|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 18:03:47 GMT -5
Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt Eric Robert Rudolph would have blown up that abortion clinic and gay bar if not for Christian rhetoric. Same for the WTC bombers. WTC bombers used another rhetoric . But we're getting the various religions crossed. To say you doubt is not even close to proof. Your lack of objectivity is showing. Not all parts, I'll admit ;D. I won't quote the definition of pattern for you but will provide a link: www.answers.com/topic/patternThe word you're wanting to use is replicate. Yeah, but I'm more about doing what he taught than what he did. If what he did fits in what I desire, cool. I don't drink or hang out with prostitutes though. So perhaps "pattern" wasn't the best word after all -- perhaps a better description would be "what would Jesus have me do?" not "What would Jesus do". I have adopted the latter for a few years now. Perhaps, but was is not what is. In other words, I'm tired and my son wants to use my laptop! I think -- although I mentioned it only as a response to you -- that it is silly to base Christianity today on what people did in the name of Christianity in the past. We can learn from it but it is not a valid reason to discredit Christianity today. Its like blaming me if my ancestors owned slaves. In some small way, I see your point. People WILL do all sorts of things and then claim they did it because of their Christian beliefs. You mentioned that Jesus told people what to do but it was more in the line of teaching them the character of God and what was in line with it. He never suggested passing laws that removed people's personal freedoms. I disagree with such things as blue laws, dry counties, ban on sex toys (and no, Alabama is NOT the only state), etc. As long as people are not harming others, there should be no laws.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 18:50:39 GMT -5
kevin, women and men were not created to be equal in all things. We are physically and emotionally different. The very fact that one of the two must bear children is a direct need of these differences. The family unit and the incorporation of societies being another need for differences. Men are "equal" with women on the things that are important but God did not create complete equality between women and men. Hey, don't state the obvious ;D. By virtue of Jesus' treatment of the woman at the well (yes, I used those verses ALOT -- there is so much there) you see that there was definitely not a proper treatment of women by the Jews. She was a Samaritan, true, but she was a woman also. The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) If it had just been the fact that she was Samaritan, she would not have added "woman" to her self-description. She was amazed on both levels. Jesus broke so many stereotypes of a Jewish male. That is among the many reasons the Jews rejected him.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 21:51:15 GMT -5
Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt Eric Robert Rudolph would have blown up that abortion clinic and gay bar if not for Christian rhetoric. Same for the WTC bombers. WTC bombers used another rhetoric . But we're getting the various religions crossed. To say you doubt is not even close to proof. Your lack of objectivity is showing. If you want to believe that Eric Robert Rudolph and the WTC bombers weren't motivated by religion that's fine. Good luck with that. I hope it work out for you. Not all parts, I'll admit ;D. I won't quote the definition of pattern for you but will provide a link: www.answers.com/topic/patternThe word you're wanting to use is replicate. Yeah, but I'm more about doing what he taught than what he did. If what he did fits in what I desire, cool. I don't drink or hang out with prostitutes though. So perhaps "pattern" wasn't the best word after all -- perhaps a better description would be "what would Jesus have me do?" not "What would Jesus do". I have adopted the latter for a few years now. I think he'd have you give all of your stuff away and live like the birds. But I forget. You're talking about 20th century Christian dogma. Not what he actually said in the legend. Perhaps, but was is not what is. In other words, I'm tired and my son wants to use my laptop! I think -- although I mentioned it only as a response to you -- that it is silly to base Christianity today on what people did in the name of Christianity in the past. We can learn from it but it is not a valid reason to discredit Christianity today. Its like blaming me if my ancestors owned slaves. Not as silly as taking 20th century, secular, American ethics and imagining them to be universal Christian teachings.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 22:18:55 GMT -5
If you want to believe that Eric Robert Rudolph and the WTC bombers weren't motivated by religion that's fine. Good luck with that. I hope it work out for you. No...you don't seem to get my premise. You can't just "believe", you have to "know". That's what you assert about belief in God, that you must have definitive proof. Rudolph may say some things, but who really knows his real motivation. But even if he did -- was it motivation or justification? But to be fair, there is more evidence that his actions were either motivated or supposedly justified by a twisting of the Bible than there is physical evidence of God. I knew that already -- I'm just trying to show that there are some things you can't possibly know without some doubt and then it comes down to belief. Lastly, there is nothing in the Bible that supports his position -- unless taken way out of context -- so its more like a religion that is based on bits and pieces of a viewpoint that Christian Identity wanted to claim. So in this instance religion is bad. But its not the religion of Christianity as revealed in the Holy Bible. This is one of the worst and most opinionated statements you've made in all of our communications. I thought you above this. I'd like for you to point out where any beliefs I have displayed have conflicted with Biblical teachings. I know I can show where things Paul suggested are definitely different, but there is no contextual evidence that these things were handed down from God through Paul as a mouthpiece. If you want to point out some times I've been "bad" on here, that's easy to answer: I'm not perfect. But I try to do the right thing. Problem is -- I fail. Often.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 22:50:05 GMT -5
