03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo spell it out for you (obviously the school system over there is lacking), I was comparing what you said to an equally stupid statement by a similarly ignorant man here in the US.
well if you never meant me why are you addressing posts to me about the second amendment? are you in your senses?
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by vistesdI have heard this kind of thing before, avalanchethecat attempted to argue that Paul was referring not specifically to homosexuality but to fertility rites, you have argued that the mandates and prohibitions were specific to a particular strata of ancient Israel, which is fine, but we are Christians, we are under the impression that a Jew is a spiritual entity, circumcision is one of the heart, Israel is not natural but spiritual. The provisos that you have detailed have little impact on our understanding as a consequence.
Thought as much—but it was a much a mitzvah for me to make the argument, as it is for you.
As I noted, I have generally “renounced” arguing the NT (in either the Greek or in translation) with Christians—on this side or that one; it is simply no longer my place.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am aware of our differences of perspective there; didn’t know that avalanche had made the argument.
I have heard this kind of thing before, avalanchethecat attempted to argue that Paul was referring not specifically to homosexuality but to fertility rites, you have argued that the mandates and prohibitions were specific to a particular strata of ancient Israel, which is fine, but we are Christians, we are under the impression that a Jew is a spirit ...[text shortened]... l. The provisos that you have detailed have little impact on our understanding as a consequence.
Just a side note: Sometimes in the scripture, the word “Jew” referred only to the “Israelite” residents of Judea (the old Southern Kingdom), and not to Israel as a whole (which included both Galilee and the disapora). With that said, I see Israel as being both natural and spiritual (in disagreement with Paul, perhaps)—and I’m generally uncomfortable separating the two too much; however, under your use of “natural” here, I am, I believe, too far removed halakhically to make any claim. I might be wrong about that (especially for Reform congregations), but it doesn’t matter that much to me.
You don’t think that means that Laphroig “Battlehill” is too good for me, do you?
03 Feb 13
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedyour posts are more a reflection of your lack of upbringing than they are of me, manners makes a man and civility costs nothing. I also draw your attention to the RHP forum posting guidelines,
Discussions in forums can often get heated, but while you may take issue with another poster's viewpoint, you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflammatory remarks that stray beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal.
I would be pleased that if you cannot conduct yourself without insulting others that you desist from abusing the forums in this way.
03 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI see, how very interesting, i was always unaware of the distinction and I thank you for it, in fact, i prefer the term Hebrew myself although again I remain unaware of the distinction. Laphriog will leave you in no doubt my friend, enjoy!
I am aware of our differences of perspective there; didn’t know that avalanche had made the argument.
Just a side note: Sometimes in the scripture, the word “Jew” referred only to the “Israelite” residents of Judea (the old Southern Kingdom), and not to Israel as a whole (which included both Galilee and the disapora). With that said, I see Israel[/i much to me.
You don’t think that means that Laphroig “Battlehill” is too good for me, do you?
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEr... it wasn't my argument, it was a christian scholar, can't remember his name off the top of my head. And it wasn't fertility rites, it was lust. But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments, lol.
I have heard this kind of thing before, avalanchethecat attempted to argue that Paul was referring not specifically to homosexuality but to fertility rites, you have argued that the mandates and prohibitions were specific to a particular strata of ancient Israel, which is fine, but we are Christians, we are under the impression that a Jew is a spirit ...[text shortened]... l. The provisos that you have detailed have little impact on our understanding as a consequence.
03 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecathaha, whatever it was, it was some attempted use to deny the clear and unequivocal meaning of the text by shifting focus.
Er... it wasn't my argument, it was a christian scholar, can't remember his name off the top of my head. And it wasn't fertility rites, it was lust. But don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments, lol.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePot Kettle Black.
your posts are more a reflection of your lack of upbringing than they are of me, manners makes a man and civility costs nothing. I also draw your attention to the RHP forum posting guidelines,
Discussions in forums can often get heated, but while you may take issue with another poster's viewpoint, you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse ...[text shortened]... onduct yourself without insulting others that you desist from abusing the forums in this way.
03 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodits up there with other kinds of deviant behavior!
Is there a hierarchy of sins from a biblical perspective and where would homosexuality rank(if at all)?
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was just wondering if person who was good ,giving and charitable etc but homosexual,was held in the same regard as a murdering heterosexual from a biblical perspective?
its up there with other kinds of deviant behavior!
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, n ...[text shortened]... ave been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.