I think I just realized why so many people are against SSM

[Logicman]

Verses like Titus 2:13 is much rougher example of what I was referring, being only one of a few verses where the distinction is less obvious. Otherwise Paul always makes distinction between Jesus and God. He does not say "Jesus, the Great God". He always says God AND Jesus, as pointed out by both Jewish and Christian scholars, which is compounded on top of Paul's omission of Jesus' divine acts. Here's several modern and older English translations of Titus 2:13, Martin Luther's 1545 translation (because it's older and since English is Germanic, you can still understand it) and the Vulgate.

http://www.djmoo.com/articles/christology.pdf

KJV - Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
ASV - looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
NIV - while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Luther - und warten auf die selige Hoffnung und Erscheinung der Herrlichkeit des großen Gottes und unsers Heilandes, Jesu Christi,
Vulgate - expectantes beatam spem et adventum gloriae magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi

Paul is also very fond of saying, "the God and Father to our Lord Jesus Christ" as if they are separate entities ...

the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - Romans 15:6
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - Ephesians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - Colossians 1:3

... and makes the same distinction in the openings to the letters. This is the reason why there are tens of Christian denominations that are nontrinitarian in doctrine, plus two major religions (Judaism and Islam) that believe much the same.

Listen, coupled with what I also presented from the Gospels, the scriptural evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. You also have to look at his divine titles (the Rock, Savior, etc.), his identification as Lord of the Sabbath, and a host of other evidences that make clear his deity.

No, not my opinion. Scholar's opinions presented with substantial evidence. I have linked to you a book (which has further citations) and three lectures that tackle these issues. I can can link to even more books and lectures if you so wish. I don't have the time or patience to teach you what they say.

And I can link you to conservative scholars or other sources, who demolish claims that Mark made geographical mistakes, etc. And if you still want to trot one of your examples out we can take a look at it.

[*]"According to tradition" has been proven wrong. It's based on here-say and a centuries long game of telephone as I pointed out already.

I don't see it. Can you document one scriptural revision or "change" over the centuries that changes even one critical Christian doctrine or event (such as the resurrection)? I'll be glad to take a look at it. Also, the "telephone game" doesn't hold water, IMO. That's a game we used to play at parties, where a sentence is passed from one person to the next, and by the time it gets to the last person it has usually changed in words or meaning. The reason that doesn't work with the New Testament is the same reason it doesn't work at parties: There's always someone, or more than one there, who knows what the original sentence was, and they set the others straight.

[*]People don't make up stories word for word; they copy them. Nor does the Holy Spirit encourage plagiarism, and more importantly you have got to be kidding me if that's your honest response.

Now you want to take the Holy Spirit out of the discussion and gut the supernatural, when it's clear in the Gospel of John that he helps people such as John recall important truths, sayings, and events?

Also, to try to argue that the original disciples, and others, didn't sit around dozens of campfires after the resurrection and ascension, etc., and thoroughly discuss their recollections of what Jesus said and did, then one is not being rational. That's no doubt where a number of similarities in the Gospel stories come from.

As for 'hearsay,' most of history is hearsay written down and/or passed along in oral traditions, so that doesn't work all that well to your advantage either.

 

[Logicman]

You want scientific proof for something, yet you'll deny ALL the other science out there?

Nice.

Enjoy your cave.

Nice evasion.

I asked you to show me the conclusive DNA evidence for, and identify, the immediate, direct-line hominid ancestor of modern man, and all you can do is give me that waffle? LOL!

 

[iangb]

There's plenty of scientists who believe in God, Dr. Charles, so you have no good argument there.

As for the case of Christ and the resurrection, you can peruse the following:

Seven Compelling Evidences for the Resurrection:

The Resurrection - 7 Proofs Of The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ

Let's look at these...

#1: The Empty Tomb of Jesus ("The Bible says so")
#2: The Holy Women Eyewitnesses ("The Bible says so")
#3: Jesus' Apostles' New-Found Courage ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#4: Changed Lives of James and Others ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#5: Large Crowd of Eyewitnesses ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#6: Conversion of Paul ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#7: They Died for Jesus (argumentum ad populum)

In other words, #1 to #6 all rely on the bible for direct proof of the resurrection. While there may be some non-Biblical sources which back up some of the end results mentioned in the Bible (#3, #4, possibly #5, #6 - maybe #1?), it is a fallacy to say "the results definitely happened, so my premise on what caused the results must be true". And as for #7... I'm revoking your license to Logic.

