|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:26:36 GMT -5
blondie...Mark does not contradict Matthew and you have yet to prove it on your own or through your subjective sources.
"religioustolerance.org thing started because they agree with my point."
Of course they do, that's becaue you are not objective. The source is not objective either.
You can't grasp the first concept, no purpose in going on to something else that is a little more complex...it's not something you will be able to understand in your current state of mind.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:26:37 GMT -5
zoom, I keep telling her that they are two distinct conversations at two distinct locations but she can't grasp that simple fact. There is no contradiction but blondie is not objective nor can she be. evilbible.com. Ha, I know enouph about the Bible to know that Matthew copied Mark almost word for word and added to it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:28:04 GMT -5
Nor does he say there aren't any exceptions. He also doesn't say not to eat peoples brains so I guess cannibalism's OK too. evilbible.com
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:29:45 GMT -5
zoom, I keep telling her that they are two distinct conversations at two distinct locations but she can't grasp that simple fact. There is no contradiction but blondie is not objective nor can she be. evilbible.com. Ha, I know enouph about the Bible to know that Matthew copied Mark almost word for word and added to it. You can't even understand the simple premise about divorce in the scriptures. You are wrong about little things and wrong about big things as well. It's a shame. evilbible.com vroom.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:32:03 GMT -5
Well, you guys are wrong on this by any objective measure.
A study of the Bible that doesn't involve Evangelical apologetics will tell you that. Also the fact that Mark has been historically used to condemn all divorce.
Check Catholic sources.
Check secular sources.
All you guys are doing is rationalizing your dogma. Which was my other point. I doubt even Fundamentalist sources would back up you imaginings that Mark has an exception for divorce.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:33:56 GMT -5
Ha, I know enough about the Bible to know that Matthew copied Mark almost word for word and added to it. You can't even understand the simple premise about divorce in the scriptures. You are wrong about little things and wrong about big things as well. It's a shame. evilbible.com vroom. Um. Since I don't think you know what you're talking about why not shoot me an objective source that backs up your reading between the lines?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:37:18 GMT -5
You have yet to prove your premise. Asking us to prove your own premise is weak.
I was wondering when you were going to use the word "rationalizing". {GONG}
You are not objective, you can't keep things in context, you use subjective sources and logical fallacies on a continual basis.... but you are predictable.
Cya...evilbible.com
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 24, 2007 17:39:08 GMT -5
"Um. Since I don't think you know what you're talking about why not shoot me an objective source that backs up your reading between the lines?"
I told you...I wasn't going to prove your premises for you....do it yourself. Try to be objective and use objective sources instead of the crap you have given lately.
adios for now.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 17:41:01 GMT -5
You have yet to prove your premise. Yes I have. I cited an objective source to back me up too. More than you can do. You guy are just stating your opinions. So, do you think marrying a divorce woman is adultery? Do you think it's OK for a woman to divorce a man that beats her?
