Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:17 pm

edit. Quoted by accident.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:54 pm

vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Worse than a protestant...unable to understand a metaphor...

go on! back to GCSE English

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:58 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Worse than a protestant...unable to understand a metaphor...

go on! back to GCSE English:D

It wasn't a metaphor...

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:10 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Worse than a protestant...unable to understand a metaphor...

go on! back to GCSE English:D

It wasn't a metaphor...

"My Kingdom is not of this Earth"- i.e the Kingdom of Judah takes on metaphorical significance

Its like that great hymn puts it

"And there's another Kingdom heard of long ago...
We may not count her armies,
We may not see her King,
but soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase"

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:11 pm

Guiscard wrote:It wasn't a metaphor...

Of course it is!

You see THIS part of the bible? It's 100% Truth from GAWD!!

Now THIS part over here? That's metaphor. And THIS part over here? They didn't really mean it the way it was written...a preacher can explain what it really means.

Hold on...the church just changed there mind again...reverse what I said.

Such silly bullshit.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:16 pm

Backglass wrote:
Guiscard wrote:It wasn't a metaphor...

Of course it is!

You see THIS part of the bible? It's 100% Truth from GAWD!!

Now THIS part over here? That's metaphor. And THIS part over here? They didn't really mean it the way it was written...a preacher can explain what it really means.

Hold on...the church just changed there mind again...reverse what I said.

Such silly bullshit.

Well...I think you'll find literary analysis is slightly more profound than "bullshit". I mean you do need to realise that a text written over about 1500 years, from 60+ different authors, in 3 different languages, is going to have some cultural and historical context to understand.

Besides, thats why Im Roman Catholic, you need to have an authoritative consensus on what passages mean.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:29 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well...I think you'll find literary analysis is slightly more profound than "bullshit". I mean you do need to realise that a text written over about 1500 years, from 60+ different authors, in 3 different languages, is going to have some cultural and historical context to understand.

This is my point. 1500 years, 60 authors, 3 languages...YET, ZERO errors, mis-truths, lies, fabrications or fairy tales?

I think not. It is a house of cards.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:35 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Worse than a protestant...unable to understand a metaphor...

go on! back to GCSE English:D

It wasn't a metaphor...

"My Kingdom is not of this Earth"- i.e the Kingdom of Judah takes on metaphorical significance

Its like that great hymn puts it

"And there's another Kingdom heard of long ago...
We may not count her armies,
We may not see her King,
but soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase"

He was discussing the Jewish Messianic prophecy.

Perhaps reply a little more in context next time?

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:38 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Another prophecy of the Messiah was that he would be a military leader, but he never did anything remotely military.

That's why the second coming was thought up, since that way Jesus could come back and fulfill the remaining parts of prophecy that he didn't get done the first time 'round.

Worse than a protestant...unable to understand a metaphor...

go on! back to GCSE English:D

It wasn't a metaphor...

"My Kingdom is not of this Earth"- i.e the Kingdom of Judah takes on metaphorical significance

Its like that great hymn puts it

"And there's another Kingdom heard of long ago...
We may not count her armies,
We may not see her King,
but soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase"

He was discussing the Jewish Messianic prophecy.

Perhaps reply a little more in context next time?

What could me more contextual than an explanation of why the conceptions of a physical Kingdom to be established militarily by a Messiah were wrong quoting the actual Messiah and one of the greatest hymns dedicated to him?

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:41 pm

Backglass wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Well...I think you'll find literary analysis is slightly more profound than "bullshit". I mean you do need to realise that a text written over about 1500 years, from 60+ different authors, in 3 different languages, is going to have some cultural and historical context to understand.

This is my point. 1500 years, 60 authors, 3 languages...YET, ZERO errors, mis-truths, lies, fabrications or fairy tales?

I think not. It is a house of cards.

