Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality

[koshergrl]

"

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus. "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

You can argue his divinity, and for that, there is no evidence that will satisfy those who are committed to denying it.

But people who argue his existence are just being idiots.

I see, so you can point out the bias of a site with ex-christian in it, but see no pro christian bias in a site called christianthinktank?

Okie dokie

Sure, why not? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As I said....we can do this all day. You want to provide biased garbage, I'll put out my own biased material. Fair's fair.

 

[koshergrl]

"

Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail about Jesus.
I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.
The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a very peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. "

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

We could do this all day.
​

Considering how many times the Bible has been edited and rewritten, it's really hard to consider the book as "fact". Why? Too many people down through the ages have written and re-written the book, changing things.

Me? I'd rather accept the archaeological proof they foud in Israel, it is a coin with Yeshua's name on one side and His likeness on another. Money that was minted during that time would only have carried the likeness and name of someone who DID exist and who was also influential in the world.

this is the ultimate of ignorance.

The bible has been interpreted down through the ages, starting with men who were very close in time to the events that actually happened, and who were carefully selected for their faith, integrity, and devotion to accurate representation and translation of the old texts.

They believed they were doing God's work, and they were devoted to seeking guidance from God. They also believed in the inerrancy of the bible, and had no inclination to change it to accomodate whatever political leanings they happened to have at the time.

You really need to do a little research into what you're talking about, if you are going to argue this topic. And if you are going to make outrageous claims, you need to back them up with evidence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you know this how?
Josephus wasn't a pharisee. He wrote about pharisees and was interested in them, but he was not one himeself.

I like you and don't want to strain a relationship with you, so if this moves that way I will exit this debate.

There were three branches of Jewish priesthood. Essenes, Saducees and Pharisees. Essenes were the mystics, Saducees the legalistics and Pharisees, the scholars. The fact that Josephus wrote the histories he did reveals him to be a Pharisee, beyond that, it is what he claimed in the volum "Life."

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to quit assuming that every lie you hear that validates what you have already formed an opinion about is true. That's what true scholarship is about.

Here is one source;

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Flavius-Josephus-Pharisees-Composition-Critical-Study/dp/0391041541]Amazon.com: Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (9780391041547): Steve Mason: Books[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings.
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin.
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.

Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent). Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"? See how ridiculus you subject change is?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin.
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.

Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent). Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"? See how ridiculus you subject change is?

Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays. WTF?

 

[logical4u]

I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings.
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Is someone supporting sin if they conduct a heterosexual marriage where sodomy takes place? Sodomy being oral and anal sex. Also any heterosexual marriage that's done after someone is divorced (any marriage besides someone's first) is adultery, adultery being one of the worst sins since it's in the 10 commandments and even Jesus himself referenced this (and we all know he didn't reference homosexuality in any marginal way).


So that would mean what? 90-99% of marriages performed are done so while supporting sin?

Is the heterosexual couple declaring their intent as married people is to have immoral sex?
Is the divorced person, the same person, spiritually as the one that decides they have made mistakes, repented, and want to live closer to the Lord?

Since you want to throw the 10 Commandments up for discussion: where are the adulterers claiming that what they are doing is not "sinful"? Where are their groupies chanting "it is not a sin, it is not a sin"?
BTW, homosexuals break 3 of the 10 Commandments by engaging in homosexual acts. Are you saying that homosexuals are worse sinners than adulterers (by your reasoning)?

 

[logical4u]

Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin.
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.

Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent). Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"? See how ridiculus you subject change is?

Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays. WTF?

Clarification: it is obsession with battling deceit. I understand that you want everyone to embrace your lifestyle. The Bible says to reject it. If you want to go and sin privately, I cannot interfer. If you want to twist children and teach them that homosexual acts/immoral sex/lewdness/perversity are not sins, I will speak against you. I think you are interesting and must have a whole lot more to you than your sexual preferences, but that seems to be where you want to stay. I hope you will discover that there is a lot more to your person, than that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent). Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"? See how ridiculus you subject change is?

Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays. WTF?

