1
   

How long will christians take this???

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 03:50 pm
I swear to Dog, KatefortheallegedChrist is looney--Maccoby constantly refers to scripture in his article, chapter and verse.

He told you what source he used, did you need to have him spell it out for you--well, he did that, too:

Quote:
Let us first survey the evidence found in the more obvious and well-known sources. It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called 'Saul', and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3). Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, even when he is at his most autobiographical. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5). It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus from Jerusalem, the powerhouse of Pharisaism. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by.


That is just one paragraph for an example. I cannot believe that you actually claim that he has not quoted scripture.

It's really hard, you know, to debate someone who makes patently false statements which anyone can see through.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:03 pm
You can swear to as many mutts as you want, but it will do no good. Maccoby, not once gives scripture referece to back up any of his claims that i listed contradicted the bible. This has been what the whole debate has been about. Go back and read one of my previous posts, where i gave scripture to disprove the claims maccoby makes about paul and christian teachings.......and you still havent acknowledged my defense of your blatant accusation that i complain when given scripture by posters in here.

Quote:
It's really hard, you know, to debate someone who makes patently false statements which anyone can see through.


Yes, Indeed it is.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:16 pm
oh and setanta...since i've finally graced the ranks of others you deemed "worthy" Very Happy of name change, come up with something a little cooler for me if you don't mind... katefortheallegedChrist is just too wordy........ :wink:
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:45 pm
Eorl wrote:
To be fair, I doubt timber's departure is related to these guys returning. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.


Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but short of paranormal activity which I most certainly would not ascribe it to, timber's passing had nothing to do with their return. Both Kate and Arella had already returned to A2K before the announcement.

Length of stay may be affected however unless it is coincidence that Kate's departure last September was on the day following this post from timber.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:59 pm
mesquite you must really have nothing better to do than make silly assumptions which you are starting to realize are incorrect.......i haven't been on in months because we were in the process of moving and since then, have been very busy. Sorry my life doesn't revolve around this forum....lol...and anyone can read that last post and see i apologized for jumping to conclusions.....Im not so prideful that i can't realize there are times i've put my foot in my mouth, and then had to gracefully(lol) extract it.....

Maybe you could learn a bit from my past mistake.....
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:39 pm
Kate, you responded to that post with this, made one more post on another thread and then vacated the site for six months. When you returned it was in conjunction with Arella's return, also after a long absence. If you say you didn't leave in a huff, but for other reasons, that is fine with me.

kate4christ03 wrote:
nah timber no further move on my part.......
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:55 pm
Quote:
If you say you didn't leave in a huff, but for other reasons, that is fine with me.


then why keep harping on it? You used a death of a decent person to make silly baseless assumptions.Why keep going? Realize you put your foot in your mouth, jumped to conclusions and just be a Man about it and let it go.......This is getting really tedious...
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:12 pm
Kate,

You are a real piece of work.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:46 pm
Quote:
You are a real piece of work


I was just thinking the same about you. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:34 am
echi wrote:
No contradictions? That's because every bit of the Bible requires interpretation. You choose to read it very creatively, which allows you to avoid any contradictions.


Shocked You have a different way to interpret "thou shalt not steal" than I do? You have a different interpretation of "love one another" than I do? Fascinating. Please tell me more! Laughing

Echi! How have you been? Long time no see!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:41 am
Hmmm, you know, right about now, I think Timber would either have posted the picture of that balloon being over-inflated or the picture of the heavy equipment stuck in the mud. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 11:00 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 11:09 am
echi wrote:
Arella Mae wrote:
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

No contradictions? That's because every bit of the Bible requires interpretation.


