Pope sends direct message to Ben

[kentonio]

Does any of this sound familiar incidentally?

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Ben Kenobi]

Too late to backpedal asshat, you already owned up to it back in the conversation about the black people mugging you (or whatever it was).

I suggest you reread that conversation because I made the exact same point there. If you're going to bring up a prior conversation with me, please do your homework first.

Yet another insight into the world of Ben. So instead of accepting the person you are when it was opened up for you, you chose to take it as a personal attack. From a professional therapist? Only you

This was a trusted family friend. I do have a therapist here and have had subsequent therapists that were both professional and competent. She was neither.

[Ben Kenobi]

You do understand that 'eye for an eye' isn't actually NT teaching right? You're really outdoing yourself tonight

"You have heard it said to you"... argues that at the time, it is precisely what God taught to the Israelites - the principle of proportionality. Are we to judge Israel by the standard of Christ who came later?

[ricketyclik]

Same. I can understand the reasoning of a professed atheist to believe that the God of Israel is crap. But a Christian? It makes me wonder why they make an exception here, and not elsewhere where they get to interject and say, "I am right and God, himself is wrong".

Because the Bible was written by people. They're not saying God's wrong, just the Bible.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the Bible was written by people. They're not saying God's wrong, just the Bible.

Which doesn't address my question. If the bible is wrong in this one point, why is the bible right elsewhere? Your statement doesn't just apply to one thing the bible says, it applies to everything the bible says. It's a direct argument for atheism, not Christianity.

[ricketyclik]

Which doesn't address my question. If the bible is wrong in this one point, why is the bible right elsewhere? Your statement doesn't just apply to one thing the bible says, it applies to everything the bible says. It's a direct argument for atheism, not Christianity.

No, it's a direct argument against literalism. My statement re. the Bible being wrong on one thing is just that. Mind you, I kinda like shellfish on Fridays too.

You're a pretty all or nothing kinda guy, aren't you?

[Elok]

Considering you'd just been telling me that there was no confusion amongst Christians, I think it's a fair comment. As for the OT, since when could Christians point at that for moral justification? Every time an athiest brings up the nasty stuff in there, we're told that Jesus superceded it all.

1. Not all; murder, adultery, and theft, for example, are still out. NT wins where it contradicts the OT. Slaughtering Amelakites, or whatever they were called, is out because Jesus said to forgive and love enemies. Jesus not explicitly continuing something should not be construed as Him contradicting it.
2. I was not unaware that some Christian denominations are supporting gay marriage. But they are not driven by any valid consideration; they are merely bowing to forces from secular culture. You said that "endless confusion" was caused by Jesus not explicitly saying "oh, and gay stuff is still out." There was no confusion whatever for at least eighteen centuries; you can't blame Jesus for a phenomenon of entirely secular origin.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it's a direct argument against literalism.

Still doesn't address my point. Again. You're saying that it's ok to reject the bible on this one point. How then, is the bible authoritative on other points? Where do you make the cuts as to what is right and what is not?

You're a pretty all or nothing kinda guy, aren't you?

I had the same answer as you and faced this exact same question. Jesus isn't saying that this is a side teaching, he's arguing that our very history as people, as creation of God, that this is an intrinsic part of our nature. That is his argument in Matthew 19, when he says, "he made them male and female". When he says "cleave", he is speaking a very precise word that means a man and a woman joining together in union to form one person. He says, "Where two become one flesh". it's very clear to me that he's talking about the sexual union of a man and a woman and that this joins the two together spiritually and physically.

It is a very important passage of the bible.

[ricketyclik]

Still doesn't address my point. Again. You're saying that it's ok to reject the bible on this one point. How then, is the bible authoritative on other points? Where do you make the cuts as to what is right and what is not?

It wasn't intended to. I was just pointing out that when you accuse people who don't take the Bible literally of not being Christian it's a pretty one-eyed view.

Personally I think of the Bible as a very large body of work written, re-written, and selectively edited over thousands of years by many different people. I prefer to think of my conscience as God's voice. You know, that little but persistent voice inside you that says "You know you're doing the wrong thing here".

I know you're not in agreement with such a notion, but I'm not asking you to be, so don't even bother asking me to believe in the Bible. I'm not even a Christian, I can just see that one could be without being a literalist.

[kentonio]

2. I was not unaware that some Christian denominations are supporting gay marriage. But they are not driven by any valid consideration; they are merely bowing to forces from secular culture. You said that "endless confusion" was caused by Jesus not explicitly saying "oh, and gay stuff is still out." There was no confusion whatever for at least eighteen centuries; you can't blame Jesus for a phenomenon of entirely secular origin.

You mean about the same kind of timeframe where there wasnt any confusion about slavery either?

[Kidlicious]

1. Not all; murder, adultery, and theft, for example, are still out. NT wins where it contradicts the OT. Slaughtering Amelakites, or whatever they were called, is out because Jesus said to forgive and love enemies. Jesus not explicitly continuing something should not be construed as Him contradicting it.
2. I was not unaware that some Christian denominations are supporting gay marriage. But they are not driven by any valid consideration; they are merely bowing to forces from secular culture. You said that "endless confusion" was caused by Jesus not explicitly saying "oh, and gay stuff is still out." There was no confusion whatever for at least eighteen centuries; you can't blame Jesus for a phenomenon of entirely secular origin.

I don't think they are bowing to secular forces. I think they ARE secular forces. I know many of these Christians. Many in the Methodist church want to sanction gay marriage. It's all political.

I'm not against gay marriage. It's a sin, but then not all sins should be illegal. It's bothersome though that many Christians don't understand the importance of repentance etc... They compromise. They serve two (or more) masters.

[Elok]

"Slavery" refers to any number of different labor systems, which went in and out of fashion over the years for various reasons having little to do with theology. The Bible itself is ambiguous on the matter, but I don't know the history of Christian resistance to slavery prior to--er, 1500 or so, when the priest Bartolome de las Casas didn't like it. So still far more controversial than gays, assuming BDLC was the first Christian ever to oppose slavery.

[Kidlicious]

No, it's a direct argument against literalism. My statement re. the Bible being wrong on one thing is just that. Mind you, I kinda like shellfish on Fridays too.

You're a pretty all or nothing kinda guy, aren't you?

There's alot of people who aren't literalists (myself), who don't believe absurdities, like the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. I mean that is an outright absurdity. Unfortunately, there are many who say they believe that.

[kentonio]

1. Not all; murder, adultery, and theft, for example, are still out. NT wins where it contradicts the OT. Slaughtering Amelakites, or whatever they were called, is out because Jesus said to forgive and love enemies. Jesus not explicitly continuing something should not be construed as Him contradicting it.

Which is why many of us don't construe things like that, but instead see his call for you to love your neighbour as yourself and judge yourself before you judge others as a pretty clear sign that the whole 'ostrasize the gays' thing probably wasn't something he would have been a huge fan of.

[Kidlicious]

Considering you'd just been telling me that there was no confusion amongst Christians, I think it's a fair comment. As for the OT, since when could Christians point at that for moral justification? Every time an athiest brings up the nasty stuff in there, we're told that Jesus superceded it all.

Homosexuality is listed as sin in the NT by the apostle. How many times do you have to be told that in the same thread?