As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

steamengine wrote: »

I like to be more upbeat, it is the Christian forum after all !





I'm not making any judgements at all, but as Jesus only mentioned the one type of Christian marriage, then to me that is all there is. If you think there is a possibility otherwise, just because there was no mention of it, then provide some evidence. Christ didn't mention the winner of the 3:30 at Epson either.

I'll skip the 'mortallers', as they aren't part of my particular religious curriculum.

Your argument is laughable I am not trying to prove Jesus condones gay marriage, I am say that nowhere does he say it's wrong and a sin...
You can see the difference?

katydid wrote: »

Exactly. A canon only finally codified after about five hundred years. In the days before the printing press and photocopiers, five hundred years of copying by hand, often in a language not understood by the scribes, leaves for the possibility of a wide gap between an original oral or written account.

It might leave a slight possibility, but nothing more than that. We know that devout religious communities could be extremely accurate in how they copied texts that were important to them.

Last week I visited Qumran, in Israel, and was impressed afresh by the meticulous process that was followed in order to ensure accuracy by scribes 2000 years ago.

At one time, due to the comparatively recent dates of the oldest Old Testament manuscripts then available, it was common to hear arguments that the Old Testament texts must have been massively changed over the years by copyists' errors creating a 'chinese whispers' effect. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and it was revealed that scribes, working by hand, were actually capable of consistently preserving texts with great accuracy over many generations.

Recent research also demonstrates that communities that practice oral transmission can do so with an accuracy that westerners, with their blinkered assumptions of superiority, had never dreamed to be possible.

katydid wrote: »

I do understand that, but five hundred years of manual transcription is bound to lead to some changes. Not massively affecting the content or meaning, but it's unrealistic to assume everything would be exactly as per the original.

There would probably be a better chance with oral transmission, to be honest, because that comes from a tradition going back a very long time. Written transmission, especially of long, complex texts, was still a relatively new phenomenon.

A few posts ago it was a "wide gap". Now it's "not massively affecting the content or meaning".

Let's stick this with a little longer. The Qumran scrolls demonstrate that Old Testament manuscripts were copied by hand for 900 years, yet with amazing accuracy. We're talking about a few spelling mistakes or slips of the pen, not affecting the meaning of the texts at all.

Do you see that the "Chinese whispers" theory was pretty thoroughly debunked by these finds?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You really need to reevaluate your basic reasoning skills.
Not making mention of something does not make it wrong. You can only derive that Jesus did not say it was right...

There is a huge difference.

I disagree.

Jesus affirmed what marriage is.

Why would Jesus have to affirm what marriage isn't, in order to affirm what marriage is? Surely it is far more logical to simply say "the rule is.............", rather than saying "the rule isn't......."?

Your line of argument appears to be that Jesus had to affirm what marriage isn't, in order to affirm what marriage is?

Do you know anyone in everyday life who affirms what something isn't, when they're affirming what something is? I don't.

steamengine wrote: »

Question dodged for the third time - the jesuitical logic is the best I can hope for :rolleyes:

Question? You have babbled on about this "jesuitical logic" but fail to comprehend basic logic, also you flip and flop on whether or not you are actually making a statement.

Reading your posts they make no sense.
This is what you posted

steamengine wrote: »

This is being challenged in a 'Jesuitical fashion' - 'just because Christ didn't mention other forms of marriage doesn't mean they didn't exist'. Ok, good point - show us where. Is that not reasonable ?

Firstly describing a gay marriage as "existing" is a stupid use of language.
Then asking us to point to a case as if somehow this would validate anything is even more ridiculous.

I am not even sure what you are asking here??
Firstly no one said anything like the illiterate string of words you have banded together above.

I am going to make an assumption that you are looking for either an example where Jesus talks about "other kinds" of marriage or an example of two people in the bible of the same sex who got married?

This is stupid! Also you keep using the word "Jesuitical logic" then try and turn it back on itself

steamengine wrote: »

Jesus only mentioned the one type of Christian marriage, then to me that is all there is.

Fine, Jesus was a Jew by the way the Christian movement was still getting off the ground.

The bible text talks about the union between and man and a women.
But this does not say "Any other kind of marriage is to be condemned"...

The logic you are using is to suppose many things one of which is to know Jesus's mind on the matter...
The Catholic Church will have you believe it is a mortal sin.

When Jesus says something is good the logic is not to then say everything else is bad, to do so is to use basic logic.

My stance is I don't know what Jesus's thoughts are on Gay marriage.
Your stance is that because he only mentioned a man and a women then he condemns anything that falls outside of the male female union.

You have repeatedly failed to comprehend this, I am not making a statement or supposing I know what God thinks.
You mention that you believe this is the only kind of marriage... OK
Do you therefore believe that gay marriage is then a sin or god condemns it?