As for the legitimacy of the Bible - the best-preserved books of the time are well-preserved because they were in the Bible. Who chose what went into the bible? Those people who already believed what it said. As such, you are selecting your 'facts' from a cache of stories which have already been pre-selected by a biased selector. Any other conflicts (ignoring the continuity errors that are already present) will already have been weeded out as the NT was compiled.

 

[Logicman]

Let's look at these...

#1: The Empty Tomb of Jesus ("The Bible says so")
#2: The Holy Women Eyewitnesses ("The Bible says so")
#3: Jesus' Apostles' New-Found Courage ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#4: Changed Lives of James and Others ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#5: Large Crowd of Eyewitnesses ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#6: Conversion of Paul ("The Bible says so") (Also, affirming the consequent)
#7: They Died for Jesus (argumentum ad populum)

In other words, #1 to #6 all rely on the bible for direct proof of the resurrection. While there may be some non-Biblical sources which back up some of the end results mentioned in the Bible (#3, #4, possibly #5, #6 - maybe #1?), it is a fallacy to say "the results definitely happened, so my premise on what caused the results must be true". And as for #7... I'm revoking your license to Logic.

As for the legitimacy of the Bible - the best-preserved books of the time are well-preserved because they were in the Bible. Who chose what went into the bible? Those people who already believed what it said. As such, you are selecting your 'facts' from a cache of stories which have already been pre-selected by a biased selector. Any other conflicts (ignoring the continuity errors that are already present) will already have been weeded out as the NT was compiled.

<chuckle>

Well, we certainly wouldn't have wanted a biased secular liar revising the truths of the Gospels, would we now!?

If you want to know why certain 'books' of the New Testament were included and some weren't, there's plenty of links on the net that can help you out on that. And don't forget the ones selected were all first century works, according to scholarly opinion.

And if you don't like the Bible and the other non-blbilcal sources that provide various confirmations, then don't believe it.

But those of us who have studied the issues, and studied the historicity of the New Testament, will adhere to its validity.

By the way, all four Gospels, plus the Apostle Paul - who wrote numerous epistles- verify the resurrection. And the seven evidences I provided that you are attempting to diminish, all confirm it.

 

[Dragonfly]

Nice evasion.

I asked you to show me the conclusive DNA evidence for, and identify, the immediate, direct-line hominid ancestor of modern man, and all you can do is give me that waffle? LOL!

I'm evading?? That's funny.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers because then it wouldn't be science.

But here: Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Tell me something - in your belief - how old is the Earth?

 

[Logicman]

I'm evading?? That's funny.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers because then it wouldn't be science.

But here: Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

96% doesn't get it to identify the specific, direct-line ancestor of modern man. All you get are chimps, etc. So nice try.

Tell me something - in your belief - how old is the Earth?

What do they say, 4.5 billion years old or so? I'll go with that.

Have you ever seriously studied the Bible, or just given it a superficial reading, if that?

 

[iangb]

<chuckle>

Well, we certainly wouldn't have wanted a biased secular liar revising the truths of the Gospels, would we now!?

If you want to know why certain 'books' of the New Testament were included and some weren't, there's plenty of links on the net that can help you out on that. And don't forget the ones selected were all first century works, according to scholarly opinion.

And if you don't like the Bible and the other non-blbilcal sources that provide various confirmations, then don't believe it.

But those of us who have studied the issues, and studied the historicity of the New Testament, will adhere to its validity.

By the way, all four Gospels, plus the Apostle Paul - who wrote numerous epistles- verify the resurrection. And the seven evidences I provided that you are attempting to diminish, all confirm it.

My argument: "Your only direct source of evidence is the Bible, and that source is biased!"
Your response: "Of course it's biased! But I believe it! And don't forget, the Bible says that the resurrection happened!"
.....uh, OK? Generally, if you're trying to persuade someone of your point of view, you provide arguments that support it which are unbiased. But, y'know, if that's all you've got...

(Oh, and the fact that you're still supporting the existence of martyrs as a valid proof of the ressurection? Not good)

 

[Logicman]

My argument: "Your only direct source of evidence is the Bible, and that source is biased!"

I say they're telling the truth.

Your response: "Of course it's biased! But I believe it! And don't forget, the Bible says that the resurrection happened!"
.....uh, OK? Generally, if you're trying to persuade someone of your point of view, you provide arguments that support it which are unbiased. But, y'know, if that's all you've got...

See my comment above.

There's no bias in the truth. It's just the truth.

