Pope sends direct message to Ben

[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 Every time an athiest brings up the nasty stuff in there, we're told that Jesus superceded it all.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?

[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?

[kentonio]

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?

[Kidlicious]

Since when does Paul speak for god? When did Jesus condemn it?

The apostles were chosen by Jesus to be His messengers.

[kentonio]

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

[kentonio]

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.

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.

If black people robbed you, I'd not consider it prejudice for you to be angry at black people in general.

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.