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 18:48:14 GMT -5
PS. Did you notice in your quote that marrying a divorced woman was adultery? Another wacky thing in the Bible everybody ignores. How have I ignored that? I've never disagreed with it so how can you make such a stupid statement? You never answered my question about what the Bible says about such situations. Remember? That's when we proved that you're too lazy to prove your claims?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 19:17:34 GMT -5
Whoah, this thread exploded since this morning. Glad my divorce helps you all with material ;D. 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. Hey, I've never seen those before! You didn't miss me admitting I'm divorced but you seemed to miss that I've been a Christian for 20 years. So believe me, I know quite a bit about how divorce is represented in the Bible. You also missed the part about Jesus being the only one without sin. Which, last time I checked, I'm not Jesus (but if I go crazy I'll use him as my persona to give atheists more material) I snipped the rest of the verses because they all just said the same thing as above. So your point is? What's to accept? What's to rationalize? That I acted contrary to God's will? I do that on a daily basis to some extent. And as far as I please? My divorce was the most devastating thing in my life. I went from seeing my children everyday to mostly on weekends. I went from living in a nice house I just got through building to a single-wide trailer that cost me less than the cabinets in the house I left. People in the church I was a part of acted like I was the cause when I was the active person in the church and she rarely came (its always the man's fault after all). Nobody realized my ex-wife was adamant in seeing me go. So yeah, I just did what I wanted. I told you I'd let you know why God hates divorce: He hates anything that causes His children pain. But these things happen anyway because we are people of free will who make our own choices. Oh, and instead of running away from God because of His people, I embraced Him all the more. And now I'm a stronger Christian today because of it. Your problem is you don't have the first clue about the human element of anything. Maybe you need to step back and not rely on science and numbers to form your viewpoint in life. Its seriously lacking. Difference is, I can back my beliefs up biblically rather than spouting what I heard from another mouth. I'm sure all atheists are in one accord as well. If so, what a boring, lifeless bunch. Sorta like Squidward. I can almost assure he's an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 19:20:53 GMT -5
Ha, I know enouph about the Bible to know that Matthew copied Mark almost word for word and added to it. You mean the Synoptic Problem? I can't find this online so I'm going to have to type it out. This is from John MacArthur. I'm not going to type the whole intro where he list why people have made such claims as what you just made because it's really long. Instead I'll just list what I need to present why that view is wrong. "But those arguments do not prove that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source. In fact, the weight of evidence is strongly against such a theory: 1) The nearly unanimous testimony of the church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written. Such an impressive body of evidence cannot be ignored. 2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ's life, depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)-even for the account of his own conversion? 3) A significant statistical analysis of the synoptic gospels has revealed that the parallels between them are far less extensive and the differences more significant than is commonly acknowledged. The differences, in particular, argue against literary dependence between the gospel writers. 4) Since the gospels record actual historical events, it would be surprising if they did not follow the same general historical sequence. <edit> General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency. 5) The passages in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark amount to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. If they used Mark's gospel as a source, there is no satisfactory explanation for why Matthew and Luke would so often both change Mark's wording in the same way. 6) The "Two-Source" theory cannot account for the important section in Mark's gospel (6:45-8:26) which Luke omits. That omission suggests Luke had not seen Mark's gospel when he wrote. 7) There is no historical or manuscript evidence that the "Q" document [this was explained in the opening to be the document argued to be the source of material for Matthew and Luke] ever existed; it is purely a fabrication of modern skepticism and a way to possibly deny the verbal inspiration of the gospels. 8) Any theory of literary dependence between the gospel writers overlooks the significance of their personal contacts with each other. Mark and Luke were both companions of Paul (cf Phm 24); the early church (including Matthew) met for a time in the home of Mark's mother (Ac 12:12); and Luke could easily have met Matthew during Paul's two-year imprisonment at Caesarea. Such contacts make theories of mutual literary dependence unnecessary. The simplest solution to the Synoptic Problem is that no such problem exists!"