This is one of the worst and most opinionated statements you've made in all of our communications. No, I'm right on this one. I know you can't accept this but you and Phinehas are trying to rationalize feminism in the light of Christianity. Why? because it's the norm today. I believe if we were having this conversation 50 years ago you wouldn't think Christianity supports feminism and if we were having this conversation 50 years from now you would think Christianity supports gay rights. There was a time when Christians tried to reconcile the Bible with Aristotle. Funny nobody does that today. In the 60s there was a lot of stuff about the separation of the races. Where did that go? You say you're a Southern Baptist. Did you know that in the 1970s there were a lot of Women Baptist preachers? What happened to that? Also the Southern Baptists started as a pro-slavery movement. To cement my point all the thousands of other brands of Christianity believed they were right according to Saint Paul too.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 22:56:20 GMT -5
Lastly, there is nothing in the Bible that supports his position -- unless taken way out of context Sigh. I can make good arguments for the Bible telling you to hate everybody and castrate yourself. etc. etc. There's no objective way to determine who's right. That's why I stick to science. Why do you hate me because I believe in science?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 23:03:47 GMT -5
"to rationalize feminism in the light of Christianity"
Nowhere did I rationalize feminism in the light of anything.
"Sigh. I can make good arguments for the Bible telling you to hate everybody and castrate yourself. etc. etc."
Yes, you can make good, cough, arguments for that but you are then given better arguments that dispute your claims. You then pull the objectivity or rationalizaion card....so that's why there is no point in debating those matters with you.
"There's no objective way to determine who's right."
Yes, you live in a world shaded by gray were nothing is right or wrong. Sounds spooky. LOL.
"Why do you hate me because I believe in science?"
Well, you rightly point out that you believe in science versus knowing science. Nobody hates you for anything......that must be a delusional atheist mental thing happening.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 0:13:57 GMT -5
No, I'm right on this one. I know you can't accept this but you and Phinehas are trying to rationalize feminism in the light of Christianity. Why? because it's the norm today. I believe if we were having this conversation 50 years ago you wouldn't think Christianity supports feminism and if we were having this conversation 50 years from now you would think Christianity supports gay rights. My question is: why do you insist on living in the past? There is no basis of discrimination or inequality among the sexes in anything Jesus taught. Nor is there is any evidence in the other books of the NT. That applies 50 years ago, today, or 50 years from now. So, yeah, you're right, I don't accept it. Yo constantly talk about "what was". Can I help what my ancestors did? Your argument is pure speculation. You'd be better off just saying there were cultural differences 50 years ago and leave religion out of it. If I'm around in 50 years, I won't try to rationalize homosexuality. There is no room for its acceptance in the Bible. I dare for anyone to show me where there is and I will flat-out debunk it. But gay rights? I believe in human rights. If you are talking about rights that go above and beyond what other members of the human race have, no. I don't believe in affirmative action either for that very purpose. I'm divorced. My ex-wife may very well have committed adultery but guess what? I don't think there is a provision for it in any case. I accept that what I did was contrary to what God would have for me. Am I trying to rationalize my divorce just because over 50% of Christians are divorcing? No way. I accept that I failed in being the very best husband that I was capable of. But I also accept that that doesn't condemn me for the rest of my life. And I know why God hates divorce, but I'll leave that for another time. Living in the past again. Its 2007, welcome to it. Separation of the races IS NOT SUPPORTED anywhere in the Bible. Show me where and I'll debunk that, too. I made a pastor of mine angry years ago because he taught a lesson on interracial relationships and tried to use the Bible to prove his point. I called him on it, showed him where he was way off, and he stayed mad at me for months. In the end, we agreed to disagree and moved on. But just because there were people espousing such a belief does not make it Biblically accurate. I've been meaning to bring up the definition of religion I adhere to: Religion is man's way of pleasing God I use this because as it stands, religion stinks. So, yeah, you could say that religion is harmful in many ways. Its the human element that makes it that way. Look at the discussion that goes on in these forums. People have different opinions on what they hear from political candidates. But the words that come out of their mouths (the candidates) are the same no matter who hears them. From that