Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

i think i see the source of your confusion here. you have confused the verbs 'be' and 'become'. consult a dictionary in the first instance.

Even Sava gets it. If you're an atheist, declaring yourself to be God simply doesn't work.

you claimed that marriage hadn't changed (post) 86 and i showed that it had (post 90). you even accepted it (post 109).

Christ. You can call a truck a car all you want, that doesn't mean that trucks are cars. I'm arguing that what makes marriage marriage hasn't changed, in the same fashion as people arguing that Trucks are cars are then arguing that cars are no longer cars, and that cars no longer exist because Trucks are now cars.

i have given a definition of marriage, and you have given one. yours however, is simply a denial of the legal reality, which in itself is a reflection of the social reality, that exists in many western countries.

Again, calling a truck a car doesn't change the definition of car, no matter how many times you insist that trucks are cars.

now that the car has been painted pink, it is you who is trying to deny that it is a car and claim that a true car cannot be pink.

You're saying that there's a fundamental change when all you've done is change the paint. The definition remains what it's always been and the trucks calling themselves cars are still trucks.

your premise is both dishonest and ludicrous.

How is it dishonest? It's true. You can redefine things all you want, it still doesn't actually change what things are.

the people who wrote the bible existed in a certain context

Yes, and their understanding of matrimony of marriage is no different than marriage today. That is my point. Arguing that because you want the definition to change still doesn't change the fact that marriage is still the exact same thing.

, in fact diverse ones at different historical moments. the wrote about an enormous range of subjects, be it homosexuality, marriage, diet, usury, dress and so forth; indeed one might say that the bible provides a complete guide for every aspect of life.

Arguing that homosexuality is a modern innovation is a myth. Arguing that the bible and the authors of the bible were unfamiliar with it is also a myth. They explicitly reject it not because things have changed, but because nothing has truly changed since then.

the authors however, could not see the future, or indeed, much of the past or present, so they wrote based on the narrow contexts which they lived in. almost all forms of human action and interaction, including marriage of course, are shaped by the particular contexts, historical, economic, political, cultural and social in which they are performed.

Yeah, and? Romans believed in Matrimony back in the 5th century BC. Despite the differences, marriage hasn't really changed since then.

we can also point to specific examples where it is not just useless and irrelevant, but actually harmful.

How does that apply to what Christ teaches on marriage?

[Sava]

The gods of old were cruel and self serving. Then there comes a god who advocates love, compassion and forgiveness. Of course it caught on. Then men corrupt his teachings to serve their ends always.

Exactly.

The actual historical Jesus is unknowable to us. We're only left with a bunch of crap tyrants co-opted for their own purposes.

And nowadays, we have nimrods who repurpose the religion for their own twisted ends.


^^^

[Bereta_Eder]

Romans existed in 5th century bc?
The ring one wears on his/her finger when married is an ancient greek novelty. as is the handshake. But women back then got married very young. Christianity is an expression of ancient judaic moral austerity. Why give that any divine cloack?

[Sava]

Matthew 19:4-6.

Wow. You get "KILL THE FAGS" from that?

That says more about you than anything else. You ****ing psycho.

Also, you seem to require a whole lot more proof for Jesus thinking weed is okay. It's almost like... you are just a bigot looking for an excuse for your bigotry.

[Bereta_Eder]

My point is focus on the core of the teaching that managed to sway the land back then and maybe forget all the mambo jambo

[Berzerker]

Funny man.

For sustenance.

but no plants for medicine?

[Sava]

The only passage that actually says anything relevant doesn't support it's use as a drug to get high.

Correct. He says it's okay FOR WHATEVER THE **** I WANT

you satanic ****

[Berzerker]

if Jesus dont have a problem with booze he aint got one with pot

[C0ckney]

Even Sava gets it. If you're an atheist, declaring yourself to be God simply doesn't work.

as you are incapable of either: a) understanding the point and; b) discussing it honestly, instead of wasting my time, i will simply reject your assertion.

Christ. You can call a truck a car all you want, that doesn't mean that trucks are cars. I'm arguing that what makes marriage marriage hasn't changed, in the same fashion as people arguing that Trucks are cars are then arguing that cars are no longer cars, and that cars no longer exist because Trucks are now cars.

Again, calling a truck a car doesn't change the definition of car, no matter how many times you insist that trucks are cars.

You're saying that there's a fundamental change when all you've done is change the paint. The definition remains what it's always been and the trucks calling themselves cars are still trucks.

