Catholic Church Cont'd

[carlfense]

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789.

 

Atta boy carlfense, let's just do the bait and switch, Nice!!

How is that a bait and switch? Showing intellectual inconsistency through a common example is not a bait and switch.

 

Now claiming that something is a bait and switch instead of addressing your own cognitive dissonance? That's something.

[carlfense]

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789.

Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times.

Bingo.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Um, no, Johnny, that's not the wrong answer. That's what you just said.

 

 

If you have nothing else to say, then I accept your withdrawal from the field.

 

 

uh no, knappy, If you are going to bait and switch and try to go to the Constitution then I accept your surrender and you can go onto another tread throw your derp around maybe somebody else will believe your line of thinking.

[johnnyrodgers20]

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789.

 

Atta boy carlfense, let's just do the bait and switch, Nice!!

How is that a bait and switch? Showing intellectual inconsistency through a common example is not a bait and switch.

 

Now claiming that something is a bait and switch instead of addressing your own cognitive dissonance? That's something.

 

If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

[johnnyrodgers20]

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789.

Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times.

Bingo.

 

Do you have all the numbers? If so, you get a prize!!

[carlfense]

So you agree that the statement of Hebrews 13:8 is wrong, and that God is NOT "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." Interesting. There were rules back then that were OK, but are not OK now. The rules from Leviticus were based on God's law, and I presume that you at least attempt to live by God's law today. Yet that law has, apparently, changed with the times. Interesting.

Sounds like a "living document." Apparently original intent only applies to documents written between 1786 and 1789.

Well, certainly. Man's rules can't change AT ALL, but God's rules? Eh. They change with the times.

Bingo.

 

Do you have all the numbers? If so, you get a prize!!

What numbers?

[carlfense]

If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

Just wondering if you can be intellectually consistent. My guess is no but I'd sure like to be surprised. Anyways, back to you explaining how we should force women to marry their rapists because it's good for them.

[johnnyrodgers20]

for your bingo game

[johnnyrodgers20]

If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

Just wondering if you can be intellectually consistent. My guess is no but I'd sure like to be surprised. Anyways, back to you explaining how we should force women to marry their rapists because it's good for them.

 

 

Ah the old lefty ploy to make someone sound evil, NICE!! The funny thing is that if you lived during the time of Deuteronomy you would have made them do it too, you evil hebrew!!

[carlfense]

If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

Just wondering if you can be intellectually consistent. My guess is no but I'd sure like to be surprised. Anyways, back to you explaining how we should force women to marry their rapists because it's good for them.

 

 

Ah the old lefty ploy to make someone sound evil, NICE!! The funny thing is that if you lived during the time of Deuteronomy you would have made them do it too, you evil hebrew!!

Do you know how I would during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing?

[johnnyrodgers20]

If you want to be finished with this thread and start talking about the Constitution, fine, let me know, are you done with Deuteronomy?

Just wondering if you can be intellectually consistent. My guess is no but I'd sure like to be surprised. Anyways, back to you explaining how we should force women to marry their rapists because it's good for them.

 

 

Ah the old lefty ploy to make someone sound evil, NICE!! The funny thing is that if you lived during the time of Deuteronomy you would have made them do it too, you evil hebrew!!

Do you know how I would during the time of Deuteronomy would think, you are amazing?

 

Yep, just like you think- you know that I would force a woman to marry her rapists.

[carlfense]

Yep, just like you think- you know that I would force a woman to marry her rapists.

You were the one who repeatedly implied that it was better for the woman to marry her rapist than to not marry her rapist.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Yep, just like you think- you know that I would force a woman to marry her rapists.

You were the one who repeatedly implied that it was better for the woman to marry her rapist than to not marry her rapist.

 

 

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer - I ponted out the two terrible options and that one was to marry her rapist and the other was to be homeless and glean fields to survive. I stated that at that time the men of that day thought it was a good idea. I couldn't tell you what a woman of that time would do.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Probably as good a place for this as any. Sullivan manages to read my mind . . . again. Timely, too.

 

http://www.thedailyb...-in-crisis.html

 

Well worth a read if you have a few minutes to spare.

 

 

I do have to say you are correct, it was a great read!! It reminds us of what we should be and what we are not. We, all too often get caught up in our lives and don't have time to reflect what it truly is like to be a Christian. Sometimes you start to have goals and they are not bad goals but they can take over your life and diminish your Christian life. I know myself, I planned and saved to buy a new van for the family and while I was not doing anything wrong, I do have a singlemindedness (if that is a word) and like a laser I am determined to get that goal. Which may take away from me tithing more or giving to more charities, or using more of my time to help the less fortunate than I do. At this time of year it is good to reflect on your life and work on the shortfalls in my life. I want to thank you for making me a better person because I have read this article. Happy Easter to all.

[carlfense]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer - I ponted out the two terrible options and that one was to marry her rapist and the other was to be homeless and glean fields to survive. I stated that at that time the men of that day thought it was a good idea. I couldn't tell you what a woman of that time would do.

Actually johnny, you're wrong. You did tell us what you thought the best option was for the raped women. (Did you already forget the argument that you made yesterday?)

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/58397-catholic-church-contd/page__view__findpost__p__939255

 

I am sure that would have been the best option for her. . . . If she had been raped then she would no longer be a virgin and no one would want to marry her. She would have no way to earn a living because only men owned land and she couldn't survive without a male.