The laws surrounding sexual relations are nearly as rigorous as the laws surrounding the chain of evidence on how testimony was recieved. This should (revelationally) point you towards the value of the family at the core of culture. Polygamy? It's allowed, but not required (too bad?), I think Paul more or less poo-poos Polygamy as problematic---I might be wrong on that. The concept of the Ten Commandments as being revelational of a "Holy" God's character is fundamental in any case, no matter how opressive you find that character. This is where sin originates. If there were no revelation, natural or otherwise, there would essentially be no sin.
Kirkland, to be completely fair, what you are "into" is neo-orthodoxy. Essentially the Bible as accurate, or revelation per se, is set aside and the CONCEPT of "knowing Christ" is set as central---even to the point of undermining traditional trinitarian doctrine. A la Karl Barth. You can't deny that this approach smacks of having to have "the gnosis" in order to get a reading on this concept of "knowing Christ".
This approach hemorrages the traditional one-many paradigm that the Nicean concept of the trinity provided. Once you unplug the only religious doctrine that lets the needs of the State exist but not at the cost, or exclusion of, the needs of the Many, (not to the point of anarchy either) you have severed the intellectual ties that will sustain the kinds of freedom that we more or less enjoy in the West. Not this minute, or this year, but long-term---as concepts track and are absorbed by the body politic.
In the meantime, you'll have Realism, Nominalism and all the Dialectical fru-fru-ra that goes with those two being in the same room.
The laws surrounding sexual relations are nearly as rigorous as the laws surrounding the chain of evidence on how testimony was recieved. This should (revelationally) point you towards the value of the family at the core of culture.
Or to the tribal nature of early Hebrew culture, which was locked in a "keep the bloodline pure," patriarchal mindset that is totally incompatible with the modern world.
Quote:
The concept of the Ten Commandments as being revelational of a "Holy" God's character is fundamental in any case, no matter how opressive you find that character.
Which Ten Commandments? The Bible lists sets of Commandments several times, they are always different, and rarely number ten.
Quote:
Kirkland, to be completely fair, what you are "into" is neo-orthodoxy.
No, what I am into is modern, liberal Christianity, the only Christianity with any future in a scientific world.
Why should I throw aside 2000 years of human knowledge and adapt a First Century world view before trying to fathom God?
Quote:
Essentially the Bible as accurate, or revelation per se, is set aside and the CONCEPT of "knowing Christ" is set as central
The Bible is accurate, as a piece of theological consideration. It is not accurate at all in matters of science or most history.
Quote:
---even to the point of undermining traditional trinitarian doctrine.
And, once again, the BIble and Trinitarian doctrine are only tangentially related. Trinitarianism proceeds mostly from the Nicean and Chalcedonian Councils, not from the text of Scripture.
And how has anything I said undermined Trinitarianism?
Quote:
A la Karl Barth.
Never heard of him. Is he Catholic? Anglican? Orthodox? If not, I don't really care what he has to say about anything.
Quote:
You can't deny that this approach smacks of having to have "the gnosis" in order to get a reading on this concept of "knowing Christ".
Good Lord, you know nothing of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heirarchial organization that believed in divine duality, the worthlessness of the physical, that one had to hide what they knew from other people, that Jesus alternately was or was not divine or human. Read the Nag Hammadi books for a run down on Gnosticism, none of that is remotely similar to what I am saying.
Quote:
Once you unplug the only religious doctrine that lets the needs of the State exist but not at the cost, or exclusion of, the needs of the Many, (not to the point of anarchy either) you have severed the intellectual ties that will sustain the kinds of freedom that we more or less enjoy in the West.
What the Hell are you talking about? Western Intellectual freedom is under ATTACK by Christianity, it is not defended or supported or indebted to it. This is a total non-sequitor. What next, going to babble about how America was founded to be a Christian nation?
Kirkland, take a trip over to Saudi Arabia* for a few month and tell me how lovely they are towards homosexuals. How free and tolerant of others they are. The freedoms non-arabs and women enjoy there.
Really, your hate-drenched Christian-Phobic, hetero-phobic diatribes are right up there in intensity with what a madrassa would propagate.
Aside from the homosexual aspect, you'd get along splendidly re politics and anti-Christianity, that's for sure.
That's purely based on reading your words thus far, so I'm open to be convinced otherwise, as I don't know you any better than your words.
* Or Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Turkey...maybe...
I'm for balance. Christianity and Islam are fine. Keep them the hell out of my political system though, thank you. We seem to agree on that thank goodness.
Kirkland, take a trip over to Saudi Arabia* for a few month and tell me how lovely they are towards homosexuals. How free and tolerant of others they are. The freedoms non-arabs and women enjoy there.
What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?
Everyone knows the Middle East is the most backwards place in the world. What is the point of this non-sequitor?
And since I am a Christian, I find it hard to consider myself anti-Christian. Unless you define "Christian" solely as "fundamentalist Christian."