I'll give you a hint, the only logical reply is "we don't know"

Also the above is also considering that Jesus actually said this verbatim.

However
1. The bible in many areas is open to interpretation so it is not black and white.
2. We do not have the original copies of the gospels.
3. We have evidence that the copies we have may have changed from the originals texts as we have varying discrepancies around translation in a number of areas and bibles.
4. We think the gospels as we know them now where written 60 - 120 years after Jesus's death.

Jesus's message through out the gospels was that of forgiveness and tolerance.
Christians today seem to want to stand in judgement of others and point the finger.
I find it funny they try and use the bible to make these judgement when the gospels are full of quotes around judging people!

Sure just use "Jesuitical logic" again! You have failed to make any intelligent argument even accidentally!

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

Jesus affirmed what marriage is.

Why would Jesus have to affirm what marriage isn't, in order to affirm what marriage is? Surely it is far more logical to simply say "the rule is.............", rather than saying "the rule isn't......."?

Your line of argument appears to be that Jesus had to affirm what marriage isn't, in order to affirm what marriage is?

Do you know anyone in everyday life who affirms what something isn't, when they're affirming what something is? I don't.

You are sooooooooooooooo narrow minded.
Firstly Jesus did not sit down one day and make up marriage it was already a Jewish custom.
The idea of gay people getting married I doubt was something that anyone considered, the union of a man and a women in the biblical sense was primarily to pro-create...

Jesus was affirming that marriage between a man and a woman and it was a good thing....

You are now deciding to read deeper into this. You where not there neither was I and neither was the scribe that translated what we can now read.

We cannot know the context to which this was said or even if it was said exactly as we have read it...

You are now trying to standing in judgment of people who do not fit a norm over some at best ambiguous text.
You will argue it is not ambiguous if it wasn't we would not be having this debate.
You however are at a disadvantage, you believe in this therefore your opinion is not objective and biased.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are sooooooooooooooo narrow minded.
Firstly Jesus did not sit down one day and make up marriage it was already a Jewish custom.
The idea of gay people getting married I doubt was something that anyone considered, the union of a man and a women in the biblical sense was primarily to pro-create...

Jesus was affirming that marriage between a man and a woman and it was a good thing....

You are now deciding to read deeper into this. You where not there neither was I and neither was the scribe that translated what we can now read.

We cannot know the context to which this was said or even if it was said exactly as we have read it...

You are now trying to standing in judgment of people who do not fit a norm over some at best ambiguous text.
You will argue it is not ambiguous if it wasn't we would not be having this debate.
You however are at a disadvantage, you believe in this therefore your opinion is not objective and biased.

For the Christian, Jesus and his ministry is the last word on moral teaching.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but through me

Therefore what is recorded in the gospels and the NT is final for Christians and for humanity. There is no teaching that is excluded from the NT.

Taking that premise as read, if there was another teaching concerning morality, it is reasonable to say that Jesus would have given that teaching to Christians and to humanity. Why? Because Jesus is God incarnate and as such would want all followers to have access to the full Truth in terms of moral teachings and salvation

Let's consider Jesus being God incarnate.

Being God incarnate, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus foresaw a future time when humanity would debate the moral teaching about homosexuality.
Jesus would have foreseen each and every single angle in that debate. If there was any legitimacy in the homosexuality case, in justice, wouldn't Jesus have given legitimacy to homosexuality in his human ministry?

Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is not the half truth. Jesus is the full and complete truth. That truth is at a standard which no human can hope to emulate.
The words attributed in the NT to Jesus Christ are the truth for christians and humanity.

hinault wrote: »

For the Christian, Jesus and his ministry is the last word on moral teaching.



Therefore what is recorded in the gospels and the NT is final for Christians and for humanity. There is no teaching that is excluded from the NT.

Taking that premise as read, if there was another teaching concerning morality, it is reasonable to say that Jesus would have given that teaching to Christians and to humanity. Why? Because Jesus is God incarnate and as such would want all followers to have access to the full Truth in terms of moral teachings and salvation

Let's consider Jesus being God incarnate.

Being God incarnate, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus foresaw a future time when humanity would debate the moral teaching about homosexuality.
Jesus would have foreseen each and every single angle in that debate. If there was any legitimacy in the homosexuality case, in justice, wouldn't Jesus have given legitimacy to homosexuality in his human ministry?

Jesus is the Truth. Jesus is not the half truth. Jesus is the full and complete truth. That truth is at a standard which no human can hope to emulate.
The words attributed in the NT to Jesus Christ are the truth for christians and humanity.

You remind me of my aunt when you ask her hard questions she jumps to "Jesus is the truth the way the light".... You aren't from Donegal are you?

