Texan Bigotry

[Ben Kenobi]

Never said Graham was a liberal. I said that 'the ad copy claims it's conservative.' Duh. I used to write ad copy.

[Tuberski]

So Imran. Are you just bored? Why do you bother with him?

BK is like a missing filling, it sucks, it's annoying, and Imran is a tongue.
ACK!

[regexcellent]

Gender inclusive language bothers me because it's awkward and unnecessary but it's not a wrong translation.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK is like a missing filling, it sucks, it's annoying, and Imran is a tongue.

You still having tooth problems? That sucks Tuber.

[kentonio]

DP

[kentonio]

We have evidence in this thread showing the same people who are rude and hostile to me are also rude and hostile to Nikolai. For the exact same reason, they believe his beliefs (and my beliefs) are stupid. They are willing to apologize so that they can save face. Not because they are actually sorry but they know that this entire facade collapses unless they treat Nikolai differently from me.

Your unfounded arrogance is astounding. People treat Nikolai better than you because he's a nice, decent person not a dishonest, misogynistic, racist, ****wit scumbag.

Christianity is 'vile filth'?

Do you think for one second that if I thought that that I wouldn't just say it? Have I ever bothered to not be brutally honest about things I find vile and revolting [PROTIP: Read up].

Where's the evidence? You said, "I was afraid to challenge", and here you are without evidence.

You really want evidence that you are a compulsive liar? Hmm, I'm not sure how far back to go. Should we start with your brother telling everyone what an ******* you are, and you initially admitting it was him, and then doing a complete about face and furiously denying it despite him posting an answer to the 'Super Secret' personal question you asked him about your (non-existent) sisters?

Or maybe I could just dig up a couple of the hundreds of examples of you making a wild statement, being called on it, then insisting you said the exact opposite like the little ***** you are, despite the original posts still existing often just a page or two earlier?

Meh, it's about as challenging as finding a racist at a Tea Party rally.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your unfounded arrogance is astounding. People treat Nikolai better than you because he's a nice, decent person not a dishonest, misogynistic, racist, ****wit scumbag.

But you don't treat Nikolai differently. As soon as Nik said that he believes in Adam and Eve, he was attacked. Same as me. Why? Because he expressed an opinion that you believed was stupid. This is all this is - shaming folks because you disagree with them.

Do you think for one second that if I thought that that I wouldn't just say it? Have I ever bothered to not be brutally honest about things I find vile and revolting [PROTIP: Read up].

I don't know. Is Christianity a vile faith?

You really want evidence that you are a compulsive liar? Hmm, I'm not sure how far back to go. Should we start with your brother telling everyone what an ******* you are

That's the best you've got?

What evidence do you have that this was my brother, and not yet another DL.

you initially admitting it was him

Yes, I did originally believe it was him. I was incorrect in this assumption.

and then doing a complete about face and furiously denying it despite him posting an answer to the 'Super Secret' personal question

There's a complete logical and rational answer to this question.

Or maybe I could just dig up a couple of the hundreds of examples of you making a wild statement, being called on it, then insisting you said the exact opposite like the little ***** you are, despite the original posts still existing often just a page or two earlier?

Try me.

Meh, it's about as challenging as finding a racist at a Tea Party rally.

I notice you still lack any actual citation of proof of your firmly held convictions. Others who know me far better than you do do not share your opinions. Should that not convince you that perhaps you are incorrect?

[notyoueither]

When I stopped reading Ben's posts the forum got a lot nicer. Lately I've stopped reading replies to him as well and things are really improving.

[Berzerker]

Jesus goes on to address that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Again, I see your argument, I just don't see how Matthew 19 backs you up here. Jesus is rather clear here.

If he addresses that later then he wasn't addressing it in his response to the question about easy divorce laws. Now does Jesus condemn polygamy after talking about divorce?

That interpolation isn't in the text, Berz.

Its in the question he was asked, is it okay for men to divorce their wives without cause? He wasn't asked about divorce or sexual immorality, he was asked about dumping wives and his response was to harken back to the hard-hearted men of Moses time and how dumping wives was allowed but not how it was in the beginning. You're taking what he said about divorce to accuse the polygamous patriarchs of sin.

Divorce, period.

Thats not what he said, he was addressing divorce without cause, not divorce.

And this is significant. If polygamy were the intended ideal, wouldn't God have created more than one woman for Adam?

Less than ideal doesn't make it sin, even if Lilith is a fiction. God made people on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful and multiply, no mention of marriage or monogamy. You're using God's "silence" on the subject as an indictment of polygamy.

No, he was accusing the Israelites of sinning when they divorced their wives. Sinning when they took up another wife. Saying that both were contrary to God's ideal of marriage.

He was criticizing them for divorcing wives without cause, you're ignoring the question he was asked.

They are. If they were not made for marriage than why did God create Eve for Adam?

Jesus said there are people who cant accept a monogamous marriage, he didn't accuse them of sin so Adam and Eve dont matter to their situation.

Only AFTER Muhammed. There's no record of them making this claim prior.

So what happened to the great nation born of Abraham and Hagar?

And one of them is the English! Another one of them are Norwegians. One of them is the French. Another one is the Russians. Then you have the Germans! Gosh, isn't genealogy fun? All of us are descended from Abraham!

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2005/03-17.htm

Seems there were pre-Islamic people claiming to be descendants of Ishmael and his offspring.

