Rainbow crosswalks?

I quoted the definition of hearsay, so you know you’re wrong here.

The documented I pointed you to is the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed (Pope Benedict).

There’s nothing “less” hearsay i can point to, that clearly states the Catholic Church’s position on this.
My own words weren’t enough, you tried to accuse them. So I went to an authority.

Two in fact, one Catholic, one Jewish. Saying the same thing I was. Paul did exactly what I laid out.

Yet you still complain? Then that seems like a “you” problem.

The ignorance is yours; you didn’t know anything here. You only complained, because I said it.
No other reason.

You didn’t investigate this, so that’s moot.

You didn’t have a challenge. You just denied it. You showed nothing about Paul somehow refuting this.
Or some Church father denying it.

And since you insisted I spoke heresy, my going to an authority is fair game. Because they’re going to quote this thing called “doctrine”, which is what heresy opposes.

You used the word RET. Shouldn’t have if you didn’t mean it. Nor wanted me quoting doctrine at you.

BS, you defined what a court would accept as TESTIMONY or reject as hearsay.

Your “experts” comments would be admissible, their CONCLUSONS would not be admissible unless they were present for cross examination.

YOU are a “witness” in this debate, a witness with zero information to offer except for hearsay; yet you present yourself as a judge who has weighed ALL of the arguments and drawn a conclusion.

All because you won’t admit that there is no possible way for your designated thinker to know how I or any other believer approaches the scriptures and no possible way for you to back up your heretical statements about Paul because you have never even bothered to read the book.

A published report would be admissible. Yes, it would be RET. As either documentation or authentication for “What do Jews believe in?” or “What is Doctrine?” Both would suffice.

That’s actually relevant in cases this thread talks about “What is established religious belief/practice?” so as to evaluate which ones the law is required to respect.

Nope, I offered exactly what Paul did. You called that heresy, which meant I was free to quote doctrine.

You used the word, so you should have known what it meant.

You showed me what it was by calling it heresy.

You did that. I didn’t force you to say it. By using that word, you tipped your hand.

What’s become clear, is that you were using words you didn’t realize had certain meanings attached.

1 If they don’t generate an excess of embryos and use all the ones they have, where is the murder? You misinterpreted what I said. As to Christianity, murder is something done out of malice. Obeying God’s command to destroy a nation isn’t malice. Not to mention that I suspect you’re broadbrushing a lot of events as the responsibility of Christianity.

2 Then why is western society seeing far more decay and a lot less responsibility? I’ve seen this shift in my lifetime.

3 The validity and historicity of Christianity aside for the moment, do you really think the humanity has a fighting chance of understanding even one percent of all truths, even in billions of years (as if we could survive that long)?

4 Then why did you cite perception rather than scientific facts?

5 No, I don’t believe the same can be said about fertilization; it’s a definite and profound scientific fact. Again, you misinterpreted my take on the embryo issue (I actually wouldn’t mind seeing in vitro fertilization go the way of the dinosaurs).
6 Shall we apply that same no-one-loved-them/was-attached-to-them/wanted-them argument to two-year-olds? Or to those late-term pregnancies that you admitted you oppose termination of? Is that a sound criteria to apply to anyone’s value? It certainly isn’t intrinsic.

1 Like

If a couple wants to have 2 children, do you think they freeze just 2 embryos? No they freeze more because not all of them usually take. So if they have two children and have a (pick a number) of embryos leftover and discard them, that’s murder, right?

It’s not, it’s just that the information age has made you aware of more of it than people knew in the past.

I’m not sure why that matters, but no, I susp[ect there is knowledge that will always be beyond the grasp of humanity.

Sorry, this conversation is getting stretched out over time. I’m not sure what you are refering to.

Of course not because we know that two year olds have sentience. They have memories and they have feelings and we know they can suffer.

See above.

Yeah, that is what happened!

I won’t post my question a 7th time, in fact 4 or 5 would have been plenty to establish that you still have no intellectual integrity when you debate the ideas that you are too lazy to actually challenge before you steal and alter them from others.

Yup, look at the definition of heresy:

“belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.”

If you didn’t want me quoting doctrine, you shouldn’t have referenced heresy.

You didn’t realize that apparently, so you used the wrong word. So which one did you actually mean?

That’s you RET.

You shift goal posts, you don’t admit errors, you throw out accusations you have no intention of backing.

My flaws, are not more important than you being honest, and admitting mistakes.

I admit my mistakes, I’ve done so several times. You’ve yet to, despite making several here.

And it’s because I see you treat language pathologically, that I know I can’t trust you. Because you’re not offering trust in anything you’re doing.

Okay, so tell me how your designated thinker knows how I approach scripture.

Then please explain how Paul abandoned the orthodox concept of justice in favor of a different concept.

Then explain how the Bible can be “metaphysical assumption” to those that also claim it is the inspired word of God.