Now, am I anti-fundamentalist? ABSOLUTELY. Totally. Proudly. Triumphantly. Fundamentalism is a cancer, in any religion it infects.
Or to the tribal nature of early Hebrew culture, which was locked in a "keep the bloodline pure," patriarchal mindset that is totally incompatible with the modern world.
Kirk
Actually, proselytes, etc., were allowed. Ruth was a good example.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Good Lord, you know nothing of Gnosticism.
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
I don't mean to get your goat Kirkland, so if I sound crappy, I don't mean to be.
Actually, proselytes, etc., were allowed. Ruth was a good example.
If you knew anything about the history of the Bible, you'd know that at the time Ruth was authored there was a major crisis at hand in Judea regarding whether or not anyone with non-Jewish blood in them could be considered a citizen.
Ruth was written as an apologetic arguing against the widespread isolationism of the day. It's probably not true, but it makes a good point.
Quote:
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
A dictionary definition? This is hardly a conclusive representation of the beliefs of the Gnostic religion. Nor does it make your case.
Just as an attempt to throw this thread back on topic, I'd like to point out that, surely, not all homosexuals are interested in getting married or raising children. Plenty of people of all sexual orientations feel this way. There are gays, straights, bisexuals, and probably alien pod people who reject the institution of marriage and what it stands for, or who just don't want to do it themselves. Obviously, whether or not they are given the right to marry would not concern these people enough to sway their voting habits. I have no idea whether the group I've described makes up a significant portion of gay Republicans, but it's a thought.
Now, back on the tangent, as it were. You can argue Biblical law and interpretation all day. The fact remains that the United States of America is not and hopefully never will be a theocracy. Each of us is free to define our own sense of morality based on whatever religion or code we choose, but that has absolutely squat to do with law. Our government has a duty to create laws based, more or less, on the general consensus of the populace, not on any particular interpration of any religious text. The day Congress holds serious debate over the interpretation of Biblical scripture with regards to legislation is the day I move to Canada, because that would be equivalent to trying to repair the space shuttle using a grainy photocopy of the Chinese instructions for a 20-year-old VCR. In short, morally and pragmatically, it's just no way to run a country.
"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."?Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004
Just as an attempt to throw this thread back on topic, I'd like to point out that, surely, not all homosexuals are interested in getting married or raising children.
Well, I for one don't want to. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the option.
Comments
"I don't care about disagreeing...."
Riiiiight.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
If I'm not mistaken, that's all Old Testament.
The laws surrounding sexual relations are nearly as rigorous as the laws surrounding the chain of evidence on how testimony was recieved. This should (revelationally) point you towards the value of the family at the core of culture. Polygamy? It's allowed, but not required (too bad?), I think Paul more or less poo-poos Polygamy as problematic---I might be wrong on that. The concept of the Ten Commandments as being revelational of a "Holy" God's character is fundamental in any case, no matter how opressive you find that character. This is where sin originates. If there were no revelation, natural or otherwise, there would essentially be no sin.
Kirkland, to be completely fair, what you are "into" is neo-orthodoxy. Essentially the Bible as accurate, or revelation per se, is set aside and the CONCEPT of "knowing Christ" is set as central---even to the point of undermining traditional trinitarian doctrine. A la Karl Barth. You can't deny that this approach smacks of having to have "the gnosis" in order to get a reading on this concept of "knowing Christ".
This approach hemorrages the traditional one-many paradigm that the Nicean concept of the trinity provided. Once you unplug the only religious doctrine that lets the needs of the State exist but not at the cost, or exclusion of, the needs of the Many, (not to the point of anarchy either) you have severed the intellectual ties that will sustain the kinds of freedom that we more or less enjoy in the West. Not this minute, or this year, but long-term---as concepts track and are absorbed by the body politic.
In the meantime, you'll have Realism, Nominalism and all the Dialectical fru-fru-ra that goes with those two being in the same room.
Originally posted by dmz
The laws surrounding sexual relations are nearly as rigorous as the laws surrounding the chain of evidence on how testimony was recieved. This should (revelationally) point you towards the value of the family at the core of culture.
Or to the tribal nature of early Hebrew culture, which was locked in a "keep the bloodline pure," patriarchal mindset that is totally incompatible with the modern world.
The concept of the Ten Commandments as being revelational of a "Holy" God's character is fundamental in any case, no matter how opressive you find that character.
Which Ten Commandments? The Bible lists sets of Commandments several times, they are always different, and rarely number ten.
Kirkland, to be completely fair, what you are "into" is neo-orthodoxy.
No, what I am into is modern, liberal Christianity, the only Christianity with any future in a scientific world.
Why should I throw aside 2000 years of human knowledge and adapt a First Century world view before trying to fathom God?
Essentially the Bible as accurate, or revelation per se, is set aside and the CONCEPT of "knowing Christ" is set as central
The Bible is accurate, as a piece of theological consideration. It is not accurate at all in matters of science or most history.