(Oh, and the fact that you're still supporting the existence of martyrs as a valid proof of the ressurection? Not good)

Ha! If you think you can bust the resurrection have at it. You'll be the first in 2,000 years.

 

[iangb]

I say they're telling the truth.

You've said. That just means that you're biased, too.

There's no bias in the truth. It's just the truth.

True. However, there is a substantial difference between assuming that something is the truth, and proving that something is the truth. You're doing the former, but you should be doing the latter.

Ha! If you think you can bust the resurrection have at it. You'll be the first in 2,000 years.

If you think that the existence of martyrs is a strong enough bit of evidence to use to support your claims, that speaks volumes about how little evidence you have for your claims. It's (as mentioned above) an argument ad populum, nothing more - and a poor one at that, since Christianity is most certainly not unique in having martrys.

 

[Logicman]

You've said. That just means that you're biased, too.

True. However, there is a substantial difference between assuming that something is the truth, and proving that something is the truth. You're doing the former, but you should be doing the latter.

You err, in the respect that you can't use the scientific method to PROVE historical events and personalities, because you can't replicate them like they originally were. All you can do is rely on the preponderance of the evidence, which is what we have in the New Testament works.

And don't let your anti-supernatural biases ruin your eternal future.

If you think that the existence of martyrs is a strong enough bit of evidence to use to support your claims, that speaks volumes about how little evidence you have for your claims. It's (as mentioned above) an argument ad populum, nothing more - and a poor one at that, since Christianity is most certainly not unique in having martrys.

Sure, lots of people die for what they believe in, but not many will die for a lie. So it doesn't make sense that the majority of the disciples died for a lie, were Jesus not resurrected. Which is why your "no true martyrs for Christianity" argument is a colossal failure.

By the way, what's that face in your avatar? Do you believe in aliens?

 

[chromium]

Can we just banish this guy to the religion forum? There's a place set aside for haters of this sort.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Is it any more idiotic than the anti-ssm crowd stomping the ground and hollering that ssm will "rip the very fabric of society apart" and prove to be "the death of freedom and America" ??????

Not one single person here has ever been able to state how allowing gays to marry will have any effect on straight marriage.
Not one single person here has told me how my marriage will change simply because Bob & Steve or Lisa & Helen get married.

So it's obvious there's some lower lying fear involved.

There's an assumption being made based on fear.

That assumption must be that if ssm becomes legally recognized, it will be easier and easier for people to just assume some people are gay.

Again - imagine the homophobe being asked some basic questions.

A) Are you married?
B) To a male or a female?


Question B is the problem for some. A HUGE problem.

Insecurity perhaps? Maybe.

But that's a problem. Has to be.

Most logical thing I can come up with.

The fear that SSM is going to be the straw that breaks society's back and causes the "downfall of the modern world" is simply illogical.

So my guess seems to hold water.

Isolating one minor part of my comment and then repeating your idiotic take on it doesn't make your premise any less idiotic than it was when I responded previously.

I'll throw your question back at you and state, not a single person on here has ever stated how calling a gay union anything other than marriage, which has a traditional, cultural, long standing meaning, would restrict in any way the country's ability to codify equal status legally and governmentally upon such gay unions. The only logical assumption is a need by gay activists to be as "in-your-face" as possible in an attempt not at equality but in an attempt to use political correctness to beat down any opposition to their agenda.

 

[AGENT J]

I had an epiphany.

I think the reason why some people are so damned horrified about the acceptance of SSM is that there will be an automatic assumption that when they say they're married, other people will assume they're married to a member of the same sex.

When you say you're married right now, you're automatically deemed straight.

Once SSM becomes accepted that assumption goes away.

I think those anti-ssm people are probably scared crapless people will assume they're gay.

'm I right or am I right?

:2razz::lol::mrgreen::2wave::lamo

well the reality is those against equal rights for gays, as in those who are actively or would actively try to STOP them, are just doing so out of fear, ignorance and or bigotry. Its really that simple.

Now just believeing its wrong is one thing, anybody can believe it but if one is actively for discriminating and not granting equal rights then its simply bigotry based on fear or ignorance. Theres no other way to describe people who want to practice discrimination and deny equal rights. Of course some will try to convenience themselves and others its not an equal rights issue but nobody honest buys that nonsense.

 

[brothern]

Listen, coupled with what I also presented from the Gospels, the scriptural evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. You also have to look at his divine titles (the Rock, Savior, etc.), his identification as Lord of the Sabbath, and a host of other evidences that make clear his deity.