This is flawed in a number of levels.
There are inconsistencies in the bible and as we do not have the original copies so it leaves some of the interpretation somewhat unknown or open to interpretation.

You want to take the supernatural high road that Jesus would have known this argument would have come up you would then need to think if God was to ensure his ministry you would think perhaps he would of ensured the survival of the original copies and to ensure no ambiguity around translation.

This was actually the argument made on that radio debate I posted.

When you can no longer defend your stance on the gospels from a logical point of view or even as a historical source you now jump to the supernatural.

Being entrenched is not a good thing or so indoctrinated that common sense is secondary to a belief structure.

I think it was Volitair that said "Men who can make you believe in absurdities can also make you commit atrocities"..

Apologies for my condescending manner in previous posts, truth is you frustrate me.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You remind me of my aunt when you ask her hard questions she jumps to "Jesus is the truth the way the light".... You aren't from Donegal are you?

This is flawed in a number of levels.
There are inconsistencies in the bible and as we do not have the original copies so it leaves some of the interpretation somewhat unknown or open to interpretation.

You want to take the supernatural high road that Jesus would have known this argument would have come up you would then need to think if God was to ensure his ministry you would think perhaps he would of ensured the survival of the original copies and to ensure no ambiguity around translation.

This was actually the argument made on that radio debate I posted.

When you can no longer defend your stance on the gospels from a logical point of view or even as a historical source you now jump to the supernatural.

Being entrenched is not a good thing or so indoctrinated that common sense is secondary to a belief structure.

I think it was Volitair that said "Men who can make you believe in absurdities can also make you commit atrocities"..

Apologies for my condescending manner in previous posts, truth is you frustrate me.

No.

People are entirely free to accept or reject what the Bible says.

The Christian accepts that Jesus teaching is the final word on moral teaching.
The Christian accepts that Jesus teaching can only be completely truthful.
The Christian accept that there is no further teaching required in terms of morality.

In trying to rationalise their rejection of the NT, most people who do reject the NT are not prepared to accept the basis of Jesus person and Jesus ministry.

I'm not here to try to convert you or anyone else. What you accept or reject
has no bearing upon me. Except killing time replying to you here

What is interesting, and mildly amusing, is that you and others invest so much time here - and probably on other websites too - advocating about what you don't accept about Christianity and about Catholicism in particular.

I don't accept literally thousands of other belief systems. I don't invest one second advocating what I don't accept in even one of those other belief systems.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think it was Volitair that said "Men who can make you believe in absurdities can also make you commit atrocities"..

Quoting Voltaire while supporting same-sex marriage raises irony to new heights.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I support equality.

That's good, since Voltaire was as equally and violently homophobic as any religious zealot.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But the fact is that people interpret different ways. You might be right in that there is only one correct interpretation, but I can't see any reason to support your interpretation over any others.

And again you're speaking as though what you see as the truth is the truth. Plenty of people, using the same source material you have, have come to different conclusions. I'm not arguing for rejecting what's written in the new testament (I could, but I think it's redundant for the purposes of this conversation). I'm wondering how you're so sure your interpretation is correct.

Faith isn't about certainty, Jim.
If we possess certainty there would be no need for faith.

I am certain that if I adhere to the moral teaching communicated by Jesus in the NT, I may be saved.

I am certain that if I don't adhere to the moral teaching communicated by Jesus in the NT, I will definitely not be saved. That is a certainty.

The God who created each one of us allows each one of us to accept or reject, and all points in between, him.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You wrong here, not all Christians believe this, I would nearly go as far to say most Christians are not this ridged.

The "christians" who believe in divorce you mean, despite the moral teaching on marriage in NT?

I know the "christians" who you're referring to.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

What I find mildly amusing is how you flip the argument, that other people are on here investing time on something they do not accept about Christianity and about Catholicism and how you would not be on there wasting time with that, when originally you where on here complaining about the law and how you do not accept it, and I quote:

Imagine someone on here wasting their time taking about the laws the do not accept! :eek:

I made that point here in only one post. I don't feel the need to reiterate that same point over, and over, and over, and over, again.

Unlike you.

hinault wrote: »

The "christians" who believe in divorce you mean, despite the moral teaching on marriage in NT?

I know the "christians" who you're referring to.



I made that point here in only one post. I don't feel the need to reiterate that same point over, and over, and over, and over, again.

Unlike you.

This was the start of our debate.

Can I ask a few questions?

Do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve? And the entire population is a direct descendant?
Do you believe in the great flood whereby Noah placed one of every animal on the arc?
Do you believe in all the miracles?
Jesus feeds 5000 and rising people from the dead?

I mean if someone came forward and said look "There are just stories, probably stories by men who tried to make sense of the world thousands of years go" Or is this in your mind the truth? I happened exactly as the bible tells it?

I just want to get a gauge how literally you take the bible?