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 19:45:26 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. You may assert you have great intelligence and wisdom, that you think objectively, but that often means even the dumbest person can dupe you. Let me ask you -- knowing that you are an atheist, and knowing how you love to "make us look bad", why would I be dumb enough to admit I was divorced, when that is one of the more controversial subjects in Christianity? To call you out. And it worked like a charm. Don't worry, I am divorced so I wasn't lying about it . The more you post, the more you show your complete ignorance of the Bible. Sure, you use the words "religion" and "Christianity", but you base most of your assumptions on "tradition" and what happened during the Crusades or even just 50 years ago. You base what you know about Christianity on negative aspects of how people acted while claiming to adhere to Christianity. You are a very poor atheist, IMO. You talk about being objective but you don't even have a clue about what the Bible really says. You're no better than those who pick and choose verses to justify their actions. The ones you talk about so often. I never justified mine, I said it was wrong. If I was trying hard to turn someone's belief (or lack thereof in your case) to mine, I would try to know something about what they base their present belief on. Not just hearsay and rumor. You think you know enough about science to debunk God but you know so little about the "enemy". You're something akin to an arrogant football team who doesn't study the opponent before a game and then can't understand why you're not winning. But your ignorance is really showing above. Burn in Hell for divorce? There is only one sin that does that -- the unforgivable sin -- not accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You need to quit while you're way, way behind. And you need to be more informed if you're going to try to school me in the Bible. I would laugh if I thought you could hear me. But you are right -- I do what I please. Thing is, what I typically desire to do is please God. You ever heard the phrase "out with the old, in with the new"? Ephesians 4:22-24 - that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Translation: "I do what I please". Look who's talking now.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:00:52 GMT -5
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.htmI was just on that site today. Not that page, but the site. After reading a few pages, I figured it was authored by Jehovah's Witnesses. Ever see one of their Watchtower pamphlets? Bunch of dots in between verses that support what they want to convey. In other words, no context whatsoever. Just like a political race -- soundbites rule the day. Oh, you say we need to hear the speaker's whole statement to figure out what he meant? Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:11:14 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. Am I suppose to tell you what others think? I haven't practiced my psychic skills lately so give me a minute... Ohm, ohm, ohm...let's see, this one is simple. God doesn't want us to split up a marriage. What was the point of this exercise?
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:15:01 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. Answer my question about a woman divorcing a husband that beats her. You use this word alot. Do you know what it means, or are you just spouting it out because its an athiest thing to do? Please provide your evidence that Religioustolerance.org is objective. I look forward to... ....laughing hysterically.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:26:22 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. Just the facts? I suppose they do. They list individual verses and base their interpretation on those verses. However, they absolutely suck at contextual analysis. Therefore, they are summarily discounted by anyone who doesn't need a quick [inaccurate] answer. Please try harder to use your own brain. Atheists are the most intelligent beings on the planet after all. Oh, just caught the microscope statement. Good one. And accurate in this case. List one or two verses instead of the whole section that really tells you what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 20:28:44 GMT -5
PS. Did you notice in your quote that marrying a divorced woman was adultery? Another wacky thing in the Bible everybody ignores. How have I ignored that? I've never disagreed with it so how can you make such a stupid statement? So you think having sex with a divorced woman is adultery? OK. I can't say it's not Biblical though I'm sure plenty would. What a wacky religion. You never answered my question about what the Bible says about such situations. Remember? That's when we proved that you're too lazy to prove your claims? I don't think there's anything in the Bible that would allow for divorce if a wife is beaten. I mean it was OK to stone her to death for slight transgressions. Women have it pretty bad in most religious systems. Though once again, with a little imagination, I'm sure someone could find divorce being OK in cases of abuse in the Bible. I mean Evangelicals have rationalized every secular norm out there to the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:39:25 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? Herein lies your greatest weakness. Intelligence wasted. I'm learning more and more about atheism and it gets more unattractive with each step. Everything has to have a "source" or "link" or "proof". I think like that often too, but there are times I just "go with my gut". Its called "discernment", which I'm finding is a word that is totally foreign to the atheistic lifestyle. In the end, while you say you are being objective, you end up not even thinking for yourself. How many of the things you have cited have come from your own mind? You got it from somewhere else. I, on the other hand, can sit down with scripture and study it to determine the meaning. I look at tense, and the context. You look for facts and figures. In the end, it appears that thoughtful Christians are more free-thinking than those who ignorantly accept the facts and figures of scientists and mathematicians before them without question. Free thinkers? Puppets, in the true sense.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 20:40:52 GMT -5
