California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

Maybe you should quote all of Leviticus lest you become a hypocrite.

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

No, they ALL apply, and THAT is the problem. But you'll only spout off that one.

Leviticus tells you to do some pretty silly things but that won't stop YOU from ignoring those laws...now would it?

I believe that smacks of hypocrisy. Yes...yes it does.

Bible cherry picker, you.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

No, they ALL apply, and THAT is the problem. But you'll only spout off that one.

Leviticus tells you to do some pretty silly things but that won't stop YOU from ignoring those laws...now would it?

I believe that smacks of hypocrisy. Yes...yes it does.

Bible cherry picker, you.

*WE* are discussing one particular issue that is mentioned in *a* verse of Leviticus. What *you* are talking about, I have no idea....

Why mention other verses that are not related to the topic of this thread?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

*WE* are discussing one particular issue that is mentioned in *a* verse of Leviticus. What *you* are talking about, I have no idea....

Why mention other verses that are not related to the topic of this thread?

All the Bible is relevant. Or is it that one verse? Yes, for you it's that one verse.

Are you telling me you follow all the rules of Leviticus? If you tell us that, you are a liar. If you don't, you are a hypocrite.

Bible cherry picking does not behoove you.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

All the Bible is relevant. Or is it that one verse? Yes, for you it's that one verse.

Are you telling me you follow all the rules of Leviticus? If you tell us that, you are a liar. If you don't, you are a hypocrite.

Bible cherry picking does not behoove you.

Of course the whole Bible is relevant.

Since you seem to be new to GC let me 'school' you on a GC rule:

While in a thread, it is important to stay on topic.

Again, there are many other verses in Leviticus, and the entire Bible, but for the context of this thread only a particular verse applies.

Do you understand?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Of course the whole Bible is relevant.

Since you seem to be new to GC let me 'school' you on a GC rule:

While in a thread, it is important to stay on topic.

Again, there are many other verses in Leviticus, and the entire Bible, but for the context of this thread only a particular verse applies.

Do you understand?

This IS on topic. I'm trying to show that you quote the Bible but don't follow it yourself. You have NO credibility.

Don't quote the Bible if you can't abide by your own words. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do if you can't follow the rule book yourself.

Do YOU understand? I'm trying to figure out why the whole Bible is relevant but you conveniently ignore hundreds of passages on a daily basis, but pick out the gay passage as a law never to be broken.

That is a fair and legitmate question and quite frankly you owe this board an answer.

[doogur]

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Ok sigma? Nate? We'll never see you quoting this one, either. Because I'm sure you don't believe in this crap. But you'll quote the gay stuff.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

This IS on topic. I'm trying to show that you quote the Bible but don't follow it yourself. You have NO credibility.

Don't quote the Bible if you can't abide by your own words. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do if you can't follow the rule book yourself.

Do YOU understand? I'm trying to figure out why the whole Bible is relevant but you conveniently ignore hundreds of passages on a daily basis, but pick out the gay passage as a law never to be broken.

That is a fair and legitmate question and quite frankly you owe this board an answer.

You think too highly of me. Thanks!!!

[doogur]

I've not had time to read the posts since last night and I'm heading off to class. I want to continue my debate with Nate (and Sigma for that matter)...tomorrow I shall return and discuss the New Testament and homosexuality.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by doogur

I've not had time to read the posts since last night and I'm heading off to class. I want to continue my debate with Nate (and Sigma for that matter)...tomorrow I shall return and discuss the New Testament and homosexuality.

Announcements are lame.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do know that Leviticus is Jewish tradition. What Jews call their Torah, we as Chrisitans call the Old Testament.

No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.



No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

Yeah, I don't know why she keeps bringing this up.

Actually she and I hashed it out via pm where we, I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine. She has me on ignore.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

I already know - she and I have a loooooooooonnnnggggg history here on GC. VERY LONG.

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine.

Ah! As much as some people on here rub me the wrong way, I've never put anyone on 'ignore'. It does interrupt the flow of the thread.