point it becomes a matter of interpretation. Same way with scripture. Is every atheist positive in his views? No way. There are many who hate people of religion. There are others who are tolerant. What makes them different? The human aspect. You seem to fail to see that humans -- all of them -- are flawed. So instead of laying the fault at the feet of those who falsely interpret something, you instead attack the source of their beliefs. Like so many have said, its not guns that kill people, its people. Its not God's Word that is harmful, its people who misinterpret as justification for their desires. But it can be very beneficial if interpreted properly. Oh no, I let my secret slip out. Now you'll be trying to bring in Southern Baptist faults whenever you run out of other things to say. That's fine. There used to be Church Covenants on the wall of some of the churches I went to. I looked at them, looked at the Bible, and discarded the covenants. I was there for the people, not the covenant. And if I heard something from a teacher or the pulpit, I always checked up on what was said if I had not already researched it. If it did not match Biblical teaching I discarded it as personal opinion. Everybody has those you know. There is no support for denominations scripturally either. I happen to be a member of SB because I don't have too many fundamental differences with them. I tried a few non-denominational churches but either I went on a bad day or the people there were really just cold and indifferent. It happens when people lose sight of what they are really there for.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 7:58:54 GMT -5
So you're divorced?
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Copied directly from Mark
Mark 10:2-12
2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
I'm sure you rationalize this by citing NT verses that say different. Which I see as an obvious example of a contradiction. You just do what to do as you please or what's the norm in America today.
Obviously you won't accept this. You want to believe you understand the Bible better than anybody else in history. Above you claimed you put your preacher in his place.
Can you at least see why I don't believe religious people are capable of objective reasoning?
The next Christian I talk to will think he's got it all figured out and you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 9:33:44 GMT -5
So you're divorced? Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Copied directly from Mark Mark 10:2-12 2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. I'm sure you rationalize this by citing NT verses that say different. Which I see as an obvious example of a contradiction. You just do what to do as you please or what's the norm in America today. Obviously you won't accept this. You want to believe you understand the Bible better than anybody else in history. Above you claimed you put your preacher in his place. Can you at least see why I don't believe religious people are capable of objective reasoning? The next Christian I talk to will think he's got it all figured out and you're wrong. Totally classless, Blondie. You apparently missed this part of Kevin's post: " I accept that what I did was contrary to what God would have for me. Am I trying to rationalize my divorce just because over 50% of Christians are divorcing? No way. I accept that I failed in being the very best husband that I was capable of. But I also accept that that doesn't condemn me for the rest of my life. And I know why God hates divorce, but I'll leave that for another time." Good job at kicking someone who's doing something you're incapable of doing: being honest about who they really are. Here Kevin is telling you how he knows he's messed up in the past and the only thing you know how to do is kick him in the head. Only a hateful atheist like yourself would stoop to such. Kevin, I applaud your courage and honesty.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 10:06:24 GMT -5
Totally classless, Blondie. You apparently missed this part of Kevin's post: " I accept that what I did was contrary to what God would have for me. Am I trying to rationalize my divorce just because over 50% of Christians are divorcing? No way. I accept that I failed in being the very best husband that I was capable of. But I also accept that that doesn't condemn me for the rest of my life. And I know why God hates divorce, but I'll leave that for another time." Good job at kicking someone who's doing something you're incapable of doing: being honest about who they really are. Here Kevin is telling you how he knows he's messed up in the past and the only thing you know how to do is kick him in the head. Only a hateful atheist like yourself would stoop to such. Kevin, I applaud your courage and honesty. I don't think there's anything wrong with divorce. I don't think it's any of my business. I just want to be clear that according to Christian tradition Kevin's going to burn in hell for all eternity. Obviously deep down he knows Christianity's not true and he just goes about doing what he pleases. He gets his morality from his personal experience and empathy just like everyone else. We Atheists are just honest about it. Time and time again I get confronted by Christians who can't imagine how someone could be moral without Jesus. All this tells me is they haven't thought about it. I don't do things I believe are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 10:56:14 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything wrong with divorce. I don't think it's any of my business. I just want to be clear that according to Christian tradition Kevin's going to burn in hell for all eternity. I understand you don't adhere to Christianity but you don't have to make such ill-informed statements about what it teaches. Just like you know that you weren't meant to be "naked and alone in a world" you don't understand. It's not works that save anyone. And I would be willing to bet that you're either lying or that you consider very few things to be wrong. Probably the latter.