|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 14:29:14 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. Where did you get that? I never said I was trying to interpret the Mark passage in light of the Matthew passage. They can both stand alone or they can both stand together. They do not contradict each other. Quit using magic when trying to understand what I write.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 14:35:26 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. It's plain as day and that's the way it was understood by 100% of Christianity until the Protestant reformation. It's still understood that way by most Christians. You have to agree with that. No amount of rationalization on your part could explain away the history or current beliefs of much of the church. But to understand what's really going on you would have to actually question your dogma, which you will never do. Sad. You're rationalizing like just Scientologist or a Mormon. Amazing that adults can do that.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 14:41:07 GMT -5
It's plain as day and that's the way it was understood by 100% of Christianity until the Protestant reformation. Wrong. You're trying to change the subject and, no, I don't have to agree with that. Show proof. I'm asking you to look at that passage yourself and show me where it says that. What's wrong, Blondie? Are you saying you can't show me how it says that in the passage? Sad that you can't back up what you're claiming.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:41:29 GMT -5
blondie, you are delusional. The fact that you think you are objective is proof of that.
All the objective sources are objective because you subjectively state they are. They maybe objective or they may not be, what I do know is that you are not objective so therefore you subjectively picked these sources.
You are missing simple basic concepts when dealing with scripture. I thought I could at least help you in the intellectual realm, but I am either a poor teacher or you are a poor student. In this case, I will say you are a poor student. I can not help you with the spiritual side, please see a pastor or priest.
I don't have the time nor the desire to check out your non-objective link, maybe later.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:43:14 GMT -5
blondie uses her subjective magic to conjure subjective consensus about stuff she can't understand in an intellectual capacity.
as aside note, I find it hilarious that blondie is so confident that a religious person in the future can not be correct about a religious concept in the past....the consensus of the past somehow makes that impossible. However, using non-objective rationalization, she doesn't apply the same reasoning to science. That of course is if she has given an example of a future intellectual revelation but up to this point, she hasn't, instead, it has just been her taking things out of context, relying on wikipedia and evilbible.com for research nd basically not having the intelligence to understand what it is she is reading. I advise her to read the Bible from page 1 till the end and do it at least once more..or in her case three more times.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 14:45:46 GMT -5
blondie uses her subjective magic to conjure subjective consensus about stuff she can't understand in an intellectual capacity. Has it been confirmed that Blondie is a "she?"
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 14:46:12 GMT -5
Mark 10:
9: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Now go ahead and tell me how Evangelicals interpret it and pretend that's universal.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 14:49:41 GMT -5
It's plain as day and that's the way it was understood by 100% of Christianity until the Protestant reformation. Wrong. Right. By the 9th or 10th century of the Christian era, the frequency of divorce had been greatly curtailed by the influence of the Christian church. ( 2 Kent's Commentaries on American Law, p. 96 (14th ed. 1896)). The Christian church considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action. Canons of the Council of Trent, Twenty-fourth Session.[9] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#History
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:50:22 GMT -5
blondie uses her subjective magic to conjure subjective consensus about stuff she can't understand in an intellectual capacity. Has it been confirmed that Blondie is a "she?" I just call her a she, she hasn't corrected anyone and it doesn't matter to me either way. If "he" doesn't care being called a "she" then who else does.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:52:19 GMT -5
Right. By the 9th or 10th century of the Christian era, the frequency of divorce had been greatly curtailed by the influence of the Christian church. ( 2 Kent's Commentaries on American Law, p. 96 (14th ed. 1896)). The Christian church considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action. Canons of the Council of Trent, Twenty-fourth Session.[9] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#HistoryYou're wrong. Your source is not objective.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 14:56:13 GMT -5
