2
   

Reverend Phelps and his anti-gay monument

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 04:03 pm
Not everyone is so sure about this Old Covenant/New Covenant idea. See Constantine's Sword by James Carroll for an excellent, though very long, discussion of the divergence of theology amongst the early Christian Jews, the Essene Jews, Pharasitic Jews and the later (100AD) Christians. According to Carroll, Christ's only command, if you can call it that, was for us to love one another, that would indicate the continuation of a single covenant and all the Mosaic Laws contained therein, as you wrote yourself :
Quote:
but Jesus did not personally put a law down in writing. He talked and put his law into the minds and hearts of his disciples. Neither did his disciples set down laws in the form of a code for Christians, classifying the laws into categories and subheadings. Nonetheless, the Christian Greek Scriptures are full of laws, commands, and decrees that the Christian is bound to observe.
They may be bound by them because they follow a particular sect but not because Christ said those things, he only spoke of love and the forgiveness of sin.
I have always found it odd at the depths of hate reached by Christians
who are supposed to be bound first by love of God and one another, but time after time, they fall into fear then anger then hate.
Of course, no one has asked the question : If Leviticus says 'Kill homosexuals' and it does, is it a violation of the commandant 'Thou shalt not kill.' to do so.?

Hey, just passing by.
Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 10:26 am
Frank,

I don't care what you take. I was giving you what I read and what I think is right. So you believe whatever you want. I am not about to argue with you over "what he means" because it gets no where.

Go ahead read into that and say that I don't have the ability to back up what I said. Bully all you want you will not get me to get into this topic that is pointless to began with. No where did I want to start this. Point it out. I am only answering questions that were proposed to me. No more questions that are reasonable to answer. The whole reason was to show, whoever, that I have a reason for my answer to the question on this post. Yawn to this conversation and the ones that want to be right. Go ahead and be right. What is with people always wanting to be right? Complexes I suppose.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 10:32 am
Setanta wrote:
Not at all, your sentence: "May it serve you well, but right now I know it isn't." completely mystifies me. I have no idea what it is that you intend to say with that. And, of course, now you have edited that post, so i would have to deal with revisionism.


Maybe reading isn't your strong point. Possibly not. I wrote, "You keep reading into everything. May it serve you well, but right now I know it isn't." May it serve you well in reading into everything because I know right now it isn't. I edited it to add a sentence but since you find it "so bad" I should feel guilty for doing it. Oh waite I don't.

You have yourself to blame. You chose the bad foot. You get to live with the consequences. (Do not ask me to explain that to you - should you need an explanation maybe you should think more.)
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 10:39 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Of course, no one has asked the question : If Leviticus says 'Kill homosexuals' and it does, is it a violation of the commandant 'Thou shalt not kill.' to do so.?


No. The killing of anyone for any wrong was directed under God and there was a group of Judges set up to determine who was guilty of wrong doing and what punishment was deserving.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 10:57 am
OK, who let the Angry Chimp out of his cage again?

You're turning into quite the blight on the forum, fella.

Why don't you see if you can mount an argument without an ad hominem?
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:19 am
PDiddie wrote:
OK, who let the Angry Chimp out of his cage again?

You're turning into quite the blight on the forum, fella.

Why don't you see if you can mount an argument without an ad hominem?


Lets see if you follow your own advice? Humm?

Quote:
Spelling and punctuation and sentence composition are all a reflection of a person's education and intelligence.

Most people strive to be clear and cogent on a discussion forum such as this.

I don't think people ought to use words that they don't know how to spell. There are several online dictionaries where one can verify spelling and meaning. I use them all the time. Hell, this website has a spellcheck for posting.

It's just an observation on my part that folks on the boards who exhibit some of the same reading, spelling, and comprehension difficulties also tend to agree with Bush that Saddam and al-Qaeda planned 9-11, that WMDs are still waiting to be discovered in Iraq, and that Wal-Mart is a great place to shop for everything one might need.

It could be that they got a nice Wal-Mart-style education -- ubiquitous, woefully inexpensive, served up by overworked and underpaid people and complete with a valueless warranty.


Ooh didn't think so. Yeah my hope for that wasn't much. apparently it paid off. And the italicized word must mean something? What that I didn't know what it meant and you were pointing out how much smarter you are than me because you are boring and read a dictionary? Isn't that, also, going against what you are trying to point out I do?

Lacking in adrenocorticotrophin (noticed not italicized) must be taking its toll on your life. I mean no play makes you a dull boy. I already know about the dull part but had no idea about the play. Aww for you. Maybe. No not really. I guess I can't follow your italicized word.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:25 am
BlueMonkey wrote:
Frank,

I don't care what you take. I was giving you what I read and what I think is right. So you believe whatever you want. I am not about to argue with you over "what he means" because it gets no where.