There are errors in the Bible. It isnt that obvious, but you must make room for scribes making errors etc

Ill be honest, I do believe the Bible is 100% true, but I dont really see that as base enough for arguments unless against other Christians in very specific circumstances.Why I reject the concept of sla scriptura, our powers of reasoning and prayer (effectively just thinking about God) are primary tools for Theological questions. But that is the intrinsic Orwellian nature of the protestant heresy

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:35 pm

Heresy? Want to burn the fuckers? You are so full of yourself - you think you right

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:43 pm

unriggable wrote:Heresy? Want to burn the fuckers? You are so full of yourself - you think you right

No I dont want to burn them you're caricaturing immaturely. Stop squealing about how Christians are all evil Nazis who burn and torture, and for a change, read up on some basic Theology.

Yes, I do believe I am right -
You mean you have never with conviction believed you are right?

Iam merel stating that protestant denominations are by nature heretical and often flawed in their donctrinal and thelogical message.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:28 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Yes, I do believe I am right -
You mean you have never with conviction believed you are right?

Only when I had strong evidence to back up my opinions, a book that's a few thousand years old does not count, sorry, neither do feeble attempts at poking holes in scientific theories.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:52 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Well...I think you'll find literary analysis is slightly more profound than "bullshit". I mean you do need to realise that a text written over about 1500 years, from 60+ different authors, in 3 different languages, is going to have some cultural and historical context to understand.

Besides, thats why Im Roman Catholic, you need to have an authoritative consensus on what passages mean.

But when it comes to gays marrying it's speaking the truth obviously, because that clearly didn't have any cultural or historical background.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:54 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Yes, I do believe I am right -
You mean you have never with conviction believed you are right?

Only when I had strong evidence to back up my opinions, a book that's a few thousand years old does not count, sorry, neither do feeble attempts at poking holes in scientific theories.

When have I done this here?

When have I used the Bible as evidence for God's existence in any other form than as a historical document(therefore assuming it will have innaccuracies to respond to)?

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:55 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Well...I think you'll find literary analysis is slightly more profound than "bullshit". I mean you do need to realise that a text written over about 1500 years, from 60+ different authors, in 3 different languages, is going to have some cultural and historical context to understand.

Besides, thats why Im Roman Catholic, you need to have an authoritative consensus on what passages mean.

But when it comes to gays marrying it's speaking the truth obviously, because that clearly didn't have any cultural or historical background.

Quoting the Bible blindly to assert homosexuality is an immoral practice does not constitute as evidence by any means, you're entirely right.

As for gay marriage...impossible. Gos must sanction a marriage, to make the bond effective, which can only take place if the partners are of opposite sex, and consensually agree to be faithful to one another, remain together for life and procreate [if possible] and then consumate the marriage (whether this promise is made with belief in God or not, in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque).Outside of this, there can be no marriage.

To make a Priest marry gays is a violation of his human rights to have his own beliefs, and I reckon you probably mean you just want gays to have the samelegal recognition.

You may say, this is your religious marriage, we just mean by that we want gays to have those equal rights. To which I say, I believe they are doing wrong, but so do we all, as sinners, so they may have them except the right to adopt a child, as that is no longer a question of freedom,but of violation of another's rights.

Now please, say what you will, but try and refrain from unfair accustaions that are just unpleasant for me as someone expecting a civilized debate, of the style that "duh...homophobe...pro-family fucker, lunatic" and other
delightful insults I have so far beenvictim of

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:42 pm

Well actually I can marry here with my friend without needing to go to a church, it's called marriage and has the same legal status if we were to go to church afterwards. (A marriage done in a church here is not recognised by the state untill you go to the townhall and tell the authorities.) Are you saying that because it has not been done in a church it's not a marriage? Because marriage is not a religious term, you know.

Also, I did not say anything about forcing priests to marry people.

I'm not arguing about whether they should be allowed to adopt children, as I know you will never agree on that, or at least not in the near future.

I am asking you to consider the option of applying the word marriage to that civil union bs, because marriage is already used by many people who haven't been wedded in the church or received a blessing by god. There is already a clear distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage, so why suddenly change the title just because gays want that civil marriage?

