Zone1 If Jesus Was A Jew

[ding]

You do not accept that Gd has more demanding laws for Jews, just as I do not accept that Jesus was Gd’s son and that those who don’t believe that don’t get to Heaven.

Different religions have different teachings.

Do you believe that moral standards can be anything man says they are?

 

[irosie91]

That makes me sad because the battle between subjectivity and objectivity is at the heart of every major religion.

the outcomes of the battles vary GREATLY

 

[ding]

my all time fave teaching is ding's-----ETERNAL HELLFIRE FOR
SIMPLE LACK OF "BELIEF"----some "our father...."

Now you are making stuff up.

Link or it didn't happen.

 

[irosie91]

Do you believe that moral standards can be anything man says they are?

I believe that you do not have the UNIVERSAL STANDARD

 

[ding]

the outcomes of the battles vary GREATLY

Sure, so what? Doesn't change the fact that there is reality and perception of reality but only reality is the way it is.

 

[irosie91]

Now you are making stuff up.

Link or it didn't happen.

you are being idiotic OR denying jelly bean school

 

[ding]

I believe that you do not have the UNIVERSAL STANDARD

For any given thing there will be a standard. So lots and lots of standards. Which universal standard are you talking about?

 

[irosie91]

Sure, so what? Doesn't change the fact that there is reality and perception of reality but only reality is the way it is.

see CHAOS THEORY

 

[irosie91]

For any given thing there will be a standard. So lots and lots of standards. Which universal standard are you talking about?

any given "thing" ROFLMAO

 

[ding]

you are being idiotic OR denying jelly bean school

I think you got that the other way around. I have no idea what eternal hellfire for lack of belief you are talking about. Furthermore, I don't think you understand what Catholics believe about heaven, hell or even sin.

So no, that's not me and no, I'm not denying what you so affectionately refer to as jelly bean school. Which seems to me like you are trying to be insulting.

 

[ding]

see CHAOS THEORY

Don't need to. I am chaos. But do feel free to elaborate and share your wisdom on that subject and how it pertains to this discussion.

 

[irosie91]

Don't need to. I am chaos. But do feel free to elaborate and share your wisdom on that subject and how it pertains to this discussion.

the operative word is CHAOS

 

[ding]

any given "thing" ROFLMAO

Sure. Any given thing. In fact, I will go so far as to say that for everything you do you should strive to meet the highest standard. Let's show God how appreciative you are for the gift he gave you.

 

[ding]

the operative word is CHAOS

I got that. Can I just shout out words without any reasoning or logic behind it?

I'll see your chaos and raise you farfegnugen.

 

[irosie91]

I think you got that the other way around. I have no idea what eternal hellfire for lack of belief you are talking about. Furthermore, I don't think you understand what Catholics believe about heaven, hell or even sin.

So no, that's not me and no, I'm not denying what you so affectionately refer to as jelly bean school. Which seems to me like you are trying to be insulting.

See the book THE DIVINE COMEDY----for something contemporary---
go to a medical library and seek out 'ethical guides for catholic nurses' ---

 

[ding]

Here's what the Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 says:


Now, in Hebrew, the phrase "lyings of" can refer to somebody's bed. So the passage basically reads "you shall not lie with a man on the bed of a woman." Bruce Wells (University of Texas at Austin) interprets this as meaning that “Sex with married men, therefore, would be forbidden as well as sex with any males who are under the guardianship of a woman within the community.” Jan Joosten (formerly of Oxford University, removed following criminal conviction) concurs, arguing that the Biblical laws “prohibit homosexual intercourse involving a married man.”

A scholarly report from the Wijngaards Institute, the authors of which includes some of the most prominent OT scholars working today (such as Mark Smith), argues that “[the] traditional interpretation as condemning all male same-sex sexual activity is based on a mistranslation which is no longer tenable. Rather, the prohibition is limited to a specific type of male same-sex relationship.” The authors then note that “the fact that the prohibition addressed a specific type of male same-sex relationship suggests that same-sex intercourse with males outside the forbidden category was viewed as permissible.”

In addition, the report states that the homophobic interpretation “can only be reached by changing that original text considerably: it does so by adding the comparative particle ‘as’, and ‘with’, both words which are absent from the Hebrew, as well as by choosing to ignore the key expression ‘lyings-of.’”

Maybe try reading that verse in the context of the other commands against improper sexual relations that surround that verse in the passage?

 

[ding]

it is my learned impression that he buys into the "salvation" thing

Why don't you walk me through that belief and I'll tell you what I agree with and disagree with. Because your batting average isn't very good and you need to be fact checked.

Isn't is still wrong to bear false witness against your neighbor? Because I'm accusing you of doing that to me. Rather than make faulty assumptions and beat me up over them, why don't you show a little patience and ask me about them first. You can always beat me up later, right? What's the rush?

 

[ding]

"they should be....." is your evidence in jelly-bean school?

No. Logic. I've explained the logic to you at least twice.

 

[irosie91]

Why don't you walk me through that belief and I'll tell you what I agree with and disagree with. Because your batting average isn't very good and you need to be fact checked.

Isn't is still wrong to bear false witness against your neighbor? Because I'm accusing you of doing that to me. Rather than make faulty assumptions and beat me up over them, why don't you show a little patience and ask me about them first. You can always beat me up later, right? What's the rush?

"salvation thing" is self-explanatory

 

[ding]

jelly-bean "beliefs"

SMH