J.R. said:
I'm calling total BS on you. I do not know Texas Scientist personally, buy what I have gathered over years is the he is smart, pragmatic , and thoughtful in his posts. You sir, are nothing but a right wing whack job. Your post are beyond the pale many times. Carry on with your version of who you think people must be. Get out more, son. The world is a big place. They ain't all Baptists.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Ah, yes I did. I specifically said that biblical interpretation in historical context is a valid concept, but the way you were implementing it was laughably moronic. I gave you an analogy to illustrate the point, which you completely dodged, as you always do when you can't argue the point.Waco1947 said:
"I didn't deal with what YOU said?
I clearly did. YOU are the one who didn't deal with what I said. That's why you were mocked, and deservedly so because this is your modus operandi.
Ah, no you did not with the idea of historical criticism of Scripture. You simply resorted to more personal attack.
These ideas are probably brand new to you. There are form, literary, historical context, and textual criticisms. All these are taught at Truett , Dallas Theological, Perkins, Yale, and Southwestern theological seminaries. I am not alone and stand within these traditions of studying Scripture.
I shouldn't have to rehash and retype the argument that just took place. If you consistently play this game of denial, dodging, and redirecting as you usually do, then you deservedly get mocked. If you don't like getting mocked, then there's a real simple solution - start manning up to the points being made against yours like an intellectually honest person for once instead of resorting to your stupid games and defense tactics and crying foul when you get called out for it. Then, just maybe, you wouldn't have the very bad reputation that you have on this forum and people will start taking you seriously.
oh my. So ironic coming from the most infantile poster. Not to mention, you seem to be a Right Wing, religious zealot and just cray. You call him a kid. I'd be curious how old you are. What is up with all you Maga whack jobs hating? The world is a big place and everyone doesn't believe what you do, so just quite the hate and viewing everything through a political and religious lens bro. Get out more.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:KaiBear said:TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.
Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .
What do you atheists do ?
TX Scientist isn't a serious poster, he's a kid trying hard to discuss topics with adults.
Christians and their Christian organizations are the most charitable people in the country. Anyone who has been involved with Christian churches know this. Catholics and Evangelicals care for their communities, they build hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, clothing giveaways, and more, the list is endless.
Atheists are self proclaimed meat bags. They are the least charitable, most selfish, and most miserable people in our country.
TX sci guy is constantly embarrassing his Baylor education, well that's if he ever graduated from BU.
Waco1947 said:Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexualityhistorian said:
Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.
Waco1947 said:historian said:Waco1947 said:Except when your "perversion" is simply ignorance of human sexualityhistorian said:
Whatever historical context might be useful, nothing justifies changing the meaning of God's word so that something prohibited, such as sexual perversion, becomes permissible. Nothing.
That's a great description of the perverts who ignore God's commandments about human sexuality!
It's a great depiction of a sexual bigot
Well no. Scripture, also, defines marriage as a man domineering and patriarchalATL Bear said:No it isn't. The two person structure and monogamy itself was built upon the uniting of a man and woman. That is a Biblical and historical fact.Waco1947 said:
Marriage is between people regardless of sexuality
You're just repeating your failed assertion. You're not making any attempt whatsoever to address the obvious and ridiculous flaws that has been brought against it. This is what you always resort to when you don't have an argument and you go into self preservation mode. It's why your reputation here is so very poor. Don't you care about how bad you look? Why not be intellectually honest for a change, to yourself and to others?Waco1947 said:
Historical Criticism
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by power.
Power abuse sexually has throughout history been wrong. My argument is that the these particular behaviors (Rm 1:26-27) are clearly sexually abuse acts that Paul rightfully condemns.
Lying about Scripture is not something real ministers do, Waco.Waco1947 said:Well no. Scripture, also, defines marriage as a man domineering and patriarchalATL Bear said:No it isn't. The two person structure and monogamy itself was built upon the uniting of a man and woman. That is a Biblical and historical fact.Waco1947 said:
Marriage is between people regardless of sexuality
Thank you for your false equivalency argument. I out.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're just repeating your failed assertion. You're not making any attempt whatsoever to address the obvious and ridiculous flaws that has been brought against it. This is what you always resort to when you don't have an argument and you go into self preservation mode. It's why your reputation here is so very poor. Don't you care about how bad you look? Why not be intellectually honest for a change, to yourself and to others?Waco1947 said:
Historical Criticism
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by power.
Power abuse sexually has throughout history been wrong. My argument is that the these particular behaviors (Rm 1:26-27) are clearly sexually abuse acts that Paul rightfully condemns.