Go ahead read into that and say that I don't have the ability to back up what I said. Bully all you want you will not get me to get into this topic that is pointless to began with. No where did I want to start this. Point it out. I am only answering questions that were proposed to me. No more questions that are reasonable to answer. The whole reason was to show, whoever, that I have a reason for my answer to the question on this post. Yawn to this conversation and the ones that want to be right. Go ahead and be right.


What the Hell was this all about?

I've re-read my posts -- and all I ever did was to respond to something YOU RAISED. You asked a question -- I answered it. You commented on my answer -- I commented on yours.

And I can tell you that I did it with a hell of a lot more courtesy and reason than your are showing here.

If you did not want to discuss this item -- why did you raise it?

In any case, I pointed out that Jesus disagrees with what you stated -- and then you noted that Paul agrees with you. I have now pointed out the obvious -- if Paul's view agrees with yours and Jesus' view disagrees with yours-- Jesus' view also disagrees with Paul's.

AND IT DOES!

So the question still stands -- should I take your word on this; should I take Paul's word -- or should I go with what Jesus said?

Not that difficult a question.


Quote:
What is with people always wanting to be right? Complexes I suppose.


I don't know for sure. Why don't you check with a mental health professional? In fact, that might be a good move in any case, before you go accusing anyone else of complexes.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:28 am
FOR ALL THE REST OF YOU -- what has happened here is that Monkey has realiized that his/her arguments fall apart with even minor inspection. So rather than acknowledge that he/she was on the wrong track -- and perhaps offer a revised argument -- he/she is sulking.

Don't judge him/her too harshly.

Probably a kid.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:28 am
ad hominem is Latin.

It means you're a bleeding rectum.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:38 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
What the Hell was this all about?


Misdirection. Not all of it was for you. Did not separate it. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:39 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
FOR ALL THE REST OF YOU -- what has happened here is that Monkey has realiized that his/her arguments fall apart with even minor inspection. So rather than acknowledge that he/she was on the wrong track -- and perhaps offer a revised argument -- he/she is sulking.

Don't judge him/her too harshly.

Probably a kid.


Reason #1 for not discussing religion on posting sites.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:42 am
PDiddie wrote:
ad hominem is Latin.

It means you're a bleeding rectum.


Yeah okay.

(argument) ad hominem - an argument directed to the personality, prejudices, previous words and actions etc. of an opponent, rather than an appeal to pure reason.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:45 am
Glad you found your dictionary.

See? It's not so boring after all.

Do you suppose you can find an improved attitude in there?
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:49 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
FOR ALL THE REST OF YOU -- what has happened here is that Monkey has realiized that his/her arguments fall apart with even minor inspection. So rather than acknowledge that he/she was on the wrong track -- and perhaps offer a revised argument -- he/she is sulking.


No need for a revised argument. We don't agree and that is all there is to it. With that in mind - we can agree to disagree. You believe Jesus meant one thing and I believe he meant another. I do not want to get into an argument over who is right because it will not be a fight worth fighting. I told you what I believed enough to make my first post on this question within reason of what I believe. If that makes you ruffle your tail feathers then oh well.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:52 am
PDiddie wrote:
Glad you found your dictionary.

See? It's not so boring after all.

Do you suppose you can find an improved attitude in there?


My "attitude" comes from you. Thank yourself for what you receive. Because if you hadn't started it, it would not have started.

I have dictionaries. I don't read them. I use them, not read them like a book. And yes it is still boring.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 11:58 am
BlueMonkey wrote:
I have dictionaries. I don't read them. I use them, not read them like a book. And yes it is still boring.


I weep for your easily quenchable thirst for knowledge.

Crocodile tears.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 12:03 pm
BlueMonkey wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
FOR ALL THE REST OF YOU -- what has happened here is that Monkey has realiized that his/her arguments fall apart with even minor inspection. So rather than acknowledge that he/she was on the wrong track -- and perhaps offer a revised argument -- he/she is sulking.


No need for a revised argument. We don't agree and that is all there is to it. With that in mind - we can agree to disagree. You believe Jesus meant one thing and I believe he meant another. I do not want to get into an argument over who is right because it will not be a fight worth fighting. I told you what I believed enough to make my first post on this question within reason of what I believe. If that makes you ruffle your tail feathers then oh well.


Okay...we'll agree to disagree -- and I will see that my tail feathers get preened back to their usual position.

Hopefully we'll talk on another subject in another thread. :wink:
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 12:05 pm
Frank,

Thank you.
0 Replies
 
BlueMonkey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 12:06 pm
PDiddie wrote:
I weep for your easily quenchable thirst for knowledge.

Crocodile tears.


Thank you for no sympathy. Don't need it. But I will give you props for a funny statement of fact.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2004 07:14 pm
Hey this example of the worst of the "Taliban Wing" of the GOP may have put my neck of the woods on his "Hit List"

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1075545106213380.xml
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 03:51:18