 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) In all seriousness, how do you define "Christianity?" I would suggest that the answer cannot be "the teachings of Christ according to scripture," because that answer, for all practical purposes, reduces to "the opinions of particular (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The religion of the believers and followers of Jesus the Christ (Messiah). (...) Jesus' teachings were obviously important, but don't forget His work as Savior, dying for the sins of all people and thereby justifying the world to God. JOHN (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) But the trick, for outsiders like me, is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to accept one group's system of beliefs in preference to any other group's. Throughout history there have been innumerable groups whose methods of (...) (21 years ago, 9-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) The proof is in the pudding. Or, as Jesus put it: "If you grow a healthy tree, you'll pick healthy fruit. If you grow a diseased tree, you'll pick worm-eaten fruit. The fruit tells you about the tree." Matthew 12:33 I say: don't tell me you (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) But see, there's the problem. On what basis can one assess someone's actions to be following or not following Jesus? Unfortunately, the Gospels don't qualify as adequately impartial accounts of his life, death, life, or teachings, so we'd need (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Ummmmmm, where are you going with this? You ironically note that quoting yourself as a source is dubious by itself, but with Todd, Tim, and Jake providing corroborating evidence, you are at least more credible. But in the next breath you (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Maybe at this point I need to fall on my sword and admit that I don't understand quite what you're getting at. What is the flaw, exactly, in the original example? Let me try again, in the spirit of redundancy: Within a single framework, three (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I'm saying that your examples are the exact same as the model you are criticizing. You cite three supporting people (from a single source: Lugnet) as an example of a more believable evidence, and I'll I am doing is pointing out that that is (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Well, now I'm confused. Granted, the four magi Dave, Todd, Tim, and Jake are four LUGNET sources, but to LUGNET-savvy people they represent four discrete voices. However, to a non-LUGNET person, all four are subsumed under LUGNET and therefore (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I am still working on a full reply to (URL) your post>, but let me inject here briefly. That there are 4 Gospels does not add any form of credibility to the veracity of the Gospel (Good News) to most Christians, and certainly not me. In fact, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | BRUCE! Don't reply! Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Now THERE'S an understatement. I finally re-read the original formulation of my example, and the error practically bopped me in the nose. I'll see about reworking it. Dave! (21 years ago, 15-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