Clarification: it is obsession with battling deceit. I understand that you want everyone to embrace your lifestyle. The Bible says to reject it. If you want to go and sin privately, I cannot interfer. If you want to twist children and teach them that homosexual acts/immoral sex/lewdness/perversity are not sins, I will speak against you. I think you are interesting and must have a whole lot more to you than your sexual preferences, but that seems to be where you want to stay. I hope you will discover that there is a lot more to your person, than that.

I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

Homosexuality is not a sin to me and to plenty of other folks who don't follow your narrow fundamentalism.

As long as you are going to call gay people, "twisters of children", I will fight you to the last breath.

I hope there is more to your personhood than homophobia and shoving your morality down everyone's throat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent).

What on earth is the ‘religion of the liberals’? This makes no sense as liberals practice the same religions everyone else does. Otherwise, cite a source in support of the above ‘teaching.’

I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

He is entitled to his hate and ignorance – he may not attempt to codify either, however.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin.
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.

Rule # 3: When you are totally wrong, and have no way of making them see things your way, change the subject.
I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent). Can you demonstrate where a church says that cursing your parents is "acceptable behavior" and "not sinful"? See how ridiculus you subject change is?

The Bible says it and you run from it like a monkey on fire.

 

[percysunshine]

Twelve thousand views and fifteen hundred posts?

How many gay homophobic catfish are there in the world?

 

[WorldWatcher]

twelve thousand views and fifteen hundred posts?

How many gay homophobic catfish are there in the world?

42


>>>>

 

[logical4u]

Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays. WTF?

Clarification: it is obsession with battling deceit. I understand that you want everyone to embrace your lifestyle. The Bible says to reject it. If you want to go and sin privately, I cannot interfer. If you want to twist children and teach them that homosexual acts/immoral sex/lewdness/perversity are not sins, I will speak against you. I think you are interesting and must have a whole lot more to you than your sexual preferences, but that seems to be where you want to stay. I hope you will discover that there is a lot more to your person, than that.

I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

Homosexuality is not a sin to me and to plenty of other folks who don't follow your narrow fundamentalism.

As long as you are going to call gay people, "twisters of children", I will fight you to the last breath.

I hope there is more to your personhood than homophobia and shoving your morality down everyone's throat.

This thread is about the Biblical references of homosexuality and catfish. I played the thread, the same as you. I used the Bible to demonstrate that the Lord, never rescinded homosexual acts as sin. And you, like others want to attack the messenger (there are a lot of stories about that in the OT), instead of deal with the Lord's message.

Are you teaching children that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful? If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).

Isn't "shoving your immorality" down everyone's throats what the homosexual activists are doing with homosexual (pretend) marriage? Why is it okay for you to encourage corruption, and wrong for me to point out what you are doing?

 

[logical4u]

I would not support a church that encouraged children to "curse" their parents (unlike the religion of the liberals, that teaches, first, you must reject your parents and everything they represent).

What on earth is the ‘religion of the liberals’? This makes no sense as liberals practice the same religions everyone else does. Otherwise, cite a source in support of the above ‘teaching.’

I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

He is entitled to his hate and ignorance – he may not attempt to codify either, however.

The religion where the liberals worship the government and immorality before they worship the Lord. It became prevelant in the 60s: reject hard work, capitalism, religion, authority, morals, responsibility. Live "free" (take what other people have), "free" love (don't worry about acting as a responsible adult, you can always murder your baby), do drugs (they won't hurt you), get wasted every day, etc, etc, etc.

 

[barry1960]

Day after day, week after week, year after year, obsession with gays. WTF?

Clarification: it is obsession with battling deceit. I understand that you want everyone to embrace your lifestyle. The Bible says to reject it. If you want to go and sin privately, I cannot interfer. If you want to twist children and teach them that homosexual acts/immoral sex/lewdness/perversity are not sins, I will speak against you. I think you are interesting and must have a whole lot more to you than your sexual preferences, but that seems to be where you want to stay. I hope you will discover that there is a lot more to your person, than that.

I wish the heck you would leave this issue alone. Who cares if you hate gays or think we're the devil incarnate?

Homosexuality is not a sin to me and to plenty of other folks who don't follow your narrow fundamentalism.

As long as you are going to call gay people, "twisters of children", I will fight you to the last breath.

I hope there is more to your personhood than homophobia and shoving your morality down everyone's throat.

