Ron Cusano

If you are talking about me, what exactly do you think I am in over my head about?? I am not using redicule or condesension, I am discussing and arguing my understanding of scripture. I feel it is inapproiate to discuss what I consider to be wrong doctine of any specific religion in a public forum. Do you have a problem with that? I am trying to be sensitive to those who happen to be Catholics. I will make you the same offer to discuss it with you privately.

PS - The Hebrew word used from which was interpreted "dirt" is "Parshdon" wich literally means "the crotch or anus". The dirt being spoken of is "excretement" which also fit with the proper context of the act being described.

Here is just one of hundreds of website listing proofs of the worldwide flood. Believe it or not . . . http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp I did not make it an us vs them engagement. I made comments and gave information based upon by beliefs and my knowledge that came fro many years of intense study and learning. I don't expect everyome to agree with me, by I am convinced that my understanding is correct. If the Christians that you are refering to have major doctronial differences with me, than I would assume they are from liberal demoninations. I have never said that I am infallible; I am not. But if you want to say I am wrong, give me real information to that end. Don't pick and choose nonesennce to try to find fault.. That is not real discussion, that just argument. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, don't ask.

PS - I am off to a Lap Band Support Group Meeting!

First of all, I never said you were going to Hell, you said it! Why do I believe my understanding of the Bible is correct, is because I believe the means exactly what it says it means. And the reason I am reluctant to discuss a specific religion in a forum like this is because the majority here are not Catholics, in fact most do not believe in God, and it can serve no good. Again, I will answer you if you are sincere, but I will not discuss a specific religion or their dogma in such a forum. No good can come from it.

NO, I'm not going to stop posting. I want to stop ARGUING! If you are not interested in hearing what I am saying and if you are already convinced that I am wrong before a say it, what is the purpose of beating a dead horse! If you are serious about wanting an answer to that question, I will answer it truthfully and honestly by private eMail. I don't want to start another war here.

No Protestant minister claims the title of role of Priest. I am not going to give you a laundy list of what I see as thrologically wrong with Catholic tradation and dogme because it won't serve any good purpose here. You are not interested in the answer, you just want to argue and I have had enough argueing.

First of all, the priesthood ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The Catholic priesthood is a matter of Catholic church law and not biblical. The reason I left the Catholic church is because when I started to study the Bible and saw the difference between what the Bible taught and what the Catholic church taught, I could not in good conscience remain there.

You see a big difference between a circle and a sphere?? I do, and in "the Day of the Lord", much stranger things that this will occur.

Oh I know! The pharaphrased Catholic Bible is the only translations the Catholic Church uses in seminary, and yet, strangely enough, the recognize the King James Translation as accurate. Go figure!

I will go a step further and say that Catholics are allogorical concerning theology, do not take the Bible literally and I think their church laws are serroously in error. And I came from a Catholic background. But, that is just my opinion. If you think that all the major translations of the Bible got together and conspired to conceal slavery, so that everyone would think it's OK, well, you just go one believing that!

The NIV is a good translation in most instances. The King James has always been the "gold standard" used in most seminaries. There is a new version called the New American Standard Version I believe, with is supposed to be the best literal translation into modern day english thus far. In my personal studies I use several translations, and if there seems to a question of translation of a word, I go back the the Strongs Concordance, which is like a dictionary, that gives the literal translations of every single word in the Bible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Every serious Bible student should have one.

In those times, there was volentary indenture where a person could volentarily place themselves into the role of servant to repay a debt or because the "master" could provide a better life for them and their family than they could otherwise have. It was not the forced role of a slave, such as we saw in our country. The whole point of the "slave" discussion is that these references in the Bible could never be used to support forced slavery when our country was formed. If some took them to mean so, they did it in error. God does not condon one person owning another.

Whoever said that the reference to homosexuality in the Bible no longer applies today?? I know that is what you want it to be, but it is not.

ALL of the major translations, mincluding the universally accepted King James Translation, use the word Master, with is the accurate translation from the Greek root of the word. I am guessing that you are reading a pharaphrased version of the Bible which is not a literal translation.

Those verses were part of the Mosiac Law and they did apply during that time of reference. With the coming of the New Testament and the application of the Law to our hearts as opposed to the physical application (see Jer. 31), and the fulfilling of the Mosiac Law by Jesus, those laws are no longer in effect. Yes we take the Bible literally, but also in proper context. Those laws do not apply to Christians or anyone today. That is like reading a law book literally and finding a law from another time period, that gives men the right to own slaves. It is very literal, but that law no longer applies today.

If you read the post you would note that the translations he was referring to were in the New Testament not the Old Testament.

That was a beautiful post! I just want ot share with you that I to believe it is everyones right and responsibility to accept or reject the Gospel, and that I cannot force anyone to believe. All that I have been doing here is sharing from a theological perspective what the Bible says. Most of the people who have be part of the discussions have been athiests or liberal Christians who do not take the scriptures literally, therefore these dicsussions tend to get lively. They are understanding my firm stand on what the Bible says to be arrogant and self imposing. It is anything but. I am only taking a stand for what the inspired Word of God actually says aside from anyones personal feelings or opinions. In the end, all are free to either accept or reject what the Bible has to say. My personal opinion is of no consequence. Blessings!

Man-Woman only marriages are the law in a large and growing number of states so it is obviously has not been determinded to be against the 14th amendment, has it?

Wrong! It was changed to servant because it is a more literal translation, and the role of a servant was much different that that of a slave.

Yes, I want you to show me where it talks about treatment of slaves in the New Testament. The word slave is only used once in the entire New Testament, in the Book of Revelations, and mentions nothing about treatment or ownership. Have you ever even read the Bible?? Wrong! Nobody is "creating a law against homosexuality"! We already have laws against same sex marriage. They are fighting for a Constitional Amendment to make the law a Federal Law mandatory upon all the states.

Just this week, NJ recognized same-sex unions granting certain legal right that married couples have. If same sex marriage, why would they do this. The same is true with the other sates where they have such recognition of "unions". Check out the following - Same-sex marriage in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same gender. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s. The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage. However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing such unions by amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.[1] Some states have it in the constitution that they recognize marriage from another state.

Turn that around! Is it was already legal, there would be no need to enact laws to make it legal. Again, the Constitutional Ammendment will make same sex marriage illegal on the FEDERAL level, so it cannot be over turned on the state level. It is late and I am going to bed. Have a good night!

Typo. Should have read they are against the law . . .

If you took the time to read it, I sent a correction to say the Old Testament sopke about slavery, but the New Testament does no support it under Christ. You want to show me passages that talk about inter-racial marriage?? In God's admonition to Israel, He tells than to only worship the God of Israel and no to inter-marry with none Jews. That has nothing to do with inter-racial marriage or forced religion. That was directed to Israel. You are making no sense at all!