[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know what’s really funny? This morning I was digging through a pile of papers and I found an old post from Push where he is beating up on Orion. LOL! Occasionally I’ll print somebody’s post to read to my wife that I find particularly insightful or entertaining. This one was both…[/quote]
Which one???
I love kickin’ Onion’s e-ass. He always bends over and makes it so easy! You can haul off and really let go with your right leg (I’m right-handed). It’s like kickin’ extra points.[/quote]
I find that I can get better distance out of Mak . . . [/quote]
depends on the day. either one can be too deflated or inflated.[/quote]
Just so we can get all of them in one post do not forget Ryan P. McCarter.[/quote]
LOL - I find him to be easy to kick, but hard to move!!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Paul is acknowledging the problematic reality of weening the citizens of Ephesus away from the polygamous, poly-partner practices that were en vogue all over the greco roman world at that time. He is emphasizing that this will not happen while the leadership is doing it too.
“Look Timothy, it may take some time to get these gentiles, steeped in paganism out of their long held practices, to say nothing of possible complicated family situations, but make no mistake. The leaders are to be spotlessly monogamous or we have no credible witness with them at all.” [/quote]
In that context Paul is far more interested in weaning the citizens of Ephesus away from the idolatry of the Greco-Roman world than he was about weaning certain penises from certain vaginas. In fact, Ephesus was THE capital of the Euro-western Asia idolatrous world.
And yes, sexual perversion was rampant. Temple prostitution in the ceremonies of worshiping false gods was prevalent. A God-fearing believer that happened to have two wives was NOT the problem but converts who wanted to hang on to the old idolatrous practices and mix them with the new Christian experience WAS.[/quote]
Push… harder… my friend, which I intend with all genuine sincerity. You are too smart for this. Which I also intend with all genuine sincerity.
The gospel itself is a monotheistic ipso facto repudiation of idolatry. It is defined into the message and the very first thing that fell from their lips upon arrival. He is not saying that officers shouldn’t be mixed up in idolatry. NOBODY can be mixed up in idolatry or they haven’t even taken the first step toward salvation. If I’m not mistaken he doesn’t even mention idolatry in 1st Timothy. Paul does talk about idolatry all the time though. If that’s he meant he would have said that… again.
No. He says “husband = one wife” as the numero uno to kick off a list of prerequisite virtues for the leadership because THAT is where he was taking them. Yes, one vagina per penis. It’s almost impossible for me to believe you can’t see that.
I’ve been waiting for the right moment to spring this. Push, you called me a hypocrite in a previous thread. Hello pot, this is kettle…
I’ve read about your views on an open marriage and Divine Sex and I believe that it’s just an excuse for you to be able to call yourself a good Christian AND get your freak on. That’s all it is. You have rejected anywhere from 1500 to 2000 years of Christian teaching in favor of this ultra-literal interpretation of the Bible where married men can have sex with women other than their wives. There could be several reasons why the stories did not condemn such behavior. Perhaps parts were left out - the Bible is an old book after all and parts could have been lost or things mistranslated. Or perhaps the authors of the stories felt that descriptions of punishment for such behavior didn’t add to the story. This is how most Bible scholars would approach this issue. But in order to support your lifestyle, you NEED a literal interpretation of these stories and you need to believe that these stories are 100% the inerrant word of God. That way, if it wasn’t punished, it must be okay.
I don’t care who you have sex with, and if you and your wife believe in some type of open marriage, good for you. But spare us your arguments that creation, a talking snake, and the earth being 6,000 years old are valid “theories” when the primary reason you believe in these myths is so that you can get your freak on.
I think somebody bearing a striking resemblance to myself predicted this very thing. Which I say with no smile on my face.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< another post >>>
[/quote]
I give up (at least for now again)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I think somebody bearing a striking resemblance to myself predicted this very thing. Which I say with no smile on my face.[/quote]
Tirib… ulus… my friend, which I intend with all genuine sincerity. You are too smart for this.
When someone comes along and says [quote]But spare us your arguments that creation, a talking snake, and the earth being 6,000 years old are valid “theories”[/quote] you should hang your head in shame and sneak out the back door. Over the course of many years and many creation/Genesis threads you were nowhere to be seen. Shoo. You too are dismissed.[/quote]
I dunno, I still give up. You are missing everything.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< You missed all the Genesis threads that Mike is referencing. And the excuse you gave in another post was lame. Now here he, the talking snake MikeTheBear, appears and now you, the AWOL soldier, respond to him.[/quote]
Who he particularly is, is incidental. What arguments you had in the past is just as unimportant. You are bringing dishonor to the name of Christ by providing them ammunition with a hedonistic carnal lifestyle that even they know is not Christian. Of course they don’t believe the Bible. That’s to be expected, but you’re giving them another reason to view it as a joke.