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 11:22:13 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything wrong with divorce. I don't think it's any of my business. I just want to be clear that according to Christian tradition Kevin's going to burn in hell for all eternity. I understand you don't adhere to Christianity but you don't have to make such ill-informed statements about what it teaches. Oh right. Whatever branch you belong to is the true branch and the ones who don't believe in divorce just don't get it the way you do. I'll never understand what it is about this obvious point that theists just don't get.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 11:26:29 GMT -5
Oh right. Whatever branch you belong to is the true branch and the ones who don't believe in divorce just don't get it the way you do. I'll never understand what it is about this obvious point that theists just don't get. I never said I supported divorce or believe that the Bible condones it. You made a blatantly false statement that goes against what the Bible clearly teaches and I was simply pointing out that, in your case, atheism is no excuse for a lack of understanding what the Bible says regarding this subject.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 11:33:09 GMT -5
Oh right. Whatever branch you belong to is the true branch and the ones who don't believe in divorce just don't get it the way you do. I'll never understand what it is about this obvious point that theists just don't get. I never said I supported divorce or believe that the Bible condones it. You made a blatantly false statement that goes against what the Bible clearly teaches and I was simply pointing out that, in your case, atheism is no excuse for a lack of understanding what the Bible says regarding this subject. I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce. That's a fact. If you disagree you either have to rationalize or invoke magic. An answer that doesn't rationalize or invoke magic will always trump one that does. I can defend any point of view, no matter how absurd, by using the methods of Christian apologetics.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 11:42:06 GMT -5
I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce. That's a fact. If you disagree you either have to rationalize or invoke magic. An answer that doesn't rationalize or invoke magic will always trump one that does. I can defend any point of view, no matter how absurd, by using the methods of Christian apologetics. LOL! You mean to say, you can defend any point of view by snatching verses out of context. The only reason you think the Bible says different and contradictory things about divorce is because you're too lazy to actually read the document yourself but have to snatch things from evilbible.com to defend you ignorant statements.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 11:48:07 GMT -5
I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce. That's a fact. If you disagree you either have to rationalize or invoke magic. An answer that doesn't rationalize or invoke magic will always trump one that does. I can defend any point of view, no matter how absurd, by using the methods of Christian apologetics. LOL! You mean to say, you can defend any point of view by snatching verses out of context. The only reason you think the Bible says different and contradictory things about divorce is because you're too lazy to actually read the document yourself but have to snatch things from evilbible.com to defend you ignorant statements. I believe it says different and contradictory things about divorce because it was written by different people with different ideas. Obviously different Christians believe different things about divorce.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 12:22:31 GMT -5
Kevin,
"I'm divorced. My ex-wife may very well have committed adultery but guess what? I don't think there is a provision for it in any case."
My brother-in-law divorced my sister. She did commit adultery and it is the only direct provision given. An obvious argument can be made for getting a divorce due to a level of mistreatment....but as far as a direct provision:
Matt 5:32
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. KJV
Anytime blondie quotes scripture or states there is something wrong with scripture, it's automatic that she is probably wrong. Most atheists are going to be wrong about most things in relation to scripture...it's just a fact and blondie is not an exception to that fact.
I too think it's a low blow by blondie but it's not surprising at the least. All it does is give another opportunity for her to be proven wrong and that she doesn't understand the Bible, not that she wants to in the first place.
"I believe it says different and contradictory things "
Good choice of words, since you obviously don't know...you just believe it because you want to. You are not objective in your thinking. One of the many things that atheists fail to grasp is that the Bible is one book with one message and different details, not contradictory details and are given for some events and some concepts. Until that is understaood, atheists will always be incorrect in their understanding of the scripture. The fact that most of them don't actually read the bible versus hunting for "issues" is another self inflicted defect atheists have. A lot of them are even more lazy and rely on evilbible.com websites for most of their information. That of course starts them off on the wrong premise in the first place...but when your goal is to disprove the Bible...it doesn't matter. Again, atheists like blondie are not objective nor clear thinkers.