What's with the homophobia rant. The guy has read the Bible and is declaring it as sin. He also stated that what you do is fine, but he does not want homosexuality taught to children, thus shoving your lifestyle down someone else's throat.

No one said you were the devil incarnate. Why must you persist in attacking the messenger? Is he not entitled to religious beliefs?

As far as eating catfish being the same as homosexuality, that displays ignorance of the Bible.

 

[koshergrl]

And you know this how?
Josephus wasn't a pharisee. He wrote about pharisees and was interested in them, but he was not one himeself.

I like you and don't want to strain a relationship with you, so if this moves that way I will exit this debate.

There were three branches of Jewish priesthood. Essenes, Saducees and Pharisees. Essenes were the mystics, Saducees the legalistics and Pharisees, the scholars. The fact that Josephus wrote the histories he did reveals him to be a Pharisee, beyond that, it is what he claimed in the volum "Life."

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to quit assuming that every lie you hear that validates what you have already formed an opinion about is true. That's what true scholarship is about.

Here is one source;

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Flavius-Josephus-Pharisees-Composition-Critical-Study/dp/0391041541"]Amazon.com: Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (9780391041547): Steve Mason: Books[/ame]

There's no evidence that Josephus was a pharisee. You can theorize on it all you like, it doesn't verify it or prove it to be true.

 

[NightRyder]

Are you teaching children that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful? If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).

Isn't "shoving your immorality" down everyone's throats what the homosexual activists are doing with homosexual (pretend) marriage? Why is it okay for you to encourage corruption, and wrong for me to point out what you are doing?

You cannot know what a god might want, if you could even prove that one exists.

 

[NightRyder]

Are you teaching children that the Lord does not find homosexual acts as sinful? If you are not, you are leading them to a path of sin (twisting them to focus on immoral acts).

Isn't "shoving your immorality" down everyone's throats what the homosexual activists are doing with homosexual (pretend) marriage? Why is it okay for you to encourage corruption, and wrong for me to point out what you are doing?

You cannot know what a god might want, if you could even prove that one exists.

You're assuming that you're the arbiter of morals. News Flash: you're not. To me, what you're doing by gay-bashing is immoral.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Is someone supporting sin if they conduct a heterosexual marriage where sodomy takes place? Sodomy being oral and anal sex. Also any heterosexual marriage that's done after someone is divorced (any marriage besides someone's first) is adultery, adultery being one of the worst sins since it's in the 10 commandments and even Jesus himself referenced this (and we all know he didn't reference homosexuality in any marginal way).


So that would mean what? 90-99% of marriages performed are done so while supporting sin?

Is the heterosexual couple declaring their intent as married people is to have immoral sex?
Is the divorced person, the same person, spiritually as the one that decides they have made mistakes, repented, and want to live closer to the Lord?

Since you want to throw the 10 Commandments up for discussion: where are the adulterers claiming that what they are doing is not "sinful"? Where are their groupies chanting "it is not a sin, it is not a sin"?
BTW, homosexuals break 3 of the 10 Commandments by engaging in homosexual acts. Are you saying that homosexuals are worse sinners than adulterers (by your reasoning)?

If you live by picked out Old Testament laws than yes I'm sure the overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples have the intent of having "immoral" sex. Immoral being oral or anal, hell the Old Testament even says men aren't allowed to masturbate, so any man who does that straight or gay is sinning (aka 99% of men).

So if the divorced person "spiritually decides they made mistakes" then gets remarried anyways (adultery), why is that ok but a gay person getting married after he/she has "spiritually decided they made mistakes" the worst thing in the world? BLATANT hypocrisy, a consistent theme in homophobes. You have different rules, punishments and standards for gays than you have straights.

And no, you're loony theory about gays breaking 3 commandments by simply being gay has already been shattered to pieces earlier in this thread, so that silliness will be ignored.

I'm not a christian, I don't judge people as sinners, we're an imperfect species. But according to the New Testament, there's zero doubt that straight adulterers are more sinful than gays who aren't adulterers. I don't even know how someone could argue against that.

 

[Bern80]

For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales. It is in Leviticus. I can't quote chapter and verse though.
the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
And a sin is a sin.

Leviticus is definatly one of the more......'entertaining' parts of the bible.