If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Bento the spazcat

Dark Lord Drake

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Lucky~9~Lives

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Yeah, but it doesn't.

Source?

Colossians 2:14 confirms what Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19, the Levitical Law is fulfilled, there is no long a barrier for gays to marry.

Unless they're Catholic, then they don't require Levitical Law and such.

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

[Boxy]

Dark Lord Drake

Bento the spazcat

Dark Lord Drake

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Lucky~9~Lives

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Yeah, but it doesn't.

Source?

Colossians 2:14 confirms what Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19, the Levitical Law is fulfilled, there is no long a barrier for gays to marry.

Unless they're Catholic, then they don't require Levitical Law and such.

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

[Dark Lord Drake]

Boxy

Dark Lord Drake

Bento the spazcat

Dark Lord Drake

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Colossians 2:14 confirms what Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19, the Levitical Law is fulfilled, there is no long a barrier for gays to marry.

Unless they're Catholic, then they don't require Levitical Law and such.

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

[e-Claire rc1]

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Dark Lord Drake

Bento the spazcat

Dark Lord Drake

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Colossians 2:14 confirms what Jesus says in Matthew 5:18-19, the Levitical Law is fulfilled, there is no long a barrier for gays to marry.

Unless they're Catholic, then they don't require Levitical Law and such.

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

[Dark Lord Drake]

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Dark Lord Drake

Bento the spazcat

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

[e-Claire rc1]

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Dark Lord Drake

Bento the spazcat

um..what? I thought that was just orthodox jews...

What? NOT requiring Levitical Law to be against marrying gays?

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

[Bento the spazcat]

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.
Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

Is the catechism the word of God, or the bible according to the church?

[e-Claire rc1]

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Boxy

Ok, you've officially lost me. Start over from Celeblin's last post. GO!

The barrier for gays to marry doesn't have to be from Levitical Law. Generally I see it being sacred tradition from Catholics that bars it. Ergo bringing down Levitical Law isn't enough for all Christians to say there is no barrier.

Then Bento lost me. I don't know what he was talking about.

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

that's circular logic, though. bring down levitical law and butt bumping isn't a sin anymore

[Dark Lord Drake]

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

that's circular logic, though. bring down levitical law and butt bumping isn't a sin anymore

How is it circular?

And bringing down levitical law doesn't bring down the sacred tradition of the Church, which insists that marriage is between a man and a woman as far as I know.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Bento the spazcat

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

Is the catechism the word of God, or the bible according to the church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

There's what it is.

And please don't try to go into "If it isn't in the Bible then it is allowed" because that's Sola Scriptura, which doesn't apply to Catholic beliefs.

[e-Claire rc1]

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

agape?

For what? For what Bento was talking about? I doubt that's what he meant when he mentioned orthodox Jews.

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

that's circular logic, though. bring down levitical law and butt bumping isn't a sin anymore

How is it circular?

And bringing down levitical law doesn't bring down the sacred tradition of the Church, which insists that marriage is between a man and a woman as far as I know.

oh, the church doesn't follow the bible?

that's some charming fact right there.

[Boxy]

Blairnensha

oh, the church doesn't follow the bible?

that's some charming fact right there.

It's more along the lines of "The Bible follows the Church."

Since, y'know, Catholics claim that the Bible was written by the stewards of the Church and stuff. But it's not the end-all, be-all, since we have other writings of the stewards of the Church -- say, papal encyclicals, or sacred traditions of the Church.

[Dark Lord Drake]

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

Dark Lord Drake

Blairnensha

no I mean, agape is in the bible, so it should supercede catechism or whatever.

But with catechism one can interpret what is loving. Is sinning loving to God? I would say no, ergo the catechism tells us something relevant about Agape.

that's circular logic, though. bring down levitical law and butt bumping isn't a sin anymore

How is it circular?

And bringing down levitical law doesn't bring down the sacred tradition of the Church, which insists that marriage is between a man and a woman as far as I know.

oh, the church doesn't follow the bible?

that's some charming fact right there.

It does follow the teachings. But it has more to say besides that. Therefore an absence from the Bible isn't the end, an absence from Church teaching is what you'd have to be looking for. Boxy explains better.

[e-Claire rc1]

Boxy

Blairnensha

oh, the church doesn't follow the bible?

that's some charming fact right there.

It's more along the lines of "The Bible follows the Church."

Since, y'know, Catholics claim that the Bible was written by the stewards of the Church and stuff. But it's not the end-all, be-all, since we have other writings of the stewards of the Church -- say, papal encyclicals, or sacred traditions of the Church.

oh ok, so it's not the divine word of God?