Pretty simple really, at least for someone who actually cares enough about the opinions they spew to provide a little diligence instead of just a copy paste job from a Google search.

It’s pretty clear you don’t agree with the Jews because you called what he said heresy.

He said Jews approach the Bible as God, People, land, while Christians approach it as God, humanity and salvation.

The Jewish concept of Justice is more tribal and shaped by the exodus (“eye for an eye”); the Christian view of justice is more pluralistic, and communal (“Turn the other cheek”, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you”).

The Jews still see the old testament as a literal a guide for living an authentic Jewish life, and reserve it primarily for that purpose. Salvation is an afterthought.

Paul intentionally weakened that connection in trying to negotiate between gentile and Hebrew populations in the early church. He threw out practices the gentiles objected to, because salvation now became center-stage. Signs of the Old Covenant became less important.

Because it is. You assume it’s the word of God, and what parts of it form axiomatic foundations to the world.

That latter part is especially telling, because Protestants clearly don’t agree in among themselves as to what passages are axiomatic. It varies between denominations. Each one is making different assumptions.

So you cannot answer the question or back up his assertion that you parrot as your own.

Humanity is “people” and the Jews “land” was their deliverance or salvation so this is moronic; not to mention completely irrelevant to understanding the concept of justice as it is explained in scripture.

BS
Justice is defined in scripture and the Jews were commanded to follow those concepts and repent if they failed to do so in very specific ways.

Those quotes have NOTHING to do with justice, they are a command to recognize that all sin is really against God whether it offends us or not, so the Christian is to view the sins of others as not personal so as to not hinder their ability to witness effectively. This is absolutely consistent with the old testament as it declares “vengeance is mine says the Lord”, justice is supposed to be blind to everything except the facts and the punishment for guilt is to be appropriate for the offense; divorced from the passions and resentments that accompany those who place themselves in the center instead of God.

There is no contradiction there.

The Jews see the old testament as a covenant that includes the instructions for life and the Messianic prophecies are part of that covenant.

Thank you for proving that you never read the book.

Paul changed NOTHING, the new testament covenant is not the same as the old testament covenant, they have different tennants and different promises; the new does not replace the old and the new does not contradict the old in any way. Paul was called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles so that is what he did; the Gentiles were never privy to the old covenant and there was no reason for Paul to emphasize that covenant.

But he never changed it, refuted it or in any way treated it with disrespect; his letters to Jewish believers leaned heavily on the old testament including his admonishment of Peter when Peter was favoring of the Jewish believers over the Gentiles.

Name one instance of a Gentile believer objecting to an old covenant precept and Paul responding by tossing out the precept.

I assume nothing, I know it is the word of God. As I said before, only those who don’t believe consider it a metaphysical assumption.

You objected to that assessment while admitting to it, unbelievable.

And once again we are back to the group generalized accusations to avoid backing up a specific accusation.

You just avoided all the substance of the accusations that you made based on your hearsay education; because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

You didn’t answer for what you said; you called his words heresy.

You didn’t say “I don’t think that’s right” you used the word “heresy”. That means something very specific RET.

Either you’re using the wrong word, or my estimation is correct.

Nope, salvation as in heaven, the land is simply a space for them to live in Covenant with God on Earth.
Overtones of salvation after death are muted in Judaism. The Torah isn’t meant to teach how to reach salvation, it’s meant to teach how to live a corporeal life, as a Jew. Failure results in corporeal punishment.

To put it another way, Christanity puts more onus on the afterlife, Judaism puts its on the life you’re living.

Knee-jerk use of insults is poor language use. You need to stop if you want to convey that your words can be trusted.

Nope, true. Justice was not applied universally, hence why Tribal wars of elimination could occur.
Judaism, existed as mahaneh, as a camp, putting its own existence, and the life of its members, before that of others. It would do this in even in periods of peace with other tribes.

In Christianity, you are tasked to put the needs of others before yourself regardless of who they are. It’s a complete revolution in priority.

It does, as those passages condemn reprisals, whereas the Old Testament expected reprisal, and lined out what they would be.

For example:

“The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

Deuteronomy 19:18-19

When a similar instance of false accusation comes up in Matthew, “do the same to him”, does not appear.

This doesn’t deny what I said; the Torah is teaching guidance for living a Jewish life. That’s the primary way it is approached within Judaism. Messianic prophecy is a minor theme to them.

I guess you didn’t. The counsel of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Which they convened because gentiles were complaining. Paul condemning those who wanted circumcision as absolute law as “weaker brothers” in Galatians.

He continued it as custom for Hebrews, but denied any need for it to be spread among Gentiles.

He didn’t change text, but he did change practice and interpretation. He even denied historicity of Old testament books in 1 Corinthians 10, calling them “figurative”.

Yes you do; you can’t avoid that.

Christianity itself being disunified demonstrates this. It affects us all.

Which is where you admit you’re in a corner.

But heck, I can get specific.

