creationistalltheay wrote:Wow, lots of posts to respond to...
Congress has a bill before them to legalize homosexual marriage and all the benefits therein: adoption, insurance, etc. Congress decides to put to a public referendum. How do you vote and why?
I vote no because
1. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Where?
2. Thus homosexuality cannot be a marriage and is prematernal sex.
You are reiterating prejudice against homosexuals.
Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?
Lie is used commonly in the Bible to mean have sex with (as is "know")
That it is, but again, is subject to interpretation.
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That says right in it "nor praciticing homosexuals".
It also says that "practicing homosexuals" is a group of homosexuals that are pedophiliacs.
Haha! Nowhere does it state they cannot achieve status in Heaven! Although God says himself it is abominable (Lev 18:20), he did not say that it was something that prevents one from getting to heaven.
I agree with you here, God says its abominable (a sin). I nowhere said that homosexuality is the final ticket to hell. ITs by grace that we're saved from hell, not by hetro-sexuality.
He said it was abominable, not a sin. There is a difference. Nice jump toi conclusion.
So, you don't hate homosexuals, yet you believe that they deserve an eternity of pain and suffering, and have no problem with such punishment being visited upon such people who have not harmed society in any conceivable way?
Read above
*ahem* YOU need to read above, my friend.
Yes, it does. Catholism outranks 'Calvinism' (I thought that died out after the salem witch trials?) because it predates it. Judaism predates and outranks Catholism, and all of that is outranked by the Jewish cult worship of the Canaanite mountain god who later came to be known as Yahweh.
Christianity is just cult revisions of the belief of El-Shaddai. You've simply choosen to look at El-Shaddai differently than what he originally was.
Age does not necissarily mean worth. Ancient egyptian beliefs predate Catholism, and the theory of evolution for that matter.
Age means everything. And as far as the Ancient Egyptians...well, why don't we go back to the civilization of Ur, the first one ever recorded?
Also, I have some thing about the Apocrypha
Being a former Catholic, I am SO gonna kill your argument.
Here are some verses that contradict the rest of the Bible:
Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
And it's 25:23:
23 In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die.
This is because humans were to live forever in the Garden of Eden, remember?
Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
3 An unruly child is a disgrace to his father; if it be a daughter, she brings him to poverty.
In other words, a bad daughter is bad luck.
Purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godlines, it was a holy and pious thought.
Maybe you should try reading the version that Catholics use? I mean, it makes sense to Catholics to read their own version. What does it contradict, anyhow?
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Try getting the verse numbers right, k?
Its Sirach 3:29-30
29 Water quenshes a flaming fire, alms atone for sins. 30 He who does kindness is remembered afterward; when he falls he finds a support.
This doesn't imply in any way purely salvation by works.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Um, Tobit 12:17 isn't in your quote....
8 Praying and fasting are good, but better than wither is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness [good deeds]. A little with rightewousness is better than abundance with wickedness [bad deeds]. It is better to give alms [selflessness] than to store up gold [greed]; 9 for almsgiving saves one from death [of wealth] and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life [money does not equate a good life]; 10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.
Also There are roughly 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha
Because the references to the OT are quite vague within themselves, and they have no reason to reference the Aprocrypha.
Theres more but that should be enough for now. Tell me if yo uwant me to respond to your post, so many to choose from
I look forward to picking apart more quotes of yours. ^_^
