Would you marry a gay couple...

[Thanda]

I am able to glean wisdom from scripture. I guess it is because I am free.

In other words you made up the context. Okay.

Convict? Did you even read 1 Peter 2:20?

You are still making no sense. Just say it out loud so we can all hear it and understand it - people should be convicted without evidence other than the word of a child.

Do you understand that religious dogma will have the CHILD endure instead of the MAN?

How does religious dogma make the child endure?

 

[savagewind]

You are still making no sense. Just say it out loud so we can all hear it and understand it - people should be convicted without evidence other than the word of a child.

But, can you think? When they disregard the word of a child they are convicting the child of LYING. It seems mighty men think it is better to convict a child than it is to presume the grown supposed spiritual man guilty. OK? It is off topic.

 

[Thanda]

But, can you think? When they disregard the word of a child they are convicting the child of LYING. OK? It is off topic.

Nope they are not - just like a woman who cannot prove she was raped is not being convicted of lying when her rapist is found not guilty.

 

[savagewind]

Nope they are not - just like a woman who cannot prove she was raped is not being convicted of lying when her rapist is found not guilty.

You are talking about law. I am talking about religious methods. I thought about starting a thread about it but I changed my mind.
Please, please, please read 1 Peter 2:20

 

[Thanda]

You are talking about law. I am talking about religious methods. I thought about starting a thread about it but I changed my mind.
Please, please, please read 1 Peter 2:20

There principles of justice are quite consistent between both church and state. I have read Peter 2:20 and I can't believe you are really trying to imply that churches should go around persecuting their members in order to fulfill scriptures.

 

[savagewind]

There principles of justice are quite consistent between both church and state. I have read Peter 2:20 and I can't believe you are really trying to imply that churches should go around persecuting their members in order to fulfill scriptures.

Can we please take this outside? Hebrews 12:7 Titus 1:6-7

 

[Neo Deist]

Neo Deist, consider these two points:
(1) You, an ordained Christian minister, reject the claim that disciples chosen and trained by Jesus would just make up all the miracle stories?
(2) You reject eyewitness testimony as hearsay...

Name one eyewitness to Jesus that wrote one of the Gospels. (tic, toc, tic, toc...)

 

[Berserk]

Name one eyewitness to Jesus that wrote one of the Gospels. (tic, toc, tic, toc...)

OK, you have no sane reply to my last post and seek to save face by raising an bogus issue--bogus because I've made it clear that we can trace connetions to eyewitness testimony, but have no eyewitnesses who wrote any of our 4 Gospels. But Paul is an eyewitness to the risen Jesus, and his encounter with Christ was so powerful that it transformed him from a hitman for the Pharisees into Christianity's greatest and most effective apostle. And of course, Paul had contacts with the eyewitnesses.in various places.

 

[Neo Deist]

OK, you have no sane reply to my last post and seek to save face by raising an bogus issue--bogus because I've made it clear that we can trace connetions to eyewitness testimony, but have no eyewitnesses who wrote any of our 4 Gospels. But Paul is an eyewitness to the risen Jesus, and his encounter with Christ was so powerful that it transformed him from a hitman for the Pharisees into Christianity's greatest and most effective apostle. And of course, Paul had contacts with the eyewitnesses.in various places.

In other words, you can't name a single eyewitness that wrote any of the Gospels. Good, because they don't exist, and every theological scholar on the planet that is non-biased when researching that fact, will agree.

Instead, you are trying to draw lines and make connections but that does not change the fact that none of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses. Do you know what an eyewitness is? It is someone that personally observed something and then reports it, either in court or via writing.

Since the Gospel writers were NOT eyewitnesses, regardless of what lines you are trying to draw, that makes all of the Gospels hearsay.

In short, to answer this question: "were any of the Gospel writers actual eyewitnesses to Jesus?" you would have to say "NO!"

As soon as you say, "but I heard it from someone that was there and they said..." it gets tossed out of court for hearsay.

Do you get it yet?

 

[Draka]

Witness: I saw this thing happen right before my eyes.

Hearsay: This guy said he saw this happen right before his eyes.

One comes directly from the source of information, one gets accredited to a source of information that may or may not be accurate.

AND let us remember that all witness testimony is biased. Education, comprehension, desire, emotions....all color a testimony. This is why physical evidence is important to corroborate witness testimony. Especially when witness testimony becomes hearsay.

 

[Neo Deist]

Duh, yeah, but Neo Deist knew that before hefore he became a minister. Every NT introduction admits that. Besides, why reject the testimony of someone who knew an eyewitness? Most of the information we accept as true on a daily basis derives from 2nd hand sources. Neo Deist is just inconsistent. I suspect he was forced to leave the ministry.

