Imagine if people were regularly doing a shoot-up due to their local sports teams... there would be outrage. Religion is just fanaticism with a history.
Mark
What do you mean "if"?
Check out Montreal once they get blown out of the playoffs this spring, or look up the reports from Ohio after they won the NCAA title game . . .
As for the notion of giving the fanatics "an excuse" that, too, is a load of crap . . .
"Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me."
If you are going to mention "thou shalt have no other God before me", I am not ignoring it, it just does not apply the way you are trying to say that it does.
A Catholic cannot worship any other deity but God. No where does Christ say we have to kill everyone who disagrees.
If you are going to mention "thou shalt have no other God before me", I am not ignoring it, it just does not apply the way you are trying to say that it does.
A Catholic cannot worship any other deity but God. No where does Christ say we have to kill everyone who disagrees.
Only the 1st one... that's more of a warm up one I'm sure...
I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Perhaps you should stop relying on what you think you know, and do a little more in depth study.
There is a reason that the Bible is divided between the Old and the New Testaments.
You should start with why the notion of St. Peter as the first Pope, bringing the NEW Testament (that is a hint) of Jesus Christ to the world is so important.
Perhaps you should stop relying on what you think you know, and do a little more in depth study.
There is a reason that the Bible is divided between the Old and the New Testaments.
You should start with why the notion of St. Peter as the first Pope, bringing the NEW Testament (that is a hint) of Jesus Christ to the world is so important.
Otherwise you just sound like the same old Mark.
No no no.
Reasons are fun and such.. so ignore them if you wish..... since religion is pretty much (read: decisively) up to what you'd like..........
I am the same old Mark.. the realistic, completely rational, non supernatural / reasonable motherfucker? Then, Yes sir.
I am the same old Mark.. the know it all. Yes sir.
Cunt.
Mark
Actually, Catholicism is decidedly NOT "up to what I'd like" . . . that is why I am a "failed" Catholic, as opposed to so many who profess to be Catholics (like Paul Martin), but who do not live their Faith. They are not Catholics, either. They are hypocrites.
Cunt? Really? Okay . . . that seems terribly "reasoned" of you.
Actually, Catholicism is decidedly NOT "up to what I'd like" . . . that is why I am a "failed" Catholic, as opposed to so many who profess to be Catholics (like Paul Martin), but who do not live their Faith. They are not Catholics, either. They are hypocrites.
Cunt? Really? Okay . . . that seems terribly "reasoned" of you.
Not that we didn't know that already.
God Bless, and good bye.
I meant *I* was one... geez :P
Bad habit I picked up from my nephew coming back from NZ
While a couple of the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary Magdalene, none of them specifically state that Jesus was married to her or to anyone else. Ultimately, it does not matter what the "Jesus' wife papyrus" or Gnostic gospels say. They have no authority.
The Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Bible specifically because of their unreliability, their contradictions (within their own texts), and their outright misogyny.
Jesus was a Rabbi. They are obligated to marry. If Jesus was unmarried that would have been a sufficiently unusual situation that someone would have mentioned it in a gospel somewhere. Yet, all we have are gospels saying he was married.
And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.
The Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Bible specifically because of their unreliability, their contradictions (within their own texts), and their outright misogyny.
Nope. They were left out because they often contradicted the established Pauline tradition.
Furthermore, the early church viewed the Old Testament as both authoritative and inspired, as 2 Timothy 3:16 shows. This is an important point in regard to Gnosticism. The earliest churches had already recognized the Hebrew Scriptures as canon, a set of authoritative and divinely inspired texts. Notice how much of the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament books—all written to edify churches across the ancient world. Gnosticism fundamentally rejected Jewish theology about the goodness of creation, and especially the idea that all the nations could be blessed through Abraham and his faith. When the church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, it implicitly rejected Gnosticism before it had a chance to get started. Thus we are already at a watershed moment in the development of early Christianity, one that could not allow Gnosticism to ever be regarded as a legitimate development of the Christian faith.
The Talmud never states that a man is REQUIRED to be married, only that his life is improved by the marital state.
There is one reference to unmarried men not being allowed to teach children, but that is generally accepted to be more about the appearance of impropriety.
The marriage issue is primarily based on readings and inferences surrounding two of the Gnostic Gospels, namely that of Mary and Phillip. In both it is written that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than even his 12 disciples but, interestingly enough, not even in these two books does it say that Jesus was married to her. It does mention Jesus kissing her, but even that is not evidence of marriage as it is only the type of kiss bestowed in greeting a close friend, as He would have done with one of his disciples.
So, sorry, but I am quite confident that you can produce no evidence that refutes two millennia of accepted fact that Jesus of Nazareth was not married.
While Jesus is referred to on multiple occasions as "Rabbi" by His disciples he was not, in point of fact, a Rabbi. At least, not in the sense of the Judaic Faith, which is what you are referring to when you say that He was obligated to marry for this reason.