I said on the previous page:
Mike said:[quote]<<< I’ve read about your views on an open marriage and Divine Sex and I believe that it’s just an excuse for you to be able to call yourself a good Christian AND get your freak on. That’s all it is. >>><<< the primary reason you believe in these myths is so that you can get your freak on. >>>[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Who he particularly is, is incidental. What arguments you had in the past is just as unimportant. You are bringing dishonor to the name of Christ by providing them ammunition with a hedonistic carnal lifestyle that even they know is not Christian. Of course they don’t believe the Bible. That’s to be expected, but you’re giving them another reason to view it as a joke.
[/quote]They “know” it is not Christian because they were raised in Western civilization that has incorporated religious tradition into society. Whether or not that religious tradition is biblically based or just based on the social mores of men is what we are debating.
[/quote]
OK
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…You are bringing dishonor to the name of Christ by providing them ammunition…
[/quote]You are attempting to debate this issue by heaping guilt upon me. It’s not going to work. Discuss this like a man or leave.
[/quote]
Now just an eisegetical minute there my friend. You can believe and say whatever you want. You can misapprehend my posts til Jesus returns to claim his brides, I mean bride. You can erroneously take everything I say as an indication of hostility. You can erroneously hold yourself guiltless for whatever else you want too.
BUT, you do not get to kick me out of somebody else’s thread =]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mike, you’re dismissed. You have nothing of value to contribute.
You had your ass kicked in the other thread and you’re slinking into this one to try and throw a jab when you’ve already been knocked out and the ref has called the fight. You need to head to the hospital to have your concussion looked at instead of flailing and mumbling about how you think you should have won the decision.[/quote]
I “slink away” because I get tired of this shit. I’m not sure why I come back. But anyway…
Here’s my point. You criticize atheists and agnostics for questioning religion and the existence of a Divine Being and for looking to science rather than old stories for answer. I see nothing wrong with this, but you consider us a threat to society itself. But you’re doing the same thing (perhaps not on as large a scale since you’re not questioning the very existence of God) but you are certainly questioning what many would consider a fundamental moral teaching of Christianity. Despite this, you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian, claim that Christian teaching on this subject is wrong, and then replace that teaching with your own moral code based on an interpretation of Bible stories. And yes, I deliberately use the word “interpretation” here because you are inferring that because the story never mentions that because the particular character never received any punishment from God, then God condoned his actions. This is a bit of a leap. “No punishment” does not mean “approval.” And as others have pointed out, there could have been any number of reasons why God may have tolerated such behavior. Again, “tolerated” does not mean “approval.” You criticize the Catholics and others who would interpret the Bible instead of adopting a literal reading, yet you yourself have made what I would consider an inferential leap.
I wish you well in your lifestyle. As a libertarian, I certainly think that a married couple can conduct their marriage however they wish. Hell, I think you’re a lucky guy. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t question your sincerity in calling yourself a good Christian because your view is most definitely not the majority Christian view.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< because your view is most definitely not the majority Christian view.[/quote]
Minority view would be galactically generous.
Push, you have no idea how desperately I would like to be able to defend you. I literally have a knot in my throat right now. If you have the misconception that I’m sitting here waiting for my next opportunity to throw a jab at you, I give you my solemn word that has never been the case and you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< You missed all the Genesis threads that Mike is referencing. And the excuse you gave in another post was lame. Now here he, the talking snake MikeTheBear, appears and now you, the AWOL soldier, respond to him.[/quote]
Who he particularly is, is incidental. What arguments you had in the past is just as unimportant. You are bringing dishonor to the name of Christ by providing them ammunition with a hedonistic carnal lifestyle that even they know is not Christian. Of course they don’t believe the Bible. That’s to be expected, but you’re giving them another reason to view it as a joke.
I said on the previous page:
Mike said:[quote]<<< I’ve read about your views on an open marriage and Divine Sex and I believe that it’s just an excuse for you to be able to call yourself a good Christian AND get your freak on. That’s all it is. >>><<< the primary reason you believe in these myths is so that you can get your freak on. >>>[/quote]
[/quote]
The irony is that it really doesn’t bring dishonor to the name of Jesus, at least I don’t think so. The historical figure of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible was kind, caring, and generally a good guy. And the purpose of religion should be to further these values. Many religions do this, and these religions also realize that taking the Bible literally, especially the Old Testament books, doesn’t necessarily accomplish these goals.