Your Help Refuting a Blog

[thenexttodie]

I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?

Well, since you have not given us an objective criterion to distinguish between Real Christian[sup]TM[/sup] and fake christians, I am going to say the pope is a Real Christian[sup]TM[/sup]. Again, I am an outsider looking into this. Without an objective criterion, what else should I conclude? ..... When I originally asked my question I pointed out that the bible is against shellfish and pork. You are the one that brought up homosexuality, since it outrages you. Thus, you are correct that Y is eating shellfish; however, I am having a hard time understanding how you were not able to tell that X was homosexuality since you were the one that brought it up. Unless you are acting dumb since we are engaging on a topic that is dealing with your worldview.

Wait a minute, I thought you said that you don't know and couldn't care less about what the bible says? So I guess you are correct when you say you are without an objective criterion.

I don't really care to argue about who brought up what. If I was the first person to mention homosexuality on this forum then I'm fine with that. Or Whatever.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?

Well, since you have not given us an objective criterion to distinguish between Real Christian[sup]TM[/sup] and fake christians, I am going to say the pope is a Real Christian[sup]TM[/sup]. Again, I am an outsider looking into this. Without an objective criterion, what else should I conclude? ..... When I originally asked my question I pointed out that the bible is against shellfish and pork. You are the one that brought up homosexuality, since it outrages you. Thus, you are correct that Y is eating shellfish; however, I am having a hard time understanding how you were not able to tell that X was homosexuality since you were the one that brought it up. Unless you are acting dumb since we are engaging on a topic that is dealing with your worldview.

Wait a minute, I thought you said that you don't know and couldn't care less about what the bible says? So I guess you are correct when you say you are without an objective criterion.

I don't really care to argue about who brought up what. If I was the first person to mention homosexuality on this forum then I'm fine with that. Or Whatever.

Still playing dumb I see.

I guess I will make this easier for you. I believe the bible teaches that eating pork and shell fish is a sin. I also believe the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Now, what I see is that Christians (and you are a good example of this) are outraged by homosexuality, but not the eating of shell fish or pork. I have never read the bible, thus I have only heard that those things are in there. My question is why are Christians outraged by homosexuality and not the eating of shell fish and pork.

Furthermore, when I say I do not care, I mean I am not a Christian, thus whether or not it does teach those things, it will not affect my life. I guess I should have been clearer with they comment. Now, can you please stop playing dumb and address my questions?

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,

@ thenexttodie

First, just to be explicit so that there's no doubt about what everyone has been hinting:

Y = eating shellfish/pork;

The bible does not tell us to abstain from pork or shellfish. I don't even know how you people expect to get away with saying something like this.

 

[thenexttodie]

I guess I will make this easier for you. I believe the bible teaches that eating pork and shell fish is a sin.

I think that at this point, if just any random person came to this forum and read this thread they wouldn't really be interested in knowing what any of you believe about the bible.


It should be obvious that you either

A) Don't know what you are talking about.

or

B) Are only trying to spread misinformation.

 

[Collecemall]

Leviticus 11 4-7

"There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews thee cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean fro you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11 9-12

"of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales, But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in th water you are to detest. And since you are to detest them you must not eat their meant and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."



So who doesn't know what they are talking about???

 

[thenexttodie]

Leviticus 11 4-7

"There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews thee cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean fro you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11 9-12

"of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales, But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in th water you are to detest. And since you are to detest them you must not eat their meant and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."



So who doesn't know what they are talking about???

Acts 10:9-16

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I guess I will make this easier for you. I believe the bible teaches that eating pork and shell fish is a sin.

I think that at this point, if just any random person came to this forum and read this thread they wouldn't really be interested in knowing what any of you believe about the bible.


It should be obvious that you either

A) Don't know what you are talking about.

or

B) Are only trying to spread misinformation.

 

[Collecemall]

Leviticus 11 4-7

"There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews thee cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean fro you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11 9-12

"of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales, But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in th water you are to detest. And since you are to detest them you must not eat their meant and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."



So who doesn't know what they are talking about???

Acts 10:9-16

Great! So the next time Gawd delivers you food from heaven it can be clean. That doesn't change that the Bible does indeed say what HWIN said it does.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Leviticus 11 4-7

"There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews thee cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean fro you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you."

Leviticus 11 9-12

"of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales, But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in th water you are to detest. And since you are to detest them you must not eat their meant and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."

So who doesn't know what they are talking about???

Acts 10:9-16

As someone who was brought up Roman Catholic, we were warned not to quote verses out-of-context, lest we misunderstand - and, thus, be misled - what the verses meant. We were told to read the whole chapter or, if necessary, several before and after the relevant chapter to make certain we didn't take things out-of-context.

This is something which American Protestants are particularly prone to do.

Here are the same verses in their proper context.