---even to the point of undermining traditional trinitarian doctrine.
And, once again, the BIble and Trinitarian doctrine are only tangentially related. Trinitarianism proceeds mostly from the Nicean and Chalcedonian Councils, not from the text of Scripture.
And how has anything I said undermined Trinitarianism?
A la Karl Barth.
Never heard of him. Is he Catholic? Anglican? Orthodox? If not, I don't really care what he has to say about anything.
You can't deny that this approach smacks of having to have "the gnosis" in order to get a reading on this concept of "knowing Christ".
Good Lord, you know nothing of Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heirarchial organization that believed in divine duality, the worthlessness of the physical, that one had to hide what they knew from other people, that Jesus alternately was or was not divine or human. Read the Nag Hammadi books for a run down on Gnosticism, none of that is remotely similar to what I am saying.
Once you unplug the only religious doctrine that lets the needs of the State exist but not at the cost, or exclusion of, the needs of the Many, (not to the point of anarchy either) you have severed the intellectual ties that will sustain the kinds of freedom that we more or less enjoy in the West.
What the Hell are you talking about? Western Intellectual freedom is under ATTACK by Christianity, it is not defended or supported or indebted to it. This is a total non-sequitor. What next, going to babble about how America was founded to be a Christian nation?
Kirk
Really, your hate-drenched Christian-Phobic, hetero-phobic diatribes are right up there in intensity with what a madrassa would propagate.
Aside from the homosexual aspect, you'd get along splendidly re politics and anti-Christianity, that's for sure.
That's purely based on reading your words thus far, so I'm open to be convinced otherwise, as I don't know you any better than your words.
* Or Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Turkey...maybe...
I'm for balance. Christianity and Islam are fine. Keep them the hell out of my political system though, thank you. We seem to agree on that thank goodness.
Originally posted by johnq
Kirkland, take a trip over to Saudi Arabia* for a few month and tell me how lovely they are towards homosexuals. How free and tolerant of others they are. The freedoms non-arabs and women enjoy there.
What the hell does this have to do with ANYTHING?
Everyone knows the Middle East is the most backwards place in the world. What is the point of this non-sequitor?
And since I am a Christian, I find it hard to consider myself anti-Christian. Unless you define "Christian" solely as "fundamentalist Christian."
Now, am I anti-fundamentalist? ABSOLUTELY. Totally. Proudly. Triumphantly. Fundamentalism is a cancer, in any religion it infects.
Kirk
Originally posted by johnq
* Or Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Turkey...maybe...
How about Texas?
Originally posted by Kirkland
Or to the tribal nature of early Hebrew culture, which was locked in a "keep the bloodline pure," patriarchal mindset that is totally incompatible with the modern world.
Kirk
Actually, proselytes, etc., were allowed. Ruth was a good example.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Good Lord, you know nothing of Gnosticism.
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
I don't mean to get your goat Kirkland, so if I sound crappy, I don't mean to be.
Originally posted by dmz
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
I don't mean to get your goat Kirkland, so if I sound crappy, I don't mean to be.
ouch, poor way of showing it then, copy-paste definitions are basically "look, dumbass, I'm right you're wrong' in internet lingo.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
ouch, poor way of showing it then, copy-paste definitions are basically "look, dumbass, I'm right you're wrong' in internet lingo.
Sorry, I guess that came across wrong.
Originally posted by dmz
Actually, proselytes, etc., were allowed. Ruth was a good example.
If you knew anything about the history of the Bible, you'd know that at the time Ruth was authored there was a major crisis at hand in Judea regarding whether or not anyone with non-Jewish blood in them could be considered a citizen.
Ruth was written as an apologetic arguing against the widespread isolationism of the day. It's probably not true, but it makes a good point.
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
A dictionary definition? This is hardly a conclusive representation of the beliefs of the Gnostic religion. Nor does it make your case.
Kirk
That boy's got the gnosis....
Now, back on the tangent, as it were. You can argue Biblical law and interpretation all day. The fact remains that the United States of America is not and hopefully never will be a theocracy. Each of us is free to define our own sense of morality based on whatever religion or code we choose, but that has absolutely squat to do with law. Our government has a duty to create laws based, more or less, on the general consensus of the populace, not on any particular interpration of any religious text. The day Congress holds serious debate over the interpretation of Biblical scripture with regards to legislation is the day I move to Canada, because that would be equivalent to trying to repair the space shuttle using a grainy photocopy of the Chinese instructions for a 20-year-old VCR. In short, morally and pragmatically, it's just no way to run a country.
"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."?Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004
Except for homos.
Originally posted by Influenza
Just as an attempt to throw this thread back on topic, I'd like to point out that, surely, not all homosexuals are interested in getting married or raising children.
Well, I for one don't want to. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the option.
Originally posted by tmp
Well, I for one don't want to. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the option.
And I'm not gay, but I damn well think gays deserve equal rights. I'm just making suggestions.