[quote]haney wrote:
If you want to know where the true moral code of the Christian is it would be found in the NT here.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Looks like JC thought it was pretty clear, cut, and dry.[/quote]
Hey I like that love your neighbor as yourself thing. That’s pretty much my own personal handbook that I follow. JC was a pretty cool dude. Even if he did need a haircut.
And one more thing real quick:
One rule. Easy to understand, pretty much takes care of any situation. It’s elegant… the “Do unto others…” is just friggin’ great. It’s not that tough to get along with other people if you just follow this one thing. Life just isn’t that complicated.
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right? [/quote]
I guess you don’t know what sola scruptura means?
What I was saying is only the scriptures matter. I see this information you added as pretty much nothing. Added creeds, and laws by church fathers may have some merit, they also may not. They must be examined in light of the scrupture. I wish you would stop trying to attribute believes to me that I have never said I believed.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
haney wrote:
sola scriptura
Haney, if this is off topic we can discuss it somewhere else, but it has been explained to me that the books of the new testament were edited and selected specifically to serve as scripture readings in the daily services of the primitive (pre destruction of the temple) church and intended to be set up to parallel the old testament synogogue readings. We know that the christian services at the time of the apostles paralleled the daily/hourly pattern of Judaism. John talks about being at the daily service.
What do you think this daily service looked like?
[/quote]
almost no scholar would support this idea that the NT was read in the early service. Most would say they did not exist until after the destruction of the temple. On a side note. Oral tradition was more important to a first Century church then written tradition.
I interpet it the way it was meant to be interpreted. The exegetical would be it is a metaphor.
Why does it matter how I interpret this verse? What matters in this discussion is Moral’s, and is there a justifiable time to not follow them. You said it wasn’t simple. I said JC said it was.
Why don’t you save us both some time. Instead of stating small fires why not have a full discussion about all that you seem to think I believe, and disagree with. If you prefer a PM would work, or we could take it to another venue.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:
Morally right and wrong my opinion has not changed in my lifetime. As for personal interpretation of small issues, yeah that can change.
It is your opinion that these things are Human inventions, and it is my opinion that they are divine inventions.
Agreed. I think the reason we don’t see exactly eye-to-eye on this is because I also happen to think that God is a human invention, whereas you do not (of course). Hmmm… okay. What if you’re following the wrong God, haney? Kind of a twist on Pascal’s Gambit there.
[/quote]
I have thought about it. That is why I study all religions.
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right?
No what I was saying is only the scriptures matter. I see this information you added as pretty much nothing. I wish you would stop trying to attribute believes to me that I have never said I believed.
[/quote]
I know what you meant. Where did the idea that scripture was infallable emerge? That theology (or bibliology) does not exist in the bible. Someone thought it up because they didn’t want the Pope to be the authority. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible “this is the infallable moral code for Christian.” Jesus didn’t say “write this down so you won’t make any mistakes” he said “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth”
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right?
No what I was saying is only the scriptures matter. I see this information you added as pretty much nothing. I wish you would stop trying to attribute believes to me that I have never said I believed.
I know what you meant. Where did the idea that scripture was infallable emerge? That theology (or bibliology) does not exist in the bible. Someone thought it up because they didn’t want the Pope to be the authority. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible “this is the infallable moral code for Christian.” Jesus didn’t say “write this down so you won’t make any mistakes” he said “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth”
[/quote]
If you knew what I meant then why did you twist my words into something I did not say? I never said those things were inline with scripture. I never said they were not either. You implied that I said they were inline with scripture. Stop attributing words/ideas to my posts that I did not say.
I would say it came from Jesus himself. He seemed to put alot of stock in the OT, and the Laws of the prophets.
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God.
Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right?
No what I was saying is only the scriptures matter. I see this information you added as pretty much nothing. I wish you would stop trying to attribute believes to me that I have never said I believed.
I know what you meant. Where did the idea that scripture was infallable emerge? That theology (or bibliology) does not exist in the bible. Someone thought it up because they didn’t want the Pope to be the authority. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible “this is the infallable moral code for Christian.” Jesus didn’t say “write this down so you won’t make any mistakes” he said “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth”
[/quote]
By the way the idea of infallable came from the Hebrews. they attributed the OT to God, and declared it was His word. The early Christian Church followed suit with the NT. and the NT cannon was formed long before the Council of Nicea. Just look up Metzger on it.There were only 6 books that were debated on them being included.
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right?
No what I was saying is only the scriptures matter. I see this information you added as pretty much nothing. I wish you would stop trying to attribute believes to me that I have never said I believed.
I know what you meant. Where did the idea that scripture was infallable emerge? That theology (or bibliology) does not exist in the bible. Someone thought it up because they didn’t want the Pope to be the authority. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible “this is the infallable moral code for Christian.” Jesus didn’t say “write this down so you won’t make any mistakes” he said “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth”
If you knew what I meant then why did you twist my words into something I did not say? I never said those things were inline with scripture. I never said they were not either. You implied that I said they were inline with scripture. Stop attributing words/ideas to my posts that I did not say.
I would say it came from Jesus himself. He seemed to put alot of stock in the OT, and the Laws of the prophets.
Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? None is good except One, God.
Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:
If you want to know where the true moral code of the Christian is it would be found in the NT here.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Looks like JC thought it was pretty clear, cut, and dry.
Hey I like that love your neighbor as yourself thing. That’s pretty much my own personal handbook that I follow. JC was a pretty cool dude. Even if he did need a haircut.
And one more thing real quick:
One rule. Easy to understand, pretty much takes care of any situation. It’s elegant… the “Do unto others…” is just friggin’ great. It’s not that tough to get along with other people if you just follow this one thing. Life just isn’t that complicated.[/quote]
GAY MARRIAGE UP NORTH [Stanley Kurtz]
Sunday?s New York Times Week in Review section carried a remarkable article by Clifford Kraus on Canadian gay marriage ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/weekinreview/06kraus.html?pagewanted=all ). Gay marriage has been legal in much of Canada for some time, but very few gays are actually getting married. At the same time, the rate of parental cohabitation among Canadian heterosexuals is rising. Much of the gay community rejects the traditional idea of marriage?apparently even including those gays who actually get married. The picture Krauss paints of Canada is much like the one I?ve described for Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Yet when every sign says that gay marriage in Canada is likely to weaken the institution, Kraus simply shrugs off the social consequences and ends with praise of heightened ?choice.? This piece is all the more powerful as an indictment of gay marriage for coming from a reporter who favors gay marriage, and could care less about the social effects he describes. Meanwhile, Canada has been taken up with a debate over the possibility that gay marriage will force recognition of polygamy. The latest development is a legal opinion from British Columbia calling anti-polygamy laws vulnerable ( Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com ).
Posted at 09:00 AM
“My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drink?”
[/quote]
I found your post in the Iconalist atheist turns theist where you bring up this exact same thing! I am guessing you think I am a Biblical literalist. You never asked if I was, you just assumed I was.
I am not a literalist. I think some parts are very literal, and some parts are not.
It would be in your best interest to ask before you assume.
GAY MARRIAGE UP NORTH [Stanley Kurtz]
Sunday?s New York Times Week in Review section carried a remarkable article by Clifford Kraus on Canadian gay marriage ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/weekinreview/06kraus.html?pagewanted=all ). Gay marriage has been legal in much of Canada for some time, but very few gays are actually getting married. At the same time, the rate of parental cohabitation among Canadian heterosexuals is rising. Much of the gay community rejects the traditional idea of marriage?apparently even including those gays who actually get married.[/quote]
Of course they reject it, they aren’t exactly a traditional couple, ya know? Why Kurtz is surprised by this I can’t imagine.
Quick! The sky is falling! What social effects is he talking about? The fact that there are more common-law hetero relationships? So what? This is change, not death. Kurtz could stand to lighten up a little bit.
Look on the bright side Stan, more folks are waiting to get married instead of rushing into it. How is this bad? I think that one reason we have so much divorce is because folks don’t take their time and make sure they’re doing the right thing. I should know… I did it myself. Now I’m a divorce statistic.
If you notice, the focus of the last article link is on striking down the rights of pedophiles, not so much polygamists. I don’t see how this is a problem… if you can show that the girls being exploited aren’t age of consent, then they can’t enter into a marriage contract. No sweat. How this applies to or arises from the gay marriage issue, I didn’t notice that. There wasn’t a single mention of the word “gay” anywhere.
The Kurtz post wasn’t self-contained. It was building on his previous work, which has demonstrated that gay marriage and a decline in the rate in heterosexual marriage seem to occur simultaneously.
What he hasn’t done a good job of is making a causal argument for the effect – he’s shown a correlation. However, no one has disproved a causal effect either. What we have observed is essentially a weakening of heterosexual marriage after the introduction of homosexual marriage in several countries, which seems to confirm the fears of many conservatives on this issue. As I’ve said before, and as Professor Heriot outlined above when she described the “Burkean” school of thought, many conservatives only object to gay marriage because they see it as an assault on traditional marriage, specifically the child-centric or family-centric focus they want marriage to entail.
Saying “common law marriage” is essentially a way of saying living together and not getting married – depending on the jurisdiction (and I don’t actually know about Canada) there are certain requirements, such as living together for 10 years and holding yourselves out to be a married couple, that are required, and I would bet dollars to donuts that the journalist who wrote the article wasn’t using “common law marriage” with its specific legal requirements in mind.
As for the polygamist stuff, that is another item that isn’t self contained. The argument conservatives made there was that the legal reasoning in the judicial cases that legalized same sex marriage – and I believe in Canada it was a legal case, though it could have been a combination of a Supreme Court ruling and legislative action – that created an individual right to marriage for an adult person could not reasonably be limited to groups of 2. In fact, it would seem to me that the limitation to 2 people would seem even more arbitrary and capricious than the limitation that was removed (that the people be of opposite gender).
The item indicates that just such reasoning is being applied to the analysis of polygamist marriage.
The question of whether abortion and gay marriage should be banned is essentially a question of whether YOUR personal religious and moral beliefs should have a part to play in MY life.
And no matter what those beliefs are, I tend to side with the fundamental precepts of freedom on which this country was founded. My life is subject to my own personal religious and moral beliefs, not yours.
There’s a basic rule, “your right to swing your cane ends where my nose begins”. And that’s where abortion gets fuzzy: there’s an innocent party involved.