Acts 10[/url]"]Peter and Cornelius

1 In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. 2 He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. 3 One afternoon at about three o’clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” 4 He stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” He answered, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; 6 he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside.” 7 When the angel who spoke to him had left, he called two of his slaves and a devout soldier from the ranks of those who served him, 8 and after telling them everything, he sent them to Joppa.

9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate. 18 They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. 19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look, three[a] men are searching for you. 20 Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them.” 21 So Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?” 22 They answered, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” 23 So Peter invited them in and gave them lodging.

The next day he got up and went with them, and some of the believers[c] from Joppa accompanied him. 24 The following day they came to Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 On Peter’s arrival Cornelius met him, and falling at his feet, worshiped him. 26 But Peter made him get up, saying, “Stand up; I am only a mortal.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found that many had assembled; 28 and he said to them, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?”

30 Cornelius replied, “Four days ago at this very hour, at three o’clock, I was praying in my house when suddenly a man in dazzling clothes stood before me. 31 He said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32 Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon, who is called Peter; he is staying in the home of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.’ 33 Therefore I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. So now all of us are here in the presence of God to listen to all that the Lord has commanded you to say.”

Gentiles Hear the Good News

34 Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all. 37 That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; 40 but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Gentiles Receive the Holy Spirit

44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.

Footnotes:

Acts 10:19 One ancient authority reads two; others lack the word
Acts 10:23 Gk he
Acts 10:23 Gk brothers

In other words, the vision which Peter had was allegorical: the "unclean animals" symbolised Gentiles, with whom Jews were not supposed to associate. Cornelius and his friends, being ready to "receive the Holy Spirit", were "made clean".

So, the verses that you quoted out-of-context did not rescind the strictures for Jews against eating unclean animals.

HWIN, and Collecemail, are correct

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

thenexttodie,

In addition to what Dragan Glas said, there are passages such as Matthew 5:18 which explicitly states that Jesus is not changing any of the law.

I'm sure you can choose to interpret that passage to pretend that only some subset of Jewish law counts as "law" as far as that passage goes. But in doing so you are applying a selective -- and human -- interpretation to the text.

Personally, I suspect that the fact that the above passage is in Matthew and not Mark indicates it was put in to argue against Christians who wanted to relax obedience to Jewish law.

Also, you create a thread to talk about the Pope. Do you have any interest in participating in it?

 

[thenexttodie]

In other words, the vision which Peter had was allegorical: the "unclean animals" symbolised Gentiles, with whom Jews were not supposed to associate. Cornelius and his friends, being ready to "receive the Holy Spirit", were "made clean".
James

Greetings Dragan Glas

I appreciate your inane enthusiasm. Your argument is self contradictory. Do you see it? If not, I'll show it to you.

Are you people not able to think for yourselves?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In other words, the vision which Peter had was allegorical: the "unclean animals" symbolised Gentiles, with whom Jews were not supposed to associate. Cornelius and his friends, being ready to "receive the Holy Spirit", were "made clean".
James

Greetings Dragan Glas

I appreciate your inane enthusiasm. Your argument is self contradictory. Do you see it? If not, I'll show it to you.

Are you people not able to think for yourselves?

By all means show me how what I've said is "self-contradictory".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,


By all means show me how what I've said is "self-contradictory".

Kindest regards,

James

You are arguing something unclean represents the gentiles, because the gentiles are clean. And no, the gentiles being "made clean" had nothing to do with what we call the "Holy Spirit". To put it another way, the Holy Spirit was not inside every Jew and Gentile

 

[thenexttodie]

thenexttodie,

In addition to what Dragan Glas said, there are passages such as Matthew 5:18 which explicitly states that Jesus is not changing any of the law.

So you believe the Bible condemns gays?

 

[SpecialFrog]

thenexttodie,

In addition to what Dragan Glas said, there are passages such as Matthew 5:18 which explicitly states that Jesus is not changing any of the law.

So you believe the Bible condemns gays?

Parts of the Bible explicitly condemn homosexual acts (at least male homosexual acts).

Do you agree that it does and that Matthew 5:18 days what I have claimed it does?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

By all means show me how what I've said is "self-contradictory".

Kindest regards,

James

You are arguing something unclean represents the gentiles, because the gentiles are clean. And no, the gentiles being "made clean" had nothing to do with what we call the "Holy Spirit". To put it another way, the Holy Spirit was not inside every Jew and Gentile

The interpretation of the chapter is as I explained it.

Look at any Commentary and you'll see that.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

The interpretation of the chapter is as I explained it.

Look at any Commentary and you'll see that.

Kindest regards,

James

:lol:

 

[SpecialFrog]

The interpretation of the chapter is as I explained it.

Look at any Commentary and you'll see that.

Kindest regards,

James

:lol:

I question your commitment to reasonable discourse.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

:lol:

I question your commitment to reasonable discourse.

Seconded.

thenexttodie, you're obviously unable to admit that you're wrong, hence you're resorting to using :lol: in lieu of a proper answer.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I called it.