Today's Short Reading from the Bible...
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."
Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed
Today's Short Reading from the Bible...
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."
Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed
Jesus was a Rabbi. They are obligated to marry. If Jesus was unmarried that would have been a sufficiently unusual situation that someone would have mentioned it in a gospel somewhere. Yet, all we have are gospels saying he was married.
And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.
Easy, sensible, reasonable explanation.
Nope. They were left out because they often contradicted the established Pauline tradition.
You know I watched an hour documentary on this subject with Karen King from Harvard. Just wondering why this topic is so important to non believers? What do you think it will prove?
As far as the first point, not quite what Paul is getting at, there isn't a conflict with what Christ taught on marriage and what Paul taught. If you really believe this, you really don't understand the science behind textual criticism.
It isn't that it's important to non-believers. It is very important to believers that Jesus was celibate, for some reason.
Corinthians 1:7
Paul tells his followers that it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with women. And he holds himself up as the best example of celibacy. Why not Jesus? If Jesus was celibate why wouldn't Paul cite him as the best example of a celibate life? It's because he wasn't.
It's the whole basis for priests being celibate today. And there is no reason for it.
Paul's preference for celibacy in the priesthood is to prevent the distraction that marriage/sex would provide from the necessary devotion to the spiritual.
Two minutes in and the errors start. Vatican did not deny/condone the Holocaust. Even ISRAEL says that Pius XII was righteous in his condemnation of the Nazis.
8:30 Bullshit stat about numbers of Gay Priests . . . citation?
As for the comedian broad, seems like she has had her career enhanced immeasurably by this little controversy she stirred up. You don't think she might have done so knowing that this would be the result, do you? That would be bullshit . . .
Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism
Friday, January 30, 2015
Starts 10:30 PM EST - Ends Jan 31 at 12:30 AM
Join us for this fast-paced, wide-ranging and supremely stimulating discussion among some of the finest thinkers in the Christian world. Nothing is off the table as they discuss science vs. Christianity, arguments for God, the decline of Darwinism, radical Islam and the Gospel, responding to skeptics, the problem of consciousness, mathematics and the cosmos, the nature of knowledge, and much, much more.
FEATURING:
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, Ph.D., D.Theol.
Research Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University
HUGH HEWITT, JD.
National talk radio host and
Professor of Law at Chapman University
JOHN LENNOX, Ph.D., D.Phil.
Professor of Mathematics
at Oxford University
JP MORELAND, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University
As an alternative to the video Mark posted by Penn Jillette.
Would be interested in a review of this live stream in the way I did the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate last year. What is good, what is bad, questions that still need answers to them. (If someone has some time to kill)
Prophet's post of various D-bags offering pro-Catho-Christi-Religio stances... equivalent to Goebbels and Göring saying... "no no no.. the Jews aren't at all targeted.."
And.. despite the fact that more people should know what I'm saying... Milo is just highlighting the minimal failures of an argument to pro-religion shit.... and still confirming his "bitches be crazy second class"... (try to guess when Milo.. no no.. don't) just rest assured that "I believe in God... get over it" isn't what we're looking at.. Myself, Nic, et al are are arguing that any reasonable / rational person is not a religious person is our premise... clearly doesn't apply to you.
Super fun that you picked like.. the two things that aren't the main part... maybe the document of "current (then) pope was all don't doubt our raping document."
Comments
What do you mean "if"?
Check out Montreal once they get blown out of the playoffs this spring, or look up the reports from Ohio after they won the NCAA title game . . .
As for the notion of giving the fanatics "an excuse" that, too, is a load of crap . . .
"Verily, I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me."
So...
Your justification of NOT being a crazy person is quoting biblical passages, despite your ignoring other biblical passages..
Tits
Also... not quite denying my claims..
Mark
If you are going to mention "thou shalt have no other God before me", I am not ignoring it, it just does not apply the way you are trying to say that it does.
A Catholic cannot worship any other deity but God. No where does Christ say we have to kill everyone who disagrees.
Only the 1st one... that's more of a warm up one I'm sure...
I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Mark
There is a reason that the Bible is divided between the Old and the New Testaments.
You should start with why the notion of St. Peter as the first Pope, bringing the NEW Testament (that is a hint) of Jesus Christ to the world is so important.
Otherwise you just sound like the same old Mark.
No no no.
Reasons are fun and such.. so ignore them if you wish..... since religion is pretty much (read: decisively) up to what you'd like..........
I am the same old Mark.. the realistic, completely rational, non supernatural / reasonable motherfucker? Then, Yes sir.
Cunt.
Mark
Actually, Catholicism is decidedly NOT "up to what I'd like" . . . that is why I am a "failed" Catholic, as opposed to so many who profess to be Catholics (like Paul Martin), but who do not live their Faith. They are not Catholics, either. They are hypocrites.