"That's a fact."
In relation to all your evilbible.com posts...you have yet to prove any of your premises as being factual. That is a fact. They have all been refuted and you either can't intellectually understand the responses or automatically invalidate them in your own mind. So, let's get that straight right now, just so you don't think you have actually come close to proving any of your evilbible.com talking points.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 12:52:03 GMT -5
I believe it says different and contradictory things about divorce because it was written by different people with different ideas. Obviously different Christians believe different things about divorce. Any in depth study will show that, even though different people did write, the ideas presented do not contradict each other. Let me give you an example. At one point you wrote that you were “ Alone and naked in a universe I don’t understand.” Now, if I wanted to take this statement all by itself I could draw all sorts of conclusions from it. I could say that you were scared of being wrong about what you think about this universe. I could say that you are very insecure with you views. I could say that you feel like your life has no point. But, unless I wanted to draw some incorrect views about what you actually meant by that statement, I would need to look at the context in which you wrote and compare that to the rest of your writings. If I really wanted to get a good idea, I could read what other people who know you write about you. So, let’s post the rest of that section to review the context. I'm an existentialist. Alone and naked in a universe I don't understand. Certainly not the purpose for my surroundings. Okay. So maybe this wasn’t the best example because my conclusions still stand but I’m sure you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 13:10:34 GMT -5
Kevin, "I'm divorced. My ex-wife may very well have committed adultery but guess what? I don't think there is a provision for it in any case."My brother-in-law divorced my sister. She did commit adultery and it is the only direct provision given. An obvious argument can be made for getting a divorce due to a level of mistreatment....but as far as a direct provision: Matt 5:32 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. KJV Anytime blondie quotes scripture or states there is something wrong with scripture, it's automatic that she is probably wrong. Most atheists are going to be wrong about most things in relation to scripture...it's just a fact and blondie is not an exception to that fact. I too think it's a low blow by blondie but it's not surprising at the least. All it does is give another opportunity for her to be proven wrong and that she doesn't understand the Bible, not that she wants to in the first place. "I believe it says different and contradictory things "Good choice of words, since you obviously don't know...you just believe it because you want to. You are not objective in your thinking. One of the many things that atheists fail to grasp is that the Bible is one book with one message and different details, not contradictory details and are given for some events and some concepts. Until that is understaood, atheists will always be incorrect in their understanding of the scripture. The fact that most of them don't actually read the bible versus hunting for "issues" is another self inflicted defect atheists have. A lot of them are even more lazy and rely on evilbible.com websites for most of their information. That of course starts them off on the wrong premise in the first place...but when your goal is to disprove the Bible...it doesn't matter. Again, atheists like blondie are not objective nor clear thinkers. "That's a fact."In relation to all your evilbible.com posts...you have yet to prove any of your premises as being factual. That is a fact. They have all been refuted and you either can't intellectually understand the responses or automatically invalidate them in your own mind. So, let's get that straight right now, just so you don't think you have actually come close to proving any of your evilbible.com talking points. You just proved my point. You go with the Matthew version and ignore the earlier Mark. Why? because you want to rationalize your random ethics. You further prove my point by thinking your version of Christianity is true while other versions are false. What does and objective source say? My, oh my. It agrees with me: www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 13:19:51 GMT -5
I believe it says different and contradictory things about divorce because it was written by different people with different ideas. Obviously different Christians believe different things about divorce. Any in depth study will show that, even though different people did write, the ideas presented do not contradict each other. Let me give you an example. At one point you wrote that you were “ Alone and naked in a universe I don’t understand.” Now, if I wanted to take this statement all by itself I could draw all sorts of conclusions from it. I could say that you were scared of being wrong about what you think about this universe. I could say that you are very insecure with you views. I could say that you feel like your life has no point. But, unless I wanted to draw some incorrect views about what you actually meant by that statement, I would need to look at the context in which you wrote and compare that to the rest of your writings. If I really wanted to get a good idea, I could read what other people who know you write about you. So, let’s post the rest of that section to review the context. I'm an existentialist. Alone and naked in a universe I don't understand. Certainly not the purpose for my surroundings. Okay. So maybe this wasn’t the best example because my conclusions still stand but I’m sure you get the idea. Since the only way you can defend your understanding of the Bible will reveal itself to be the rationalizing of the dogma of one particular American subculture you decide to attack me. Once again I make a simple and honest point about religion: I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce.
