While one can find rabid zealots from any group to help illustrate a point, the majority of thinking Christians have conversations that go more like this:
Man: I want to do "x."
Christian: You are free to do it.
Man: But you think "x" is wrong.
Christian: Yes.
Man: Because you want to control me and tell me how to live?
Christian: No. You are free to do what you want.
Man: But you think "x" is wrong.
Christian: Yes. Because God says "x" is harmful and I don't want that for you. I desire your ultimate good.
Man: But I want to do "x."
Christian: And you are free to do it.
Man: But I want you to say that "x" is good.
Christian: I cannot say that.
Man: Why do you hate me?
My quibble was with the logic of the argument, not the truth of Christianity.
That said, I might ask that you don't believe everything you read from Dan Brown or Bart Ehrman. They both propose preposterous premises in order to sell books. I can forgive Dan Brown because he sells what is labeled fiction.
Yes, I cherry picked with no context as an illustration of how misleading such a thing can be. I'm lead to understand it can be an effective way of making a point, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Can you be more specific about making up BS? I'm just trying to understand that particular thread of your argument here.
I think Trump was a buffoon and hope he stays irrelevant.
This is a spurious argument. Yes, there are hypocrites everywhere, but just because someone went out and did what they were preaching against doesn't make the thing wrong; it makes the preacher a hypocrite.
I imagine this is the exact thing the club was hoping to avoid.
What if you were an officer in a club that's stated goal was gun control? Now, if pro-gun folks started attending your meetings, gained a following, and started becoming officials in the group, they would then have the power to turn "Reasonable People For Gun Control" to "Gun Nuts for Freedom in 'Merica."
Let them have their club. If we don't like their rules, we can form our own club.
Taking one or two lines out of context does not describe the entirety of Christ's teachings. For example, I can quote "Words build bridges into unexplored regions" and many would say it's true and almost poetic. This same person reportedly said, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed" and also, "We shall only talk of peace when we have one the war. The Jewish Capitalist world will not survive the twentieth century." Of course these quotes are from Hitler.
Stated another way, saying "God is love" is like saying "Hitler was a painter." Both statements are true, but they both miss a larger point.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus affirmed the moral law of the Old Testament, pronouncing judgement on anyone who relaxes any of the commandments, or teaches others to do so.
In Mark 7:20-23, he lists things that defile a person, including sexual misconduct. His listeners would have understood this to mean those things forbidden by the moral law of the Old Testament.
Just so we're clear, the things prohibited by the moral law of the Old Testament include some of the following:
Adultery (Exod. 20:14, Lev. 18:20, Deut. 5:18).
Bestiality (Lev. 18:23, Deut. 27:21).
Homosexual acts (Lev. 18:22).
Incest (Lev. 18:6−18; Deut. 22:30; 27:20, 22−23).
Prostitution (Lev. 19:29, Deut. 23:18).
Rape (Deut. 22:25−29).
Sex before marriage (Exod. 22:16−17).
My point is I'm sure you can find a better argument. Jesus was clearly against these things. To claim he wasn't is intellectually dishonest.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by kevinlloyd.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While one can find rabid zealots from any group to help illustrate a point, the majority of thinking Christians have conversations that go more like this:
This is what I seem to encounter. Cheers.
Re: Re: Re: Christian group?
My quibble was with the logic of the argument, not the truth of Christianity.
That said, I might ask that you don't believe everything you read from Dan Brown or Bart Ehrman. They both propose preposterous premises in order to sell books. I can forgive Dan Brown because he sells what is labeled fiction.
Re: Re: Re: Christian group?
Yes, I cherry picked with no context as an illustration of how misleading such a thing can be. I'm lead to understand it can be an effective way of making a point, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Can you be more specific about making up BS? I'm just trying to understand that particular thread of your argument here.
I think Trump was a buffoon and hope he stays irrelevant.
Cheers.
Re: Re:
This is a spurious argument. Yes, there are hypocrites everywhere, but just because someone went out and did what they were preaching against doesn't make the thing wrong; it makes the preacher a hypocrite.
Find a better argument.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good idea, abhorrent application
I imagine this is the exact thing the club was hoping to avoid.
What if you were an officer in a club that's stated goal was gun control? Now, if pro-gun folks started attending your meetings, gained a following, and started becoming officials in the group, they would then have the power to turn "Reasonable People For Gun Control" to "Gun Nuts for Freedom in 'Merica."
Let them have their club. If we don't like their rules, we can form our own club.
Re: Christian group?
Taking one or two lines out of context does not describe the entirety of Christ's teachings. For example, I can quote "Words build bridges into unexplored regions" and many would say it's true and almost poetic. This same person reportedly said, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed" and also, "We shall only talk of peace when we have one the war. The Jewish Capitalist world will not survive the twentieth century." Of course these quotes are from Hitler.
Stated another way, saying "God is love" is like saying "Hitler was a painter." Both statements are true, but they both miss a larger point.
Just so we're clear, the things prohibited by the moral law of the Old Testament include some of the following:
My point is I'm sure you can find a better argument. Jesus was clearly against these things. To claim he wasn't is intellectually dishonest.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by kevinlloyd.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt