my pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible? Are you taking umbrage with my pointing out that people who allegedly only do what the Bible says don't actually only do what the Bible says?

Perhaps helpful chronology:
- Someone (chang/Lootifer) says the pope believes in evolution.
- I support the above in a post (because the pope and the Catholic church is supportive of evolution).
- hahaha3hahaha takes a shot at Catholics.
- I take a shot at hahaha3hahaha's religion.
- Thereafter we (hahaha3hahaha and I) engage in witty repartee.

[2dimes]

I'm not taking umbrage, I'm trying to get you to direct me to the verse about "grieving and crying." I'm not letting up because I hope you can do it eventually.

I originally started corresponding with you in here because the Tattoo thing did not fit with the rest of your post to hahaha3hahaha. The law does not forbid tattoos there was just restrictions on why.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not taking umbrage, I'm trying to get you to direct me to the verse about "grieving and crying." I'm not letting up because I hope you can do it eventually.

I originally started corresponding with you in here because the Tattoo thing did not fit with the rest of your post to hahaha3hahaha. The law does not forbid tattoos there was just restrictions on why.

What law? Catholic canon? I'm not familiar enough with Catholic canon to determine whether a tattoo is permissible or not. I've never been interested in getting one.

The crying reference is, as follows, from James 4:7-10:

9. Be afflicated, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.

It's from the King James Bible so not Catholic? Is that what you're getting at?

In related news, did you get what I'm trying to impart to hahaha3hahaha? I'm not entirely sure that you do (and that disturbs me a little).

[2dimes]

Thanks. Again I'm not getting at anything. I want to read it. You'd have to buy me a beverage to get me to talk about it.

It believe you're trying to impart James 2:10. Obviously we're not able to communicate though because text is subject to such extreme filters.

[2dimes]

What law?

Levitical.

[rishaed]

What law?

Levitical.

In which it states roughly paraphrased that in terms of grieving (as for the dead) you were not supposed to mark, cut, and (insert something else I can't remember) yourself because of the dead.

[2dimes]

In which it states roughly paraphrased that in terms of grieving (as for the dead) you were not supposed to mark, cut, and (insert something else I can't remember) yourself because of the dead.

Check out the big brain on Brad.

So yeah. You could get a tattoo just not an "In memory of dead person." one.