I told you I'd let you know why God hates divorce: He hates anything that causes His children pain. Hey I don't care that you're divorced. It's none of my business. If you're in a terrible relationship divorce may be a good idea. I think it can have negative consequences on the kids sometimes. But sometimes it can be better for the kids. Your problem is you don't have the first clue about the human element of anything. Right, what would I know about being a human? Difference is, I can back my beliefs up biblically rather than spouting what I heard from another mouth. Yeah, you've got it all figured out. You should explain the divorce thing to the Pope. I think he might be able to benefit from your vast knowledge of the Bible. He probably never even read the thing. After all, how could anyone arrive at a different conclusion than you? I'm sure all atheists are in one accord as well. The only thing all Atheists agree on is that we don't believe in god(s)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 20:45:21 GMT -5
Egad, that would take me at least the next 365 days. As in all my previous posts, with no context, they only adhere to "popular" beliefs of certain scriptures. Wait, they don't even do that. Please be more specific. I do have somewhat of a real life.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 21:10:01 GMT -5
Ha, I know enough about the Bible to know that Matthew copied Mark almost word for word and added to it. You mean the Synoptic Problem? I can't find this online so I'm going to have to type it out. This is from John MacArthur. I'm not going to type the whole intro where he list why people have made such claims as what you just made because it's really long. Instead I'll just list what I need to present why that view is wrong. "But those arguments do not prove that Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel as a source. In fact, the weight of evidence is strongly against such a theory: 1) The nearly unanimous testimony of the church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written. Such an impressive body of evidence cannot be ignored. All the Gospels are anonymous. Every scholar worth his salt today believes Mark came first. If I were you I'd steer clear of Evangelical "scholars." They're obviously just going to try to rationalize what they already believe. It's a formula for mistakes. 2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ's life, depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)-even for the account of his own conversion? Because that Matthew almost certainly didn't write it. So much of Mark is in Matthew word for word that it's pretty obvious he had the book right in front of him. 3) A significant statistical analysis of the synoptic gospels has revealed that the parallels between them are far less extensive and the differences more significant than is commonly acknowledged. The differences, in particular, argue against literary dependence between the gospel writers. Maybe according to Evangelicals but most scholars disagree. Also the term "statistical analysis" is a red flag to me. What does that mean? Anyone can see that Matthew and Mark have plenty of word for word parallels 4) Since the gospels record actual historical events, it would be surprising if they did not follow the same general historical sequence. <edit> General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the events aren't historical. Fact is we don't know. But even if they were written by the traditional authors the verse for verse similarities are just too close. 5) The passages in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark amount to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. If they used Mark's gospel as a source, there is no satisfactory explanation for why Matthew and Luke would so often both change Mark's wording in the same way. There's suppose to be another Gospel they were both using. The Q gospel. 6) The "Two-Source" theory cannot account for the important section in Mark's gospel (6:45-8:26) which Luke omits. That omission suggests Luke had not seen Mark's gospel when he wrote. I don't know about this off the top of my head. Seems like there could be a million reasons he left it out. 7) There is no historical or manuscript evidence that the "Q" document [this was explained in the opening to be the document argued to be the source of material for Matthew and Luke] ever existed; it is purely a fabrication of modern skepticism and a way to possibly deny the verbal inspiration of the gospels. This is true. The Q gospel is just a theory. It may be false. Who knows? 8) Any theory of literary dependence between the gospel writers overlooks the significance of their personal contacts with each other. Mark and Luke were both companions of Paul (cf Phm 24); the early church (including Matthew) met for a time in the home of Mark's mother (Ac 12:12); and Luke could easily have met Matthew during Paul's two-year imprisonment at Caesarea. Such contacts make theories of mutual literary dependence unnecessary. The simplest solution to the Synoptic Problem is that no such problem exists!" Nobody really knows who wrote the gospels it's pure speculation. But I think the similarities are too striking to deny somebody was copying somebody. But like I said before, I'm very skeptical of Evangelical "scholars." I mean you know what their conclusions are going to be before you even hear their arguments. I think they're really missing the boat when it comes to modern understanding of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 21:44:39 GMT -5
Egad, that would take me at least the next 365 days. As in all my previous posts, with no context, they only adhere to "popular" beliefs of certain scriptures. Wait, they don't even do that. Please be more specific. I do have somewhat of a real life. We were arguing about divorce. I believe Mark says divorce is out altogether. And Luke and Matthew say it's OK in the case of adultery. I basically agree with this: www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htmThey were claiming religioustolerance.org is biased. I don't see how anybody could argue that different Christians believe different things about divorce and all believe the Bible's on their side. But I'm really interested if anybody believes marrying a divorced woman is adultery. That seems pretty clear in the Bible. Or whether a woman is allowed to divorce a man who beats her. I believe this would be against what the Bible says but is just common decency. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics involved in rationalizing what we probably all believe is the right thing in light of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 21:49:46 GMT -5
