Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[DinoDoc]

Oh hush! You know he is moreso than the average PolyDick.

Not really. He's no worse than ken or MOBIUS.

[Ben Kenobi]

That you consider him a friend? No..that's not hard to believe.

He *is* a friend.

[PLATO]

So you're going to argue with me over my credentials. Gosh, I can see how this is a winning battle for you.

I think he was saying that the credentials you state that you have do not match the gibberish you post, dimwit.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think he was saying that the credentials you state that you have do not match the gibberish you post, dimwit.

One would think the winning argument wouldn't be resorting to character assassination.

[PLATO]

Not really. He's no worse than ken or MOBIUS.

I have to disagree with that. ken and MOBIUS definately draw the wrong conclusions from a lot of things in my opinion, but when confronted with evidence they usually won't make nonsensical arguments. Ben, otoh, tends to repeat refuted points, ignore evidence, and reply with answers that do not match the posts. BUT, I will say that you supporting him does lead some credence to his statement that he does have some support on Poly.

Being the openminded person that I am (an antiBen?), I will happily withdraw my statement that he has none. Apparently he does.

Still a dimwitted dick however in a class by himself.

I do find myself on the same side of many issues as Ben, but the way he conducts a debate makes me want to scream. No logic, no facts, and very dubious thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do find myself on the same side of many issues as Ben, but the way he conducts a debate makes me want to scream. No logic, no facts, and very dubious thinking.

Plato:

TBF - I'm rather surprised to see you coming after me. We usually do agree on stuff, but I guess Gay marriage is in the other bin. I think the question you should be asking yourself Plato - "Does Ben Kenobi believe that he himself is reliable and authoritative?" and that will lead to some fruitful avenues of inquiry.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On this issue, he does have a point. If you don't actually believe in the authority of the Bible, you can hardly be called a Christian in any meaningful sense.

Only if you define Christianity as being belief in the Bible rather than belief in Christ . The Apostle's Creed says nothing akin to "I believe in Scripture being authoritative". And all the Nicene Creed says about Scripture is that Christ died and rose on the 3rd day "in accordance with the Scriptures" - ie, Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah, suffering servant, etc.

Not that the Bible isn't seen as the easiest way to get to Christ and find out what God is about, but according to the ancient Creeds, you really don't have to treat them as authoritative to be Christian.

[N35t0r]

Get a clue. It's got nothing to do with your position on the issue! Only on how you're incapable of the most basic argumentation. You continually argue whatever you want, totally misrepresent and/or ignore what other people actually type, and generally sleaze arond any points made about anything that you don't agree with.

[edit:] xpost, this is directed at ben obviously.

[Ben Kenobi]

So we have a Catholic (myself) arguing for biblical authority as a essential component of the Christian faith? Fascinating.

Only if you define Christianity as being belief in the Bible rather than belief in Christ . The Apostle's Creed says nothing akin to "I believe in Scripture being authoritative". And all the Nicene Creed says about Scripture is that Christ died and rose on the 3rd day "in accordance with the Scriptures" - ie, Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah, suffering servant, etc.

That the Creed references Scripture itself as evidence for the components of faith is evidence that Christians who agree with the Creeds ought to treat Scripture as authoritative.

according to the ancient Creeds, you really don't have to treat them as authoritative to be Christian.

What makes the Creeds themselves authoritative?

[Ben Kenobi]

Get a clue. It's got nothing to do with your position on the issue! Only on how you're incapable of the most basic argumentation. You continually argue whatever you want, totally misrepresent and/or ignore what other people actually type, and generally sleaze arond any points made about anything that you don't agree with.

Can't say I agree I think Imran raised some excellent points worthy of further discussion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That the Creed references Scripture itself as evidence for the components of faith is evidence that Christians who agree with the Creeds ought to treat Scripture as authoritative.

Original Nicene Creed (325) doesn't mention Scripture. Constantinople's addition (381) adds "in accordance with the Scriptures" in talking about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, speaking obviously about the Old Testament. Do you wish to have Kid affirm the authority of the OT and not deal with the NT .

What makes the Creeds themselves authoritative?

Statements of belief are usually considered authoritative for groups.

[MichaeltheGreat]

One would think the winning argument wouldn't be resorting to character assassination.

Calling an obtuse, unintelligent post as such, != character assassination.

Pointing a poster's penchant for drivel, etc. != character assassination.

[self biased]

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!

[DinoDoc]

Only if you define Christianity as being belief in the Bible rather than belief in Christ .

Even Satan believes in Christ, Imran. I'm not saying there aren't ways to get where he wants to go wrt gays and gay marriage (I did that myself when CivNation 1st came here before being banned by MtG) but to claim to be a Christian while disavowing one of the foundations of Christian theology is bit much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even Satan believes in Christ, Imran. I'm not saying there aren't ways to get where he wants to go wrt gays and gay marriage (I did that myself when CivNation 1st came here before being banned by MtG) but to claim to be a Christian while disavowing one of the foundations of Christian theology is bit much.

Kid merely claimed he doesn't consider authoritative, but some of it is instructive to him.

It's like you've never been to a liberal mainline Protestant congregation.

(Oh, and Satan believes in the existence of Christ, but he doesn't believe IN Christ - that's quite a bit different)

---

Though thinking about it further, perhaps the definition of authoritative is the question? To some, authoritative means whatever it says, goes. Now, when applied to Scripture, if you think it was solely written by men (well, God fearing men at any rate), then you may consider it a very useful text, but not authoritative - kind of like a sermon on Sundays.

Liberal mainliners (then again Kid isn't one) don't see Scripture as "inspired" for the most part. Neo-Orthodox do (but they are slightly a minority in the liberal mainline - Barth and Bonhoeffer tended to shock a lot of their colleagues), but also engage in historical-critical method as the central point is seen to be from God, but the men writing it have put their own biases and gloss over it somewhat.