Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

Ok, like what pray tell does the church preach that is so unconscionable? Oh wait.. its the whole Pope thing?

Please. Every group of churchs has a leadership that tells those churchs what to do.

And where do you get that the priesthood is not biblical?

That is saying that a minister is not biblical

[wavydaby 1]

Me? I want argue?.. Pot, Hello Pot! This is Kettle.

I thought we were have a discussion?

I suppose you will stop posting then?

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

Me? I want argue?.. Pot, Hello Pot! This is Kettle.

I thought we were have a discussion?

I suppose you will stop posting then?

[wavydaby 1]

You are one side of the horse, I am on the other.

I wanted to know why you are so insistant that as a Catholic,(being not perfect one set aside) I am going to hell.

Why you are so insistant that only your version and interpretation of the bible is right.

And, futhermore, it seems that others are also interested as well.

I do not PM. I like input from others as well.

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

You are one side of the horse, I am on the other.

I wanted to know why you are so insistant that as a Catholic,(being not perfect one set aside) I am going to hell.

Why you are so insistant that only your version and interpretation of the bible is right.

And, futhermore, it seems that others are also interested as well.

I do not PM. I like input from others as well.

[Ron Cusano 0]

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

[BJean 16]

It seems someone may just be in a little over his head this time.

By the way, if you're fairly new to this thread, most of the people here are not atheists as someone just stated. Many of us are believers, but we do not believe that ridicule and condesension are tools that any credible intelligent minister uses to make a point. Plus there's also the fact that many of us here are Catholics as well. Stick to your guns.

[Wheetsin 714]

You see a big difference between a circle and a sphere??

Yeah, huge. A circle is 2 dimensional, like a photograph. A sphere is 3 dimensional, like a person. I think the difference between something that has 2 dimensions and something that has 3 is enormous. But you evaded the question. Do you believe the earth is a circle, as stated in the bible?

Since the book is devinely inspired, I would assume God provided the information! Why is there no geological signs of a worldwide flood"?? There is plenty of it out there! You just haven't looked. Where did all the Water go? Whereever it came from in the first place. I assume the atmosphere!

Yes, I have looked. But it's interesting how you're somehow qualified to tell me what I have done or not done. How exactly is that?

If I hadn't looked, I would not have been able to confirm references to local floods. Please, point me to some evidence. I've been unsuccessful in my searches. (And BTW, any climatologist or most 7th graders could tell you that if a worldwide ocean just somehow inexplicably "went back to the atmosphere", it would come right back down as rain, and be another worldwide ocean).

Chewing the cud envolves bringing back up what had been swallowed, and chewing it again. As someone who has owned a farm and raised rabbits, I can tell you first hand that is true. Eh, have YOU raised any rabbits??

No sir, cud is specifically material brought up from the rumen. And the bible is literal, so either rabbits have rumen and can produce cud, or it is not literal and cud could mean anything brought back up from the digestive track. It can't be both ways if only one meaning is literally right. So which do you believe it is? Do you believe rabits have rumen, or do you believe there is room for interpretation about what "cud" means?

(And yes, I have raised rabbits. Holland Lops to be specific. And not a single one of them had rumen or produced cud.)

We know that horses and armidillos can get leprocy, so if the Bible said it occured in horses thousands of years ago, I can accept that. It was the act of obedience in performing the cleansing ritural that effected the cure, rather the the cure being in the blood. The Mosiac Law was full of these types of rituals.

I didn't say "horse".

Give he the chapter and verse so I can check the meaning of the word you say is translated "dirt"!

If you mean give you, it is Judges 3:22. But why would you have to go see? If the bible is literal, and it says dirt, then surely it's dirt, no? Oh, is that where context comes into play? Context that effects interpretation?

If you actually KNEW the scriptures instead of pull verses out of context to try to prove me wrong, you would have known that!

I didn't pull verses out of context, I quoted them. I took them from a book and typed them on my screen. And if the words are meant literally, they should survive the transplant. And if the word is literal, why does context matter?