Please provide your evidence that Religioustolerance.org is objective. I look forward to... OK so you're on board with them. Since it's impossible to prove that something is objective how about you show one example of bias on that site. I mean their objective is to be objective. It looks objective to me. But if you find some actual bias we can send them an e-mail and see if they correct it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 24, 2007 22:39:07 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? Herein lies your greatest weakness. Intelligence wasted. I'm learning more and more about atheism and it gets more unattractive with each step. Everything has to have a "source" or "link" or "proof". I think like that often too, but there are times I just "go with my gut". Its called "discernment", which I'm finding is a word that is totally foreign to the atheistic lifestyle. In the end, while you say you are being objective, you end up not even thinking for yourself. How many of the things you have cited have come from your own mind? You got it from somewhere else. I, on the other hand, can sit down with scripture and study it to determine the meaning. I look at tense, and the context. You look for facts and figures. In the end, it appears that thoughtful Christians are more free-thinking than those who ignorantly accept the facts and figures of scientists and mathematicians before them without question. Free thinkers? Puppets, in the true sense. You seem to be attacking me for studying instead of pretending I can figure out what an ancient manuscript means all by myself. Try comparing different translations. The NIV is really bad. I read the works of a bunch of different scholars and compare and contrast them. Seems like the best way to learn. All you're going to end up doing is rationalizing what you already believe.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 24, 2007 23:03:28 GMT -5
You seem to be attacking me for studying instead of pretending I can figure out what an ancient manuscript means all by myself. Try comparing different translations. The NIV is really bad. I read the works of a bunch of different scholars and compare and contrast them. Seems like the best way to learn. All you're going to end up doing is rationalizing what you already believe. Studying what though? Are you studying by way of picking and choosing whose interpretation will make your point? That is no different than what you accuse us of. Circular argument in this case. NIV? Its good for kids to gain initial exposure. I mostly use NASB. Literal translations are the best. And while I was raised with KJV, it has several shortcomings -- one being the use of Old English. And sadly, I developed a slight bias (yeah, I know) against it because it was "shoved" down my throat as I"grew up". "It was good enough for Matthew, Mark, and Paul, so its good enough for me". You know, the more I see your posts, the more I recognize that you're the victim of legalists. I'll leave it up to you to find out what I'm talking about. Legalists have turned many people away from Christianity. Religion goes wrong when people focus on other people and not the God who the religion is based on. Sadly, many can not do that. I'll make it easy for you though. Legalists = modern day Pharisees. I rarely use the works of other "scholars" when I study scripture. I'm not saying I'm more intelligent or knowledgeable than them, but I don't like weeding out their personal biases. I don't need instructions on how to read the instructions. Even if you'll deny it, its because I have the Holy Spirit: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 8:10:00 GMT -5
You know, the more I see your posts, the more I recognize that you're the victim of legalists. I'll leave it up to you to find out what I'm talking about. Legalists have turned many people away from Christianity. Religion goes wrong when people focus on other people and not the God who the religion is based on. Sadly, many can not do that. No. I know a different Christians have different interpretations. Pick and choose etc. I think it's all mythology. I do like to find weird things in the Bible that people ignore. This gives me an insight into what the authors meant at the time. Once again. I believe people just like to rationalize whatever thier particular ethics are. Remember. I don't put ant store in it at all. I think it's just more Greek mythology. When Christians point to the Bible to justify whatever they want to believe I like to find funny, weird things in the Bible that they ignore. I rarely use the works of other "scholars" when I study scripture. I'm not saying I'm more intelligent or knowledgeable than them, but I don't like weeding out their personal biases. I'm amazed that Christians ignore or are unaware of modern Biblical scholarship. Evangelicals seem to know less about the Bible than anyone. Because your are so wrong about the authorship, history etc. that the real experts have uncovered your whole religion is a sham. For instance. The story about "he who is without sin cast th first stone." That's universally understood not to have been in the original text. it was a late addition. I believe almost all scholars agree on that. Christian and secular. But do Evangelicals know this? Nope. www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/story.htmI'm interested in Evangelicals from a sociological standpoint. They just get in the way when it comes to the real origins of the bible.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 25, 2007 8:15:05 GMT -5
"Since it's impossible to prove that something is objective "
Which is why you are always responding to refutations of your evilbible.com premises with the answer that our sources are not objective.
