Homosexuality is a sin. and Tattoos.

[zz1000zz]

Quote:

Quote:

He may be quite knowledgeable and skilled, but that is not an issue. He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

Fine, nothing more I can do here.

Are you agreeing, disagreeing, or what?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

You never asked a question about the definition of sin, so naturally I did not answer a such a question.

Yes, I did. Its on page 1 of this topic.

Your exact words were, "Define sin buddy..." That is in no way a question.

Quote:

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about with, "we should avoid the sniping and threats" as I did not do either. I pointed out you made an assumption and repeated a common warning for such.

"I hear they do bad things to you and me" is a threat.

No it is not. The common expression is, "Don't assume. It makes an *** out of u and me."  

[Priestley]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He may be quite knowledgeable and skilled, but that is not an issue. He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

Fine, nothing more I can do here.

Are you agreeing, disagreeing, or what?

Agreeing to disagree, perhaps? wink

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

You never asked a question about the definition of sin, so naturally I did not answer a such a question.

Yes, I did. Its on page 1 of this topic.

Your exact words were, "Define sin buddy..." That is in no way a question.

I would also like to know what one of these 'sin buddies' is. biggrin

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about with, "we should avoid the sniping and threats" as I did not do either. I pointed out you made an assumption and repeated a common warning for such.

"I hear they do bad things to you and me" is a threat.

No it is not. The common expression is, "Don't assume. It makes an *** out of u and me."

I hate that expression. The only 'a**' around here is the one who can't spell. xd  

[zz1000zz]

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

As for me not caring to use certain types of language, I am afraid that is one thing you will just have to live with.  

[Knatalie9]

Quote:

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

As for me not caring to use certain types of language, I am afraid that is one thing you will just have to live with.

*chuckles*  

[freelance lover]

Quote:

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

As for me not caring to use certain types of language, I am afraid that is one thing you will just have to live with.

I think he just means that neither of you are going to change one another's mind, so any further discussion is kind of pointless.  

[xxPromarkxx]

What about disagreeing to agree?  

[zz1000zz]

Quote:

I think he just means that neither of you are going to change one another's mind, so any further discussion is kind of pointless.

It is nonsense if so. I pointed out a problem, he did not disagree with the problem, but rather brought up an issue which was irrelevant. I pointed out it was irrelevant, and restated what the problem was.

Saying we should agree to disagree implies we actually have disagreed.  

[Priestley]

Quote:

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

Then you can probably consider that you have won, for what it's worth.  

[zz1000zz]

Quote:

Quote:

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

Then you can probably consider that you have won, for what it's worth.

Woohoo?  

[Priestley]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

That is a rather odd way to "agree to disagree," if that was what he meant by it, seeing as he did not even attempt to disagree with what I said.

Then you can probably consider that you have won, for what it's worth.

Woohoo?

If you like. A fistpump would also have been an acceptable celebration. biggrin

To get back on topic, the issue here seems to be about the classifications/degrees of 'sin', that is, the seriousness of behavioural trespass or transgression. How and why must such clarification be made? (The question is addressed to all, not just zz1000zz.)  

[Ixor Firebadger]

If you look at it through God's eyes, you shouldn't. All sin is sin and all of it leads to death. No sin is any greater or any less than another. Being angry is every bit as bad as murder. Any other distinction is a human convention.

Though, in all practacality, we can't lock up everyone in the world and if we didn't draw the distinction we would have to. Or leave loose people that would really make this world a more dangerous and frightening place to live.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

He may be quite knowledgeable and skilled, but that is not an issue. He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

Fine, nothing more I can do here.

Are you agreeing, disagreeing, or what?

Ya... I officially declare that I disagree with you.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

You never asked a question about the definition of sin, so naturally I did not answer a such a question.

Yes, I did. Its on page 1 of this topic.

Your exact words were, "Define sin buddy..." That is in no way a question.

Forgive my lack of proper grammar. So then, what is the proper definition of sin?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I have no idea what you are talking about with, "we should avoid the sniping and threats" as I did not do either. I pointed out you made an assumption and repeated a common warning for such.

"I hear they do bad things to you and me" is a threat.

No it is not. The common expression is, "Don't assume. It makes an *** out of u and me."

*sigh* Ya... ok. We'll move on then.

Quote:

It is nonsense if so. I pointed out a problem, he did not disagree with the problem, but rather brought up an issue which was irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Let me rehash. You posted that, '"abomination' does not mean it is a sin." Then I posted a defense from Walter Kaiser stating that abomination is degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Another words, abomination (tow'ebah) is a sin.  

[Priestley]

Quote:

Quote:

It is nonsense if so. I pointed out a problem, he did not disagree with the problem, but rather brought up an issue which was irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Let me rehash. You posted that, '"abomination' does not mean it is a sin." Then I posted a defense from Walter Kaiser stating that abomination is degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Another words, abomination (tow'ebah) is a sin.

And zz1000zz challenged that defence:

Quote:

He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

I think the correct approach would have been to discuss the Hebrew word in its own context rather than the English form.  

[Galad Aglaron]

That's silly. Christians don't have to follow Levitican law. Besides, those sound like they've come from the King James, which is pretty much the worst translation ever.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It is nonsense if so. I pointed out a problem, he did not disagree with the problem, but rather brought up an issue which was irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Let me rehash. You posted that, '"abomination' does not mean it is a sin." Then I posted a defense from Walter Kaiser stating that abomination is degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Another words, abomination (tow'ebah) is a sin.

And zz1000zz challenged that defence:

Quote:

He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

I think the correct approach would have been to discuss the Hebrew word in its own context rather than the English form.

Have I not done that already? I explained the context of the Chapter. But then you intervene by arguing that its only offensive to the moral sense of the community. Which is absurd because it focuses on a moral establishment within a community. Therefore the Gentiles are not subjected to the Law of God because its only for the Jewish community according to your own reasoning.

I do have a question for you. Why do you think God established the Mosaic Law only for Israel and no other nation?