Mark 10: 9: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. So this is the verse you interpret as "no divorce for any reason"? Is that how you interpret this? I not interested in that. I have not run into any Evangelicals that have made the claims you have made. You must defend your claims.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 14:58:18 GMT -5
blondie, you are delusional. The fact that you think you are objective is proof of that. All the objective sources are objective because you subjectively state they are. They maybe objective or they may not be, what I do know is that you are not objective so therefore you subjectively picked these sources. You are missing simple basic concepts when dealing with scripture. I thought I could at least help you in the intellectual realm, but I am either a poor teacher or you are a poor student. In this case, I will say you are a poor student. I can not help you with the spiritual side, please see a pastor or priest. I don't have the time nor the desire to check out your non-objective link, maybe later. If you attack the source you've lost. I'm not quoting for Atheist, Catholic or Muslim sites. Religioustolerance.org is about as objective as it gets. Answer my question about a woman divorcing a husband that beats her.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 14:59:19 GMT -5
Mark 10: 9: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Now go ahead and tell me how Evangelicals interpret it and pretend that's universal. You can't comprehend basic information can you? Is the scope of the word,"man" speaking of just a male or any personage? Is the scope of the word, "man" include or exclude the "man" that God has joined together? Maybe if you think about those questions...it will click with you and the answer will be revealed. Good luck, I don't have high hopes though.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:02:13 GMT -5
blondie, the source of the information is not objective and therefore invalid.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 15:02:35 GMT -5
I just call her a she, she hasn't corrected anyone and it doesn't matter to me either way. If "he" doesn't care being called a "she" then who else does. I think we should have a vote to determine what gender Blondie really is. Then, once we have a consensus, we can declare it to be fact and anyone who disagrees will be a "Blondie Gender Denier"!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 15:11:14 GMT -5
If you attack the source you've lost. I'm not quoting for Atheist, Catholic or Muslim sites. Religioustolerance.org is about as objective as it gets. Are you basing that on their name or did you actually review the site? Here's one for ya. What does the Bible say about this type of situation?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 15:30:22 GMT -5
If you attack the source you've lost. I'm not quoting for Atheist, Catholic or Muslim sites. Religioustolerance.org is about as objective as it gets. Are you basing that on their name or did you actually review the site? I use religioustolerance.org a lot because it's a good objective information source for all religions. They have no bias. Just the facts. I'm sure you'll find it totally fair and balanced until they put the microscope to your dogma. Seems like that should tell you something. Here's one for ya. What does the Bible say about this type of situation? I'm sure it's Biblically OK to beat your wife. Woman's rights are a new idea. If Christianity had a problem with treating women like crap nobody figured it out until it became the norm in the secular society.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 15:36:55 GMT -5
I use religioustolerance.org a lot because it's a good objective information source for all religions. They have no bias. Just the facts. I'm sure you'll find it totally fair and balanced until they put the microscope to your dogma. Seems like that should tell you something. Then perhaps you can explain why they have a great deal of their site dedicated towards Christianity and most of it speaks of Christianity in a negative light. Yet, if you look into Islam they don't do that. That doesn't really fall under what I would call "objective." Maybe this is just a mix-up of terms. When you say "objective", do you actually mean something that reinforces your subjective views? So you are lazy and also ignorant about what the Bible says. Glad we cleared that up.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 15:37:37 GMT -5
blondie, the source of the information is not objective and therefore invalid. Right. Objective sources aren't objective. Sounds like the same old broken record. Seems to me that the person who can support their claims has the upper hand. This may be hard for you to believe but if I thought I knew something about a religion and checked it out on a good, reliable site like religioustolerance.org and found out I was wrong, I'd change my mind. That's how I learn. Try it sometime. I guess it just depends on whether or not you want to be right or just pretend you are.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:43:16 GMT -5
blondie, religioustolerance.org is not an objective source.