Your M.O. is also to say every refutation of your evilbible.com premises are rationalizations. Which again, can not be disproved to somebody like you.
When that doesn't work, you change the subject to another debate.
All of your evilbible.com premises are based on multiple logical fallacies.
You use consensus as if that dictates whether something is true or not.
You use differences of thought by people within a religion to invalidate the whole religion, which is another logical fallacy.
You are the least objective person on this forum because you have an ideology of atheism that must continually prove to itself that it is valid.
Your last means of debate is to sprinkle throughout that atheists are smart, reasonable and sane and everyone else is the opposite.
You can't think for yourself and must rely on evilbible.com, wikipedia along with amazon.com sources that nobody can refute because they are not going to make on-line purchases just to prove you are wrong.
It doesn't matter what we show as evidence from scripture that your evilbible.com premises are wrong because you either can't understand it and/or automatically invalidate it.
All you are doing is what I mentioned before...trying to validate your belief system by attempting to tear down ours.
That's the only way you can do it...because you HAVE nothing to validate your belief system because it is based on NOTHING external from yourself. What you are left with is trying to validate yourself and honey, this isn't the place for that.
"Once again. I believe people just like to rationalize whatever their particular ethics are. "
and once again, you prove by your own words why there is zero point in discussing anything with you.
"I'm interested in Evangelicals from a sociological standpoint. They just get in the way when it comes to the real origins of the bible."
Nope, again, you do this to validate your existence....which in my opinion is based on an ideology that is meaningless and ultimately ends in an unfulfilled and useless life and a death of despair. But, the good news is that there is another way.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 25, 2007 9:21:29 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what we show as evidence from scripture that your evilbible.com premises are wrong because you either can't understand it and/or automatically invalidate it. Mark doesn't have an exception for divorce. You quoted Matthew to prove it did. My point was there is a contradiction. So your quote only proved my point. Your quote also said marrying a divorced woman was adultery. Since I don't know any Christians who believed that I was wondering if you did. You have trouble making clear statements. You also avoid answering simple questions. Do you think it's OK for a woman to divorce a man that beats her?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 25, 2007 9:44:43 GMT -5
"Mark doesn't have an exception for divorce."
The book also doesn't give exceptions for a lot of life's scenario's. That doesn't mean it contradict's Matthew.
"You quoted Matthew to prove it did."
I quoted Matthew to show you the complete picture on what the scriptures state. You fail to understand that concepts in the bible must be understood from the perspective of the whole book.
"My point was there is a contradiction."
You have not proved that there is a contradiction between Mark and Matthew.
"Your quote also said marrying a divorced woman was adultery. Since I don't know any Christians who believed that I was wondering if you did."
We should get the first point cleared up before going on to something else.
"You have trouble making clear statements. You also avoid answering simple questions."
That's your opinion.
"Do you think it's OK for a woman to divorce a man that beats her?"
By my standard of what "beat" means, yes. Until the very basic concept of which you have failed to understand, though you are trying to point to a contradiction, is cleared up, there is no point in going to another subset of the topic.
|
|