Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pope sends direct message to Ben

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    Oh Ben, completely unable to open your mouth without a lie coming out.
    So you're saying that one incident is the same as four or five? This makes no rational sense. I have had 4 or 5 instances where pot users have stolen from me to feed their habit. I (and my present landlady), share this opinion.

    This is the second sober house that I've lived in. I'm thrilled. I like it here and I like that my landlady screens for drug use.

    I am not sure why 4 or 5 instances are considered to be 'prejudice'. That's a rational assessment.

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    So not got anything to say about you being caught out in yet another lie Ben?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    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.
    Christians have at various points in times been extremely likely to serve as slaves. The passages from Paul make much different sense when addressed to people who are slaves. People forget that as Christian enslavement is not a topic much touched on these days.
    Last edited by Ben Kenobi; October 21, 2014, 21:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    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.
    Has nothing to do with literalism at all. It has to do with biblical authority. You say we can disregard certain portions of the bible, so my question again, is how does one decide which portions ought to be retained, and which should not?

    very large body of work written, re-written, and selectively edited over thousands of years by many different people.
    Ok, how do you square the fact that we can be more assured that the Bible is textually consistent today than anything else from the same period? Heck, it's the best we have of any work prior to around 1500. I agree there are good reasons to be skeptical, but I think that there are good reasons we can be reasonably confident that the text of the bible today is not far off from the written Gospels 20 years after the death of Christ.

    The dead sea scrolls do not show wide variations from the current texts. The scrolls also predate the time of Christ, meaning that we can be reasonably sure that the Old Testament today is not much different from the Septuagint of late antiquity.

    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".
    Finally, an answer. If conscience is all you need, why would you have any need to consult with the bible?

    asking me to believe in the Bible. I'm not even a Christian.
    I'm not even saying that. I'm saying you're making a case for Atheism in general, not Christianity. It's consistent with your convictions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    Ah, so anything they chose to say after his death was to be taken completely as the word of god himself? Nice gig.
    I believe the Bible is the Word of God, yes. Christians that don't, aren't Bible believing Christians. They are mystics or new age. They make about as much sense as you. They are the kentonios of Christianity.

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    Yes, it is basic psychology. Just because it's irrational doesn't mean that it's not an understandable reaction. Treating an entire race with caution because you were mugged by someone who was black - that is no longer pre-judice. You have a reason to believe the way that you do from actual experiences.

    Now, you also seem to commit an error. Just because people in general can and do act this way, you're assuming that I personally agree with doing this. I don't. I think it is irrational myself.
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    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.
    Oh Ben, completely unable to open your mouth without a lie coming out.

    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    If black people robbed you, I'd not consider it prejudice for you to be angry at black people in general.
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    I'm more disappointed than angry when potheads screw me over. It's not just one incident either. If black people had, 4 or 5 times gone out of their way to screw me and my family, I would be wary of black folks in general. If a pothead went out of their way to help me rather than screw me over, it would have an impact too.

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    Ah, so anything they chose to say after his death was to be taken completely as the word of god himself? Nice gig.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    Since when does Paul speak for god? When did Jesus condemn it?
    The apostles were chosen by Jesus to be His messengers.

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
    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?
    Since when does Paul speak for god? When did Jesus condemn it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • kentonio
    replied
    Originally posted by Elok View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by ricketyclik View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elok
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Elok View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X