That's a fact. If you disagree you either have to rationalize or invoke magic.
An answer that doesn't rationalize or invoke magic will always trump one that does.
I can defend any point of view, no matter how absurd, by using the methods of Christian apologetics.Clear, precise and beautifully written.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 13:29:44 GMT -5
Matt 5:32 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Tell me this. Do you think a woman should be allowed to divorce he husband if he beats her? Hmmmmmmm? Hmmm? If so. Why do you think secular ethics trump your understanding of the Bible? Hammy? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 13:42:46 GMT -5
You just proved my point. You go with the Matthew version and ignore the earlier Mark. Why? because you want to rationalize your random ethics. Are you trying to say that what Mark wrote contradicts what Matthew wrote? How so?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 13:46:55 GMT -5
Since the only way you can defend your understanding of the Bible will reveal itself to be the rationalizing of the dogma of one particular American subculture you decide to attack me. That actually sounds like something out of your playbook, Blondie. Are you trying to say that looking at context=rationalizing? Surely you aren't that stupid.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 13:52:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 13:59:41 GMT -5
Since the only way you can defend your understanding of the Bible will reveal itself to be the rationalizing of the dogma of one particular American subculture you decide to attack me. That actually sounds like something out of your playbook, Blondie. Are you trying to say that looking at context=rationalizing? Surely you aren't that stupid. Nobody reads the Bible out of context like Christians. Especially supposed OT prophesies of Jesus. If you interpret the Mark passage on divorce in light of Matthew you are reading Mark out of context. Out of context. sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:05:15 GMT -5
"You just proved my point. You go with the Matthew version and ignore the earlier Mark. Why? because you want to rationalize your random ethics."*- No I didn't. Sigh.....again, you can not grasp the simple and basic fact that the Bible is written by different perspectives of people that reveals different information, that is meant to be put together as a whole. I have pointed this out many times and with examples and you just can't get it. Perhaps you could visit the nearest pastor or preist and they can help you. I am not a teacher, so therefore I may not be explaining the simple concept to you in a fashion that you are able to understand. "You further prove my point by thinking your version of Christianity is true while other versions are false."*- My quote of the Bible is void of any designation of a "version". This is your ongoing way of trying to invalidate what people say based on nothing but a declaration on your part. "What does and objective source say?"*- What objective source did you use that proves this source is objective? "My, oh my. It agrees with me:"
www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm *- your source is not objective and therefore is invalid. *- you are not objective and therefore your opinion is not objective.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:19:19 GMT -5
"Nobody reads the Bible out of context like Christians. Especially supposed OT prophesies of Jesus.
If you interpret the Mark passage on divorce in light of Matthew you are reading Mark out of context.
Out of context. sheesh."
Actually, I would state the opposite and say that atheists can not read the Bible within context and in fact unlike some Christians that do it unaware, atheists do it on purpose. Very simple stuff. The Bible is a spiritual as well as an intellectual work that requires both. Atheists are lacking in both.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 14:25:17 GMT -5
LOL! Your link says this: "However, this time, Jesus states that divorce is not permitted under any circumstances" in regards to the Mark passage. I would like you to show where it says that. Please, show me in the mark passage where Jesus forbids divorce.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 14:25:34 GMT -5
Phinehas, I know how Evangelicals interpret the Bible. That doesn't make it any more valid than how Catholics interpret it. You're interpretation is no more valid than theirs. I'm objective. You're not. By any measure except your subjectivity. The obvious proof of this is that all objective sources agree with me. I'm not just saying that like you like to pretend. I bet you believe the professors in the chemistry and history departments of places like Harvard and Oxford are objective. But their religion departments will agree with me. What should that tell you? You think I'm missing something by not shutting my mind to all but an Evangelical interpretation of the Bible. Religioustolerance.org is about as objective as it gets. I bet you believe they're objective about every religion but yours. Funny how that works. I bet you can't find a single problem with this: www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism2.htm
|
|