No, it's not, Berz. In order to be married in the Church, you would have to divorce your other wives and choose one.

We're not debating Church practices, Hagar is called a wife of Abraham in the OT - that means he was a polygamist and it means he divorced her without cause and God didn't call it sin - he even blessed their child.

[Ben Kenobi]

If he addresses that later then he wasn't addressing it in his response to the question about easy divorce laws.

It's the same chapter. So yes, he's addressing this in response to the same question.

Now does Jesus condemn polygamy after talking about divorce?

He explains why divorce is wrong and what marriage actually is and how divorce is a breach. Polygamy is contrary to his definition of marriage as one man and one woman and is also a breach.

Its in the question he was asked, is it okay for men to divorce their wives without cause?

Implied in the question (and the same argument we are having here), is that divorce with cause is ok. Jesus goes on to explain why that's not the case. Divorce is wrong because it splits the union of one man and one woman.

He wasn't asked about divorce or sexual immorality, he was asked about dumping wives and his response was to harken back to the hard-hearted men of Moses time and how dumping wives was allowed but not how it was in the beginning

And I'm talking about what he actually said. His actual answer is the pertinent part here.

You're taking what he said about divorce to accuse the polygamous patriarchs of sin.

Divorce in general is a sin.

Thats not what he said, he was addressing divorce without cause, not divorce.

He doesn't offer that disclaimer. "What God has brought together let man not separate".

Less than ideal doesn't make it sin

Yes, it does. That's the point.

God made people on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful and multiply, no mention of marriage or monogamy.

He made Adam. He then gives him Eve as a helper so that he wouldn't be alone. He doesn't give Adam Eve and Mabel. Polygamy is wrong, Berz.

You're using God's "silence" on the subject as an indictment of polygamy.

Wrong. If polygamy was what God intended, why didn't God provide Adam with Eve and Mabel? He did not. What he actually provided Adam was Eve. One man and one woman. All right there in Matthew 19. This is Christ's exact argument.

He was criticizing them for divorcing wives without cause, you're ignoring the question he was asked.

And you're ignoring what he actually answered. He says nothing about cause which is why the actual reaction was shock. He says, "Divorce is wrong, period".

Jesus said there are people who cant accept a monogamous marriage, he didn't accuse them of sin so Adam and Eve dont matter to their situation.

Again, that's not what he says. He says, "the one who can accept it should accept it." Adam and Eve are the ideal for men and women in marriage.

So what happened to the great nation born of Abraham and Hagar?

You tell me. The Bible speaks no more of it. What happened to the Seat of the Lord?

Seems there were pre-Islamic people claiming to be descendants of Ishmael and his offspring.

There's no evidence for this written prior to Muhammed. All the 'evidence' postdates Muhammed.

We're not debating Church practices

You asked me, what does the Church do. This is the answer from Canon law.

Hagar is called a wife of Abraham in the OT

And Jesus explains why this understanding of marriage is flawed.

that means he was a polygamist and it means he divorced her without cause and God didn't call it sin - he even blessed their child.

God calls out Abraham for his lack of faith. And what happens to Hagar's children? Does God bless them?

He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”

Sounds like a Curse!

[Sava]

When I stopped reading Ben's posts the forum got a lot nicer. Lately I've stopped reading replies to him as well and things are really improving.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is like a hole in the teeth, but I just have to do this and then I'm done..

We have Greek manuscripts that go back to the early 4th century that are even older than the Vulgate. The Codex Vaticanus is still the best complete manuscript out there.

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

The manuscript became known to Western scholars as a result of correspondence between Erasmus and the prefects of the Vatican Library. Portions of the codex were collated by several scholars, but numerous errors were made during this process. The Codex's relationship to the Latin Vulgate was unclear and scholars were initially unaware of the Codex's value.[5] This changed in the 19th century when transcriptions of the full codex were completed.[1] It was at that point that scholars realised the text differed significantly from the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus.[6]

To which we say:

[Ben Kenobi]

It is like a hole in the teeth, but I just have to do this and then I'm done..

Are you going to acknowledge that two of the four Islamic sources you were peddling have no actual reference attached to them?

This changed in the 19th century when transcriptions of the full codex were completed

Textus Receptus

Did you miss this little part of it. Textus Receptus is the Masoretic Text. Codex Vaticanus is older than either one and more accurate than the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Let's dig into it a little bit more.

The citation is from SP Tregelles.

His interest in Welsh developed from a desire to spread the Christian gospel and especially to combat the influence of atheism, Roman Catholicism, and mormonism.

The statement that Codex Vaticanus is significantly different comes from Tregelles who is explicitly writing to combat Catholicism. No bias there. No sirree.

Next up, Jack Chick on why Catholicism is the devil.

[Berzerker]

There's no evidence for this written prior to Muhammed. All the 'evidence' postdates Muhammed.

According to the link I posted the 12 sons of Ishmael left their mark in the names of peoples and towns in the region and documented by various writers long before Islam showed up.

You asked me, what does the Church do. This is the answer from Canon law.

And we're not debating Church practices, we're debating whether or not they're compatible with the OT.

And Jesus explains why this understanding of marriage is flawed.

God's definition of marriage included polygamy, he allowed it and even commanded it. At no point in the OT does God declare the marriages of polygamists invalid based on your interpretation of Jesus' comment about Adam and Eve.

Does God bless them?

Sounds like a Curse!

the dude may not have deserved it, but God blessed him with 12 sons and a great nation