At what point did I ever say I was a "Christian" minister?

Oh and you can keep the personal attacks to yourself. You've already thrown a punch at my wife, and now my ministry credentials.

 

[Neo Deist]

Besides, why reject the testimony of someone who knew an eyewitness?

BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

 

[Berserk]

Neo Deist


Neo Deist: "At what point did I ever say I was a "Christian" minister?"

A rational person would draw that inference from this introductory remark:
Neo Deist: "I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama."

Neo Deist: :"]BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!...Oh and you can keep the personal attacks to yourself. You've already thrown a punch at my wife.

On the contrary, my comment assumed that you and your wife love each other and that she is a credible woman. That said, I repeat the question you continually duck: Given that you, like the rest of us, routinely accept as true most of the information you daily receive at 2nd hand (e g. on the news or from your wife's account of her day, etc.), why do you reject the testimony of Jesus' disciples as conveyed by sources who derive their information directly from them? C'mon, you don't dismiss your wife's conversation about her day as based on hearsay! If you do, it is you who are throwing " a punch" at your wife.

I mean, Alexandria the Great left no writings. So do you reject the reports of his strategies and conquests as hearsay?

 

[Neo Deist]

A rational person would draw that inference from this introductory remark:
Neo Deist: "I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama."

A rational person could look at my user name and instantly be able to identify the basis of my beliefs.

That said, I repeat the question you continually duck:

Quack. And I am not referring to the animal.

Given that you, like the rest of us, routinely accept as true most of the information you daily receive at 2nd hand (e g. on the news or from your wife's account of her day, etc.),

Speak only for yourself.

why do you reject the testimony of Jesus' disciples as conveyed by sources who derive their information directly from them?

In case you have not figured it out, I am a deist. Go to the Deism DIR and read up on it. That and...wait for it...they are hearsay!

C'mon, you don't dismiss your wife's conversation about her day as based on hearsay! If you do, it is you who are throwing " a punch" at your wife.

What she tells me that happened to her is not hearsay, as she is the witness to the events. What she tells me so and so told her about something that happened is hearsay, and although I do listen, I really don't care one way or another. It is just gossip...which she rarely does because she is like me. In other words, speak the truth and don't wag the tongue. She knows exactly where I am coming from.

I mean, Alexandria the Great left no writings. So do you reject the reports of his strategies and conquests as hearsay?

Alexandria the Great? Unless Alexander was in drag (admittedly their attire was "odd") I think you have some confusion going on there. And yes, his history is hearsay. BTW, I have never said that hearsay is not truthful, just that the person was not an eyewitness.

 

[Draka]

Neo Deist


Neo Deist: "At what point did I ever say I was a "Christian" minister?"

A rational person would draw that inference from this introductory remark:
Neo Deist: "I am an ordained minister, I live in the USA, and I grew up as a very conservative Southern Baptist in Alabama."

Neo Deist: :"]BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!...Oh and you can keep the personal attacks to yourself. You've already thrown a punch at my wife.

On the contrary, my comment assumed that you and your wife love each other and that she is a credible woman. That said, I repeat the question you continually duck: Given that you, like the rest of us, routinely accept as true most of the information you daily receive at 2nd hand (e g. on the news or from your wife's account of her day, etc.), why do you reject the testimony of Jesus' disciples as conveyed by sources who derive their information directly from them? C'mon, you don't dismiss your wife's conversation about her day as based on hearsay! If you do, it is you who are throwing " a punch" at your wife.

I mean, Alexandria the Great left no writings. So do you reject the reports of his strategies and conquests as hearsay?

If hearsay is all you need to believe something then why do you not take the word of others in regards to other beliefs and traditions? Why, when the bible is simply a collection of stories, legends, mythology and hearsay, should one put more stock into it than into any other religious writing? Figure that out and then you may understand why someone takes certain information and not other.

 

[Berserk]

Neo Deist: A rational person could look at my user name and instantly be able to identify the basis of my beliefs.

On another site, I have been debating an ordained Christian minister who is a panentheist. Some liberal Christian ministers are functionally deists. So your claim to be an ordained minister who grew up in the Baptist tradition makes the assumption that your ordination is Christian a natural assumption.
You really must think through your juxtaposition of related claims.

Neo Deist: Unless Alexander was in drag (admittedly their attire was "odd") I think you have some confusion going on there. And yes, his history is hearsay.

Your use of my typo actually betrays your historical ignorance. Alexander had a male lover named Hephaestion.