My religion assumes the Pope is a conduit to God, you assume he’s not. That you “know” he’s not is something you can’t demonstrate factually to me. It’s just an assumption.

I said that your claim was heretical, you ascribed your opinion to another.

If your designated thinker truly would read your synopsis and say “yes this guy is accurately portraying my view” then I would say the same of him but I don’t argue via proxy.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, of that I am certain.

I am in no “corner”, I am prepared to answer any challenge regarding what I have written and I have no need of the copy/paste function or a Google search to do it.

Please show me where I ever stated that any Christian is not capable of interacting with God regardless of his day job, or is this another one of your claims about my beliefs that you will refuse to substantiate?

1 I know that’s not the way they do it; my point is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be done that way.
2 Manslaughter, at least.

3 I don’t have a study or anything to cite (I didn’t see one from you, either). But speaking from my own subjective experience, hogwash. People are rationalizing more and more things that are harmful to themselves and society.

4 It matters because decisions/policies/social norms/etc. will be made on woefully inadequate knowledge. Whereas if we follow what God teaches, we don’t have to know it because He already does.

5 Let’s see if I can find and piece together all the quotes. You said:

To which I replied:

And you said:

And:

And I said:

And you said:

To which I replied:

You kept citing perception rather than anything to scientifically back up your position that the embryo isn’t truly human (and worthy of moral defense as a human) until a certain point of development.

6 I don’t recall you making these arguments before, but: The instant when (in your definition) sentience starts, they have no memories, because they weren’t sentient to form any. And a person in a coma doesn’t feel or suffer. That aside, how do you even determine sentience? And assuming that sentience is the defining factor for the sake of argument, what if you make a mistake of a month, a week, a day, or even a second in determining that sentience hasn’t yet begun in the determination to abort?

It’s becoming more and more apparent, that CSB is an atheist, intent on trying to “disprove” scripture and also deny the scientific FACT of humanity at the point of conception…just as the Bible has taught us for centuries. Otherwise, [paraphrased] “Even as I knew you in the womb.”

1 Like

Sure, given the definition I can be categorized as an atheist. Does that surprise you? Because in your response it seems like you’re surprised.

All that means is that I lack a belief in god/s (based on a lack of evidence for the existence of a god/s). I don’t claim to know that’s true that no god/s exist (but admit that I think it’s probable based on the evidence I’ve seen). Similarly, but opposite, I think intelligent life probably exists somewhere else in the universe, but I don’t claim to know that’s true, it’s just my belief.

As far as “atheism”, I don’t subscribe to it or understand what it is or means nor do I support or belong to any group that would turn a non-belief into a philosophy or a doctrine of belief.

-ism - "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."

To be an atheist, there is but one single requirement. That you lack a belief a god (btw you are an atheist as well. I just believe in 1 fewer god than you do). People can do other things in the name of atheism if they choose, but those are optional, not required. If you believe in the Christian god you are required to believe that Jesus is the son of god, yadda, yadda, yadda. There is a doctrine of belief and things you are existence to do or not do as a result. As an atheist, I don’t have to do or believe anything, not a single thing, just lack belief in god/s.

I hold no philosophy, practice or system related to my lack of belief in god, leprechauns, Santa Claus or anything else I don’t believe in.

Anything I believe about morality or how and what people should believe has nothing to do with the fact that I can be categorized as an atheist.

I disagree with it, but I’m not intent on trying to disprove it. To my knowledge, I’ve never started a theological discussion here on RO attempting to convince others here that scripture is wrong (I think that would be disrespectful given the people who frequent RO).

That said, over time I’ve questioned some things that certainly relate to scripture, like morality, but I’ve always tried to respect the beliefs of others and tried not to offend for the sake of offending.

I tried to clarify in saying that I don’t believe it’s wrong to stop the process of pregnancy as long as it happens before the embryo becomes aware to the point that it can feel pain, form memories and otherwise experience existence similar to you and I.

Yeah, that’s great if you believe that there is a god. I simply don’t share that view.

…and yet you don’t share the view of virtually 100% of biologists that it’s scientific FACT, either, so what DO you actually believe? My guess is not much and that’s a sad state of affairs for anyone.

I think I’ve articulated my position. Believe with respect to what?

Which meant you called his claims heresy; you haven’t denied what I said.

If you go that far to condemn what he said, then you admit you are one of the Christians he’s referring to.

In fact, he specifically identifies Evangelicals as the ones who tend to be shocked by this. That Jews and their read of Old Testament aren’t the same. You’re only proving the validity of that observation.

But I’ve quoted him word for word now, and you’re still calling it heresy. So you admit my estimation was right. You are one of the Christians who never asked Jews, “how do you approach the Old Testament”?

I answered you on Paul; you didn’t respond.

Which tells me you overlevagered your knowledge there, and weren’t clear yourself on what he’d done.

I don’t mean “interacting”, I mean conduit. He can speak God’s will. Infallibly.