Waco1947 said:I don't "hate" traditional Christianity. It is founded an old theism that the advent of process philosophy means a new way of thinking.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
W47 hates traditional Christianity and the entirety of church history. He insults those who don't bend the knee to progressivism.
What insults? I am very critical of your thoughts and ideas but not you. Meanwhile you are free with your insults of my faith.
Waco1947 said:Well no. Scripture, also, defines marriage as a man domineering and patriarchalATL Bear said:No it isn't. The two person structure and monogamy itself was built upon the uniting of a man and woman. That is a Biblical and historical fact.Waco1947 said:
Marriage is between people regardless of sexuality
You're falsely charging false equivalency ad hoc in order to validate an argument of distinction without a moral difference. You are just an endless loop of fallacies.Waco1947 said:Thank you for your false equivalency argument. I out.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're just repeating your failed assertion. You're not making any attempt whatsoever to address the obvious and ridiculous flaws that has been brought against it. This is what you always resort to when you don't have an argument and you go into self preservation mode. It's why your reputation here is so very poor. Don't you care about how bad you look? Why not be intellectually honest for a change, to yourself and to others?Waco1947 said:
Historical Criticism
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by power.
Power abuse sexually has throughout history been wrong. My argument is that the these particular behaviors (Rm 1:26-27) are clearly sexually abuse acts that Paul rightfully condemns.
Waco never admits defeat, but pretends his arguments are somehow convincing.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're falsely charging false equivalency ad hoc in order to validate an argument of distinction without a moral difference. You are just an endless loop of fallacies.Waco1947 said:Thank you for your false equivalency argument. I out.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're just repeating your failed assertion. You're not making any attempt whatsoever to address the obvious and ridiculous flaws that has been brought against it. This is what you always resort to when you don't have an argument and you go into self preservation mode. It's why your reputation here is so very poor. Don't you care about how bad you look? Why not be intellectually honest for a change, to yourself and to others?Waco1947 said:
Historical Criticism
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by power.
Power abuse sexually has throughout history been wrong. My argument is that the these particular behaviors (Rm 1:26-27) are clearly sexually abuse acts that Paul rightfully condemns.
Of course you're out. Living up to your reputation.
Supposedly King David was repentant and contrite for his wrongs. That's why it is said he was a man after God's own heart. Trump is neither and even said he hasn't needed to ask for God's forgiveness. He is neither repentant nor contrite. He's more of a man after Satan's own heart, if you believe in such lore. I do agree the some of what appear his policies are better than the dims. He really doesn't articulate any succinct policies.LIB,MR BEARS said:King David, a man after God's own heart was quite a leader. He was also an adulterous man and responsible for a man's death.TexasScientist said:Which version of Christianity is Christ's version? I seem to recall Christianity came after the crucifixion. That's why there are so many genuine versions. The rest of what you wrote is simply attempting to interpret and conform history to your religious beliefs. I do think it interesting that so many "Christians" excuse Trump's base behavior as acceptable for Christianity.historian said:TexasScientist said:It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.
Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.
You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.
It's a perversion if it doesn't conform to Christ's version of Christianity. That's the only one that matters because that's the only that's genuine.
When organized start creating their own morality based upon what some find convenient, they start to break down and become more chaotic, violent, and disorganized. It happened to Rome before the fall, ancien regime France before the Revolution (the big one), tsarist Russia before WWI, Weimar Germany before Hitler, and it's happening now in parts of Europe, Canada, & the U.S. all under the leadership of radical Leftists who don't even know what a woman is.
I don't think any Christians are excusing his behavior but can recognize that he is a sinner just as they are. Also, his policies are better than the dims
historian said:Waco1947 said:I don't "hate" traditional Christianity. It is founded an old theism that the advent of process philosophy means a new way of thinking.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
W47 hates traditional Christianity and the entirety of church history. He insults those who don't bend the knee to progressivism.
What insults? I am very critical of your thoughts and ideas but not you. Meanwhile you are free with your insults of my faith.
Philosophy is usually NOT a valid tool for scriptural interpretation.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." Colossians 2:8-10
Most history books define marriage as patriarchal and men as domineering.Waco1947 said:Well no. Scripture, also, defines marriage as a man domineering and patriarchalATL Bear said:No it isn't. The two person structure and monogamy itself was built upon the uniting of a man and woman. That is a Biblical and historical fact.Waco1947 said:
Marriage is between people regardless of sexuality