You are sure it's Biblcially OK to beat your wife...no, you are not sure, in fact you don't have a clue as to what the Bible says. Your arguments have been very weak, go back to using other people's arguments from evilbible.com.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:46:22 GMT -5
blondie, the source of the information is not objective and therefore invalid. Right. Objective sources aren't objective. Sounds like the same old broken record. Seems to me that the person who can support their claims has the upper hand. This may be hard for you to believe but if I thought I knew something about a religion and checked it out on a good, reliable site like religioustolerance.org and found out I was wrong, I'd change my mind. That's how I learn. Try it sometime. I guess it just depends on whether or not you want to be right or just pretend you are. blondie, why is it that you are the only person on the planet that can declare whether a source is objective or not? You do it when it suits you...because you are subjective and not objective. We are doing what YOU do every time...sorry, your source is not objective and therefore is invalid. Try again. ALMIGHTY blondie has objective/subjective magic powers...probably got them from her Darwinian magic book.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 15:47:41 GMT -5
I use religioustolerance.org a lot because it's a good objective information source for all religions. They have no bias. Just the facts. I'm sure you'll find it totally fair and balanced until they put the microscope to your dogma. Seems like that should tell you something. Then perhaps you can explain why they have a great deal of their site dedicated towards Christianity and most of it speaks of Christianity in a negative light. Yet, if you look into Islam they don't do that. That doesn't really fall under what I would call "objective." Maybe this is just a mix-up of terms. When you say "objective", do you actually mean something that reinforces your subjective views?. This is getting ridiculous. I dare you to find a website about religion more objective than religioustolerance.org. Good luck. So you are lazy and also ignorant about what the Bible says. Glad we cleared that up. Prove me wrong. I'm sure anybody can rationalize any treatment of women they want based on the Bible. Since it says so many contradictory things. www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 15:49:19 GMT -5
Right. Objective sources aren't objective. Sounds like the same old broken record. Seems to me that the person who can support their claims has the upper hand. This may be hard for you to believe but if I thought I knew something about a religion and checked it out on a good, reliable site like religioustolerance.org and found out I was wrong, I'd change my mind. That's how I learn. Try it sometime. I guess it just depends on whether or not you want to be right or just pretend you are. blondie, why is it that you are the only person on the planet that can declare whether a source is objective or not? You do it when it suits you...because you are subjective and not objective. We are doing what YOU do every time...sorry, your source is not objective and therefore is invalid. Try again. Same to you. Find a more objective source on religion and lets see what it has to say.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:49:56 GMT -5
Now we have to prove your premises wrong...sorry, it doesn't work that way, you have to prove them right. So far you have only answered with non-objective sources and your magic pixie powers. You lose.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:51:16 GMT -5
"Same to you. Find a more objective source on religion and lets see what it has to say."
Nope, it's your premise.....you prove that it is right. Please offer evidence from objective sources.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 15:53:28 GMT -5
This is getting ridiculous. I dare you to find a website about religion more objective than religioustolerance.org. Good luck. Interesting. You didn't address the point I raised. I guess you're scared. So you're admitting you can't back up your claims? Wonderful!!! We're clearing up all sorts of things! You're making good steps, Blondie. You've admitted you don't know anything about the Bible. You've admitted you're too lazy to try to learn. And now, you've admitted you can't back up your claims!!! I'm so proud of you!!!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 15:54:54 GMT -5
The first time that she has been objective about anything.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:06:27 GMT -5
What. No links?
So I'm the only on that can back up my points with unbiased sources.
What a surprise.
My point:
I believe the Bible says several different and contradictory things about divorce.
Your point?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 16:08:07 GMT -5
oh...using a new word. Instead of objective sources..it's now unbiased sources. LOL.
Ok, your "unbiased" sources are biased and therefore invalid. You have presented zero evidence that is valid. Try again.
Again, it's up to you to prove your premise and so far you have failed miserably...try evilbible.com.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 16:12:18 GMT -5
oh...using a new word. Instead of objective sources..it's now unbiased sources. LOL. Ok, your "unbiased" sources are biased and therefore invalid. You have presented zero evidence that is valid. Try again. Again, it's up to you to prove your premise and so far you have failed miserably...try evilbible.com. sad. I've got an unbiased, objective source. You've got nothing but your opinion and the dogma of a subset of Protestants.
|
|