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:44 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:Well actually I can marry here with my friend without needing to go to a church, it's called marriage and has the same legal status if we were to go to church afterwards. (A marriage done in a church here is not recognised by the state untill you go to the townhall and tell the authorities.) Are you saying that because it has not been done in a church it's not a marriage? Because marriage is not a religious term, you know.

Also, I did not say anything about forcing priests to marry people.

I'm not arguing about whether they should be allowed to adopt children, as I know you will never agree on that, or at least not in the near future.

I am asking you to consider the option of applying the word marriage to that civil union bs, because marriage is already used by many people who haven't been wedded in the church or received a blessing by god. There is already a clear distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage, so why suddenly change the title just because gays want that civil marriage?

Indeed. Are those wedded under different religious traditions married? Surely thats just as wrong as homosexuality in that case...

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:46 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:Well actually I can marry here with my friend without needing to go to a church, it's called marriage and has the same legal status if we were to go to church afterwards. (A marriage done in a church here is not recognised by the state untill you go to the townhall and tell the authorities.) Are you saying that because it has not been done in a church it's not a marriage? Because marriage is not a religious term, you know.

Also, I did not say anything about forcing priests to marry people.

I'm not arguing about whether they should be allowed to adopt children, as I know you will never agree on that, or at least not in the near future.

I am asking you to consider the option of applying the word marriage to that civil union bs, because marriage is already used by many people who haven't been wedded in the church or received a blessing by god. There is already a clear distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage, so why suddenly change the title just because gays want that civil marriage?

because in civil marriage under the civil code (in France anyway) leads onto right to adopt.

Otherwise, if it dosent in the Great US of A's Code, fine, have civil "marriage", I dont believe it is one, as outlined, but yeah, knock yourselves out...

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:49 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Indeed. Are those wedded under different religious traditions married? Surely thats just as wrong as homosexuality in that case...

Are you addressing me?

Napoleon Ier wrote:(whether this promise is made with belief in God or not, in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque)

I did make a provision for this case, but Ill admit my post wasnt very graphologically pleasing so youmay have skim read (I dont blame you, after along day im sure all do).

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:because in civil marriage under the civil code (in France anyway) leads onto right to adopt.

Otherwise, if it dosent in the Great US of A's Code, fine, have civil "marriage", I dont believe it is one, as outlined, but yeah, knock yourselves out...

This post seems to indicate you don't believe a civil marriage is a real marriage... :?:

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:59 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Indeed. Are those wedded under different religious traditions married? Surely thats just as wrong as homosexuality in that case...

Are you addressing me?

Napoleon Ier wrote:(whether this promise is made with belief in God or not, in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque)

I did make a provision for this case, but Ill admit my post wasnt very graphologically pleasing so youmay have skim read (I dont blame you, after along day im sure all do).

And Hindus?

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:01 pm

Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:because in civil marriage under the civil code (in France anyway) leads onto right to adopt.

Otherwise, if it dosent in the Great US of A's Code, fine, have civil "marriage", I dont believe it is one, as outlined, but yeah, knock yourselves out...

This post seems to indicate you don't believe a civil marriage is a real marriage...

It isnt.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:02 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:because in civil marriage under the civil code (in France anyway) leads onto right to adopt.

Otherwise, if it dosent in the Great US of A's Code, fine, have civil "marriage", I dont believe it is one, as outlined, but yeah, knock yourselves out...

This post seems to indicate you don't believe a civil marriage is a real marriage...

It isnt.

So basically, my dictionary is false?

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:02 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
Indeed. Are those wedded under different religious traditions married? Surely thats just as wrong as homosexuality in that case...

Are you addressing me?

Napoleon Ier wrote:(whether this promise is made with belief in God or not, in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque)

I did make a provision for this case, but Ill admit my post wasnt very graphologically pleasing so youmay have skim read (I dont blame you, after along day im sure all do).

And Hindus?

yeah, ok, but Im not going to go through every religion in the world,I have better things to do, and my main pointis understood.