I'm not trying to "prove you wrong", that has already been done. Again, you make assumptions about my actions. I'm trying to understand from whence your perspective comes. You are the first person I've encountered who is so adamanat that they are correct, and held viewpoints so divergent from most of the christians I know. If I have a better understanding of what your beliefs are, and what literality you believe to be true or not true, then I am better able to engage in the conversation, versus making assumptions, as you are doing. Ron Cusano - let me ask... why is this an "us vs. them" situation for you? Why do you assume anyone is trying to prove you wrong? Is someone who asks you whether or not you believe what's written in the bible somehow an inherent enemy to you?

[Wheetsin 714]

forum like this is because the majority here are not Catholics, in fact most do not believe in God

Most in the Rants and Raves forum do believe in god. I've seen a handful of atheists have presence here. Count is now probably up 5 or 6 "known" atheists. For that to be most in this forum, it would mean that there are no more than 5 others who post to RnR. And that's simply not accurate.

[Ron Cusano 0]

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

Yeah, huge. A circle is 2 dimensional, like a photograph. A sphere is 3 dimensional, like a person. I think the difference between something that has 2 dimensions and something that has 3 is enormous. But you evaded the question. Do you believe the earth is a circle, as stated in the bible?

Yes, I have looked. But it's interesting how you're somehow qualified to tell me what I have done or not done. How exactly is that? So let's play by you rules. Since the people of that time had no way visually see or conceive of a 3 demensional view of the world, their best description would be to describe it as a circle.

If I hadn't looked, I would not have been able to confirm references to local floods. Please, point me to some evidence. I've been unsuccessful in my searches. (And BTW, any climatologist or most 7th graders could tell you that if a worldwide ocean just somehow inexplicably "went back to the atmosphere", it would come right back down as rain, and be another worldwide ocean).

No sir, cud is specifically material brought up from the rumen. And the bible is literal, so either rabbits have rumen and can produce cud, or it is not literal and cud could mean anything brought back up from the digestive track. It can't be both ways if only one meaning is literally right. So which do you believe it is? Do you believe rabits have rumen, or do you believe there is room for interpretation about what "cud" means? Yeah, if you are talking about cows. Rabbits perfrom the same function from the stomach.

(And yes, I have raised rabbits. Holland Lops to be specific. And not a single one of them had rumen or produced cud.)

I didn't say "horse".

If you mean give you, it is Judges 3:22. But why would you have to go see? If the bible is literal, and it says dirt, then surely it's dirt, no? Oh, is that where context comes into play? Context that effects interpretation?

I didn't pull verses out of context, I quoted them. I took them from a book and typed them on my screen. And if the words are meant literally, they should survive the transplant. And if the word is literal, why does context matter? Context means everything!

I'm not trying to "prove you wrong", that has already been done. Again, you make assumptions about my actions. I'm trying to understand from whence your perspective comes. You are the first person I've encountered who is so adamanat that they are correct, and held viewpoints so divergent from most of the christians I know. If I have a better understanding of what your beliefs are, and what literality you believe to be true or not true, then I am better able to engage in the conversation, versus making assumptions, as you are doing. Ron Cusano - let me ask... why is this an "us vs. them" situation for you? Why do you assume anyone is trying to prove you wrong? Is someone who asks you whether or not you believe what's written in the bible somehow an inherent enemy to you?

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.

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

It seems someone may just be in a little over his head this time.

By the way, if you're fairly new to this thread, most of the people here are not atheists as someone just stated. Many of us are believers, but we do not believe that ridicule and condesension are tools that any credible intelligent minister uses to make a point. Plus there's also the fact that many of us here are Catholics as well. Stick to your guns.

[anonemouse 1]

Ron, that page that you linked doesn't list proof of a world-wide flood.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't know what you mean. Here is another site with more evidence. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/worldwideflood.htm

and another

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences13.html

and another

http://www.earthage.addr.com/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm

There are also hundreds of books on the subject!

I was told there is not proof of the flood, but that is proof. Weather you believe it or not is not the issue.

Ron, that page that you linked doesn't list proof of a world-wide flood.

[anonemouse 1]

Ron, go here. This is a list of creationists' claims and the rebuttals to them. I noted several instances of your so-called "evidence" being rebutted. The flood section is CH400-CH599. This is a nice page, too, that summarizes much of the problems noted with a world-wide flood.