Neo Deist: BTW, I have never said that hearsay is not truthful, just that the person was not an eyewitness.

Now I got you to waffle. Good! Your need to caricature prompts to keep assuming I'm talking about eyewitnesses. Now take a deep breath and reread my posts, and you'll see I'm talking about" "connections to the eyewitnesses" and asking you why you reject their testimony.

Draka: If hearsay is all you need to believe something then why do you not take the word of others in regards to other beliefs and traditions?

Where do you find me saying I don't? For example, I provisionally accept the fact that Muhammad had a series of mystical experiences that he attributed to the angel Gabriel and ultimately to Allah. But then I ask whether there is reason to believe he was mistaken. Then I notice all the contradictions in the Quran and, more importantly (for me), the fact that most of what the Quran says about Jesus derives from discredited late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels. I asked Neo why he rejects Gospel materials that derive from eyewitnesses of Jesus. I expect a more intelligent answer than the hearsay bromide.

IN my thread on connections to eyewitnesses of Jesus, I suggest that the preservation of embarrassing details that one might expect to be excised bears witness to Jesus material that warrants a serious hearing: e. g. the claim that Jesus' own brothers rejected His claims, the claim that he tried and failed to perform miracles in his home down, the claim that He failed in his first attempt to heal the blind man of Bethsaida, but succeeded on his 2nd attempt.

So when Neo's wife tells him Judy said she's getting a divorce, I'll bet Neo accepts his wife's claim that that's what Judy told her. Judy may in fact later change her mind or may just be giving vent to temporary feelings of hostility that she may not follow through on with divorce proceedings. .

 

[First Baseman]

No, I wouldn't marry a gay couple. They have enough problems without trying a three way marriage.

 

[Etritonakin]

so much for "give unto Caesar..."

Unless Caesar owns a bunch of gay people....... yah

That would apply by acknowledging it is none of the church's business if the state allowed gay marriage -but it is God's and the church's business what happens in or by the church, ministry, etc...

 

[Draka]

Where do you find me saying I don't? For example, I provisionally accept the fact that Muhammad had a series of mystical experiences that he attributed to the angel Gabriel and ultimately to Allah. But then I ask whether there is reason to believe he was mistaken. Then I notice all the contradictions in the Quran and, more importantly (for me), the fact that most of what the Quran says about Jesus derives from discredited late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels. I asked Neo why he rejects Gospel materials that derive from eyewitnesses of Jesus. I expect a more intelligent answer than the hearsay bromide.

IN my thread on connections to eyewitnesses of Jesus, I suggest that the preservation of embarrassing details that one might expect to be excised bears witness to Jesus material that warrants a serious hearing: e. g. the claim that Jesus' own brothers rejected His claims, the claim that he tried and failed to perform miracles in his home down, the claim that He failed in his first attempt to heal the blind man of Bethsaida, but succeeded on his 2nd attempt.

So when Neo's wife tells him Judy said she's getting a divorce, I'll bet Neo accepts his wife's claim that that's what Judy told her. Judy may in fact later change her mind or may just be giving vent to temporary feelings of hostility that she may not follow through on with divorce proceedings. .

Why do you not give more weight or equal weight to the Quran? What about Hindu scripture? Why do you not hold them in the same esteem and as the same"truth"as the bible?

We have faith in the truth of something for which we have been given reason. Reason outside the mere words of it. We learn to trust sources given our experiences with them. We cannot take something which we have given no reason to trust and take it at face value truth. We must have reason to accept the truthfulness of something don't we? For many, the reason is lacking to believe the bible. However there may be plenty of reason to believe in something which contradicts it.

 

[Deeje]

Can we take the fact that the Watch Tower actively protects child molesters as a sign that it (and by extension God) considers child molesting a morally, spiritually and physically clean activity?

Who told you that? How twisted.

We do not actively protect anyone who breaks God's laws. We are the ones who disfellowship unrepentant wrongdoers, remember? We cop all sorts of flack for that but it is entirely biblical.....so it appears that we are damned if we do, or damned if we don't. We will help anyone who wants or needs help but we will not continue to enable those who don't put in the effort to effect real change in their lives.

If you are speaking about times past, I have already responded to that on other threads. In the past it was a nightmare to prosecute pedophiles through the court system. It was often the word of the victim over the word of the abuser. Lawyer for the accused often made prosecution worse for the victim than the original offense. No wonder it was suggested that the victim let it be. These days there is protection for the victim...as it should be. Our elders are not the police.

To say things like you have in your response only demonstrates an attitude to believe whatever you are told with little regard for the truth.