Cunt? Really? Okay . . . that seems terribly "reasoned" of you.
Not that we didn't know that already.
God Bless, and good bye.
I meant *I* was one... geez :P
Bad habit I picked up from my nephew coming back from NZ
Mark
Enjoy your Sunday . . .
The Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Bible specifically because of their unreliability, their contradictions (within their own texts), and their outright misogyny.
Also . . .
Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence
Finally, no where in the Bible does it mention Jesus being married which, on the whole, would be a pretty big part of his life to leave out.
And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.
Easy, sensible, reasonable explanation.
Nope. They were left out because they often contradicted the established Pauline tradition.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/7.26.html?start=2
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses . . . main reason for no mention of a married Christ is because he wasn't.
http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-02.pdf
Anyways, I respect your right to hold any beliefs you want. But there is no point in continuing this conversation.
There is one reference to unmarried men not being allowed to teach children, but that is generally accepted to be more about the appearance of impropriety.
The marriage issue is primarily based on readings and inferences surrounding two of the Gnostic Gospels, namely that of Mary and Phillip. In both it is written that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than even his 12 disciples but, interestingly enough, not even in these two books does it say that Jesus was married to her. It does mention Jesus kissing her, but even that is not evidence of marriage as it is only the type of kiss bestowed in greeting a close friend, as He would have done with one of his disciples.
So, sorry, but I am quite confident that you can produce no evidence that refutes two millennia of accepted fact that Jesus of Nazareth was not married.
Forgot this part . . .
While Jesus is referred to on multiple occasions as "Rabbi" by His disciples he was not, in point of fact, a Rabbi. At least, not in the sense of the Judaic Faith, which is what you are referring to when you say that He was obligated to marry for this reason.
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."
Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed
Milton Not so!
I can honestly say I didn't laugh.
You know I watched an hour documentary on this subject with Karen King from Harvard. Just wondering why this topic is so important to non believers? What do you think it will prove?
As far as the first point, not quite what Paul is getting at, there isn't a conflict with what Christ taught on marriage and what Paul taught. If you really believe this, you really don't understand the science behind textual criticism.
Corinthians 1:7
Paul tells his followers that it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with women. And he holds himself up as the best example of celibacy. Why not Jesus? If Jesus was celibate why wouldn't Paul cite him as the best example of a celibate life? It's because he wasn't.
It's the whole basis for priests being celibate today. And there is no reason for it.
Why a Celibate Priesthood? | Catholic Answers
"Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" The Vatican (TV Episode 2009) - IMDb
It's a little out of date already after only 6 years.... but still,
/thread
Mark
8:30 Bullshit stat about numbers of Gay Priests . . . citation?
As for the comedian broad, seems like she has had her career enhanced immeasurably by this little controversy she stirred up. You don't think she might have done so knowing that this would be the result, do you? That would be bullshit . . .
La Mirada, California
Live Tonight from Biola University!
**Free Live Stream Available
God, Science & The Big Questions: Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism
Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism
Friday, January 30, 2015
Starts 10:30 PM EST - Ends Jan 31 at 12:30 AM
Join us for this fast-paced, wide-ranging and supremely stimulating discussion among some of the finest thinkers in the Christian world. Nothing is off the table as they discuss science vs. Christianity, arguments for God, the decline of Darwinism, radical Islam and the Gospel, responding to skeptics, the problem of consciousness, mathematics and the cosmos, the nature of knowledge, and much, much more.
FEATURING:
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, Ph.D., D.Theol.
Research Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University
HUGH HEWITT, JD.
National talk radio host and
Professor of Law at Chapman University
JOHN LENNOX, Ph.D., D.Phil.
Professor of Mathematics
at Oxford University
JP MORELAND, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University
As an alternative to the video Mark posted by Penn Jillette.
Would be interested in a review of this live stream in the way I did the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate last year. What is good, what is bad, questions that still need answers to them. (If someone has some time to kill)
Brent
Prophet's post of various D-bags offering pro-Catho-Christi-Religio stances... equivalent to Goebbels and Göring saying... "no no no.. the Jews aren't at all targeted.."
And.. despite the fact that more people should know what I'm saying... Milo is just highlighting the minimal failures of an argument to pro-religion shit.... and still confirming his "bitches be crazy second class"... (try to guess when Milo.. no no.. don't) just rest assured that "I believe in God... get over it" isn't what we're looking at.. Myself, Nic, et al are are arguing that any reasonable / rational person is not a religious person is our premise... clearly doesn't apply to you.
Super fun that you picked like.. the two things that aren't the main part... maybe the document of "current (then) pope was all don't doubt our raping document."
Fun times.
Mark
As for the idea that "bitches be second class" in the Catholic Faith. Well, this just proves how grossly you misunderstand it.