The Bible and Homosexuality

Ah, so that's who knocked him off the horse.

Well, he said so plainly.

It would certainly give him motive.

So if Paul is a liar, we have nothing to talk about.

Well, maybe not....he could also be deluded....

How is that any different in any meaningful way?

Not a liar necessarily. More of a spin artist with an agenda.

If so, we have nothing to talk about.

He could have been fixed with a magic shot by friendly men in white coats.

Course, he's dead now,...but, we can still help the Paulists....

Actually, Paul as a false apostle gives a very interesting twist to Christianity, there's a lot to talk about in that regard. But it sounds like you're a bit too wrapped in dogma to have that discussion.

A lie is a deliberate act. Delusion is involuntary. The deluded person believes in his delusion and acts according to it, i.e., morally. A liar acts immorally.

That's a very meaningful difference.

Except that when I have asked people to point out in what way his doctrines are meaningfully different from the teaching of Jesus, no one has been able to come up with anything that wasn't based on an argument from silence, or a very debatable interpretation of what Paul actually wrote, and none of that having to do with any fundamental doctrine in any case.

So I think the only real "discussion" on the issue is one of exchanging preconceived opinions without any real backing for them. Kind of like a fight between fundies of two different stripes, neither one willing to consider that the other one might actually have something worthwhile to say, and that one's own personal interpretations might not be the only possible way to understand the text. In French, we call that a "dialog between deaf people," where neither one is really willing to hear what the other one has to say.

However, if anyone can actually come up with some demonstrably meaningful difference between Paul's teachings and those of Jesus, I would be very interested in seeing it.

I'm definitely not interested in discussing the potential that a significant portion of the canon of the New Testament was written by a fraud.

I just don't see the point.

"Just because"?

I'm thinking you're just going to have to live with it.

Translation:

Ohhh!

Yeah, it's really no skin off my nose either.

That's a conversation I'd enjoy, if I thought you really meant "anyone."

Even Jesus can't believe you're that fucking stupid.

Coming from you, that means... well, nothing.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

DDR

Tell me more about it, Doctor Venkman.

FTFY. Because quite frankly, what's the point of talking about any of the things we do? It's not like our discussions have meaningful impacts on what happens.

I'd love to, but you're too busy running away with your fingers lodged permanently in your years.

I might regret this, but I'll give you the chance. I won't troll you or insult you, and I will respond to you, for the first time in years. What more could you want?

So go for it.

"I don't see the point" and "I'm not interested in discussing it" seem to go hand in hand here, so I hope that you're not under the impression that you just whipped out some sort of "gotcha". I already clearly stated that I'm not interested in discussing it. Largely because I don't see the point. ESPECIALLY if clowns like Diacanu and a verified fraud and proven liar like Black Dove are involved.

In the same way that con artists and mental patients are different, intent.