Yes, and their understanding of matrimony of marriage is no different than marriage today. That is my point. Arguing that because you want the definition to change still doesn't change the fact that marriage is still the exact same thing.

all you've done here is asserted that your definition is correct. yet those who define (in a legal sense) what marriage is, who the parties can be and so on disagree with you. society at large disagrees with you. even 20 years ago it was impossible for a person to marry someone of the same sex, now they can. who can marry whom has changed, in a legal sense, and this is a reflection of the social reality.

How is it dishonest? It's true. You can redefine things all you want, it still doesn't actually change what things are.

Arguing that homosexuality is a modern innovation is a myth. Arguing that the bible and the authors of the bible were unfamiliar with it is also a myth. They explicitly reject it not because things have changed, but because nothing has truly changed since then.

no one has argued either of those things, and it is dishonest to claim that it they have. what has happened is that the social, legal etc. contexts have changed. there have always been homosexuals, but their situation has changed over time, as a reflection of changing social, political and cultural realities.

How does that apply to what Christ teaches on marriage?

i have already addressed this and you have failed to address the points i made, so i will simply repeat an example i used earlier.

a lot of prejudice that homosexuals face is an artefact of christian morality and social teaching.

[Ben Kenobi]

but no plants for medicine?

If dope weren't psychoactive would you be using it?

[Ben Kenobi]

You get "KILL THE FAGS" from that?

No. I get, "marriage is reserved for one man and one woman" from that. Which is the challenge that rah posed. Since I have provided a direct quote from Jesus Christ himself that states that marriage is between one man and one woman, I challenge rah to stand by his claim, and support Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

He says it's okay FOR WHATEVER THE **** I WANT

Not so. The actual citation you provided says for 'sustenance', something that you deliberately chopped off when quoting it. Your position is scripturally untenable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Romans existed in 5th century bc?

Yes they did, and we have evidence of their marriages dating back to there that are really not much different than what is done today. Sure the ceremony has different trappings but the core concepts of matrimony are all there. Permanence, union of husband and wife, etc.

The ring one wears on his/her finger when married is an ancient greek novelty. as is the handshake. But women back then got married very young. Christianity is an expression of ancient judaic moral austerity. Why give that any divine cloack?

Sure, I used the Romans just as an example going back the 1st century, but you are very right that I could have done equally well with the Greeks.

[Ben Kenobi]

The actual historical Jesus is unknowable to us.

Do you believe that the actual historical Julius Caesar is unknowable?

We're only left with a bunch of crap tyrants co-opted for their own purposes.

The Apostles? The ones who wrote scripture who were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Christ? You are aware that scripture dates back to 50-60 AD for most of it (although a few books were written later. Yes, the historical Christ is knowable through the Gospels.

[Ben Kenobi]

as you are incapable of either: a) understanding the point and; b) discussing it honestly, instead of wasting my time, i will simply reject your assertion.

Once again - your position is incompatible with any version of atheism. It is, however, fully compatible with cults. You aren't an atheist, you're a member of a cult.

all you've done here is asserted that your definition is correct.

It's not my definition. I didn't invent marriage.

yet those who define (in a legal sense) what marriage is, who the parties can be and so on disagree with you.

If people, legally, were to redefine the term "car" to include what we call trucks, would that mean that trucks no longer exist?

If people, legally, were to redefine the term "man" to include "women", would that change the reality of "man" and "woman".

You can rewrite things all you want legally, but it won't change the reality.

society at large disagrees with you

It's not a societal construct. It predates all of the present societies today and it will last long after they've turned out the lights here.

even 20 years ago it was impossible for a person to marry someone of the same sex, now they can. who can marry whom has changed, in a legal sense, and this is a reflection of the social reality.

And again - trucks are still trucks and cars are still cars. It doesn't change the reality and for those who work on trucks and cars, they still have to know what the thing actually is to fix it. It's simple legal fiction and word games.

It doesn't change the reality of marriage.

no one has argued either of those things

You have been beating the drum that the bible is irrelevant because they do not understand the modern world. I am arguing that nothing on this subject has changed to indicate that things have changed since biblical times. The bible talks about homosexuality and explicitly rejects it.

there have always been homosexuals, but their situation has changed over time, as a reflection of changing social, political and cultural realities.

As opposed to Roman society? Again, Christianity rejects homosexuality for the same reasons it did in the first century as it does today. None of the 'changes' are anything new, it's just the same old things being polished up as 'progress', when the reality is the exact opposite.

There's a reason society works the way it does, changing things in this matter isn't going to make society work differently. We'll get lip service and then it will die out and we'll wonder why we cared so much at the time. I suspect that we'll get the aging hippies clinging to gay marriage long after the world has moved on.

a lot of prejudice that homosexuals face is an artefact of christian morality and social teaching.

It's an artifact of Christianity that the union of a man and a man will not produce children?