Well, so does the Constitution and a host of other documents. But what's your point? One need not read it 'creatively' to realize it does take interpretation. Very Happy

BTW good to hear from you again echi.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 11:35 am
Arella Mae wrote:
Hmmm, you know, right about now, I think Timber would either have posted the picture of that balloon being over-inflated or the picture of the heavy equipment stuck in the mud. Laughing


We all miss Timber. If he disagreed with my post, he would write "Straw man and red herring, Wande." Smile
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 11:53 am
wandeljw wrote:
We all miss Timber. If he disagreed with my post, he would write "Straw man and red herring, Wande." Smile


I hear you. He used to try so hard to get me to understand some of the rules of debate. It took me a long time to grasp onto some of the simplest ideas of it, but you know, he was pretty patient with me. He'd be a bit tough at times, but it just gave me more resolve to learn what he was trying to tell me.
0 Replies
 
kate4christ03
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 01:20 pm
Quote:
Hmmm, you know, right about now, I think Timber would either have posted the picture of that balloon being over-inflated or the picture of the heavy equipment stuck in the mud.


the tractor stuck in the mud is my favorite. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 02:08 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
echi wrote:
No contradictions? That's because every bit of the Bible requires interpretation. You choose to read it very creatively, which allows you to avoid any contradictions.


Shocked You have a different way to interpret "thou shalt not steal" than I do? You have a different interpretation of "love one another" than I do? Fascinating. Please tell me more! Laughing

Echi! How have you been? Long time no see!


Two verses down, thousands to go. What about laying in bed with man as man lays with woman? A tad ambiguous. So I can lay in bed with man but not in the "way" a man lays with woman. What way is that?

Before you answer. I understand what this verse is generally taken to mean, having said that, it still requires a interpretation. If the Bible was meant to be read as literal is would have used less poetic phrasing throughout. If it was meant to be literal, it would read like VCR programming intructions.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 02:46 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Arella Mae wrote:
echi wrote:
No contradictions? That's because every bit of the Bible requires interpretation. You choose to read it very creatively, which allows you to avoid any contradictions.


Shocked You have a different way to interpret "thou shalt not steal" than I do? You have a different interpretation of "love one another" than I do? Fascinating. Please tell me more! Laughing

Echi! How have you been? Long time no see!


Two verses down, thousands to go. What about laying in bed with man as man lays with woman? A tad ambiguous. So I can lay in bed with man but not in the "way" a man lays with woman. What way is that?

Before you answer. I understand what this verse is generally taken to mean, having said that, it still requires a interpretation. If the Bible was meant to be read as literal is would have used less poetic phrasing throughout. If it was meant to be literal, it would read like VCR programming intructions.


That verse you quoted is in the old testament. Jesus wiped all of those old rules out. That is why women are no longer second class citizens, you can work on Sunday, and meat is allowed on Friday.

I wonder why the verse you picked is still used as justification for the second class citizenship of homosexuals, but versus that harm women are 'thrown out'.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:20 pm
For all the imaginary friend lovers here who are dancing around the topic of contradictions in scripture, you might find this thread started by a new member to be interesting. Then again, you might not find it interesting--you might not want to discuss the topic. This member has quite a long list of alleged contradictions. Since it appears to be a copy and paste job, i have asked that member to give his (her?) source.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:26 pm
maporsche wrote:
Two verses down, thousands to go. What about laying in bed with man as man lays with woman? A tad ambiguous. So I can lay in bed with man but not in the "way" a man lays with woman. What way is that?

Before you answer. I understand what this verse is generally taken to mean, having said that, it still requires a interpretation. If the Bible was meant to be read as literal is would have used less poetic phrasing throughout. If it was meant to be literal, it would read like VCR programming intructions.

That verse you quoted is in the old testament. Jesus wiped all of those old rules out. That is why women are no longer second class citizens, you can work on Sunday, and meat is allowed on Friday.

I wonder why the verse you picked is still used as justification for the second class citizenship of homosexuals, but versus that harm women are 'thrown out'.


Nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. They are still applicable. God never did away with the commandment of do not steal did He? Nope.

Secondly, Jesus gave us two commandments:

1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and;

2) Love one another as God loves us.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 11:27:57