Oh, I'm not arguing that Jesus isn't God. I was a trinitarian evangelical when I was Christian; the Gospels clearly support that. My point is that Paul doesn't make the clarification, and thus it has become a debate if his religious doctrine (or, if he was alive, what "denomination" he's in) is the same as our religious doctrines.

And I can link you to conservative scholars or other sources, who demolish claims that Mark made geographical mistakes, etc. And if you still want to trot one of your examples out we can take a look at it. ... I don't see it. Can you document one scriptural revision or "change" over the centuries that changes even one critical Christian doctrine or event (such as the resurrection)? I'll be glad to take a look at it. Also, the "telephone game" doesn't hold water, IMO. That's a game we used to play at parties, where a sentence is passed from one person to the next, and by the time it gets to the last person it has usually changed in words or meaning. The reason that doesn't work with the New Testament is the same reason it doesn't work at parties: There's always someone, or more than one there, who knows what the original sentence was, and they set the others straight.

I'd gladly trot out my examples, because the conservative scholars are wrong. However this Biblical debate is superfluous except for one point -- that the Bible, God's Word, is in fact NOT infalliable or literal, and that it is (and was) readily corrupted by man's hand.

Pointing out these faults and flaws is crucial to one's understanding of the fallibility of the Bible within the Christian religion. That's all of Mark's geographical mistakes, Luke's mistakes, the dating and authorship analysis, the contradictions in a beautiful interactive visualization, the factual and scientific errors and even the resurrection story is subject to changes and contradictions (image chart) from one Gospel to another. We're not even touching how screwy the Old Testment is. How Moses never existed or that Deuteronomy was "found" during King Josiah's reign in the context of religious reform, among tens of other problems.

Faith is a story. A story that has many interlocking parts and dependencies. What is important is fully understanding each of these components and how they (or don't) interact. So while I find the Bible's faults incredibly interesting, I think there a much more important discussions to be had. Like how it's immoral to place absolute trust in Pastors / Popes, when all humans are prone to fault. That's how we get money-grubbing televangelists (Pat Robertson, Eddie Long, Joel Olsteen); pedophile Catholic priests protected by their superiors or the other mega-scandals like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker & Tammy Faye or Paul Crouch.

Or things like prayer:

• Asking God to intervene in your life when he already has a plan for you. Telling God to help you get a better job, find a wife or do something for you. He already has a plan for you. Why are you arguing with him and telling him what he should do for you, because you think you know better?
• Asking God for forgiveness if you've done something evil without you doing something to make amends. If you're not going to pay back the storekeeper you stole from, praying about it isn't going to "fix it" or help the storekeeper. He's still wronged and will be still wronged after you've prayed.
• The praying heurestic, or the belief that God acts in accordance to all of your prayers. He doesn't. Let me illustrate with those who believed in Zeus. The Greeks prayed to Zeus, and then whatever happened, they found Zeus' hand in it and thus kept on believing in him.
  
  1. You pray to Zeus for rain, and it rains! "Zeus answered our prayers!"
  2. You pray to Zeus for rain, and it rains two weeks later! "Clearly it wasn't time, so Zeus answered our prayers later!"
  3. You pray to Zeus for rain, and it doesn't rain. "Zeus has a bigger and better plan for us."

Seeing your prayers come true doesn't make God real any more than it made Zeus real. I mean He doesn't answer the prayers of those needier than you, so it's silly to believe that he'll answer and act in accordance to all of yours.

Now you want to take the Holy Spirit out of the discussion and gut the supernatural, when it's clear in the Gospel of John that he helps people such as John recall important truths, sayings, and events?

Also, to try to argue that the original disciples, and others, didn't sit around dozens of campfires after the resurrection and ascension, etc., and thoroughly discuss their recollections of what Jesus said and did, then one is not being rational. That's no doubt where a number of similarities in the Gospel stories come from.

As for 'hearsay,' most of history is hearsay written down and/or passed along in oral traditions, so that doesn't work all that well to your advantage either.

 

[CriticalThought]

You err, in the respect that you can't use the scientific method to PROVE historical events and personalities, because you can't replicate them like they originally were. All you can do is rely on the preponderance of the evidence, which is what we have in the New Testament works.

And don't let your anti-supernatural biases ruin your eternal future.



Sure, lots of people die for what they believe in, but not many will die for a lie. So it doesn't make sense that the majority of the disciples died for a lie, were Jesus not resurrected. Which is why your "no true martyrs for Christianity" argument is a colossal failure.

By the way, what's that face in your avatar? Do you believe in aliens?

Have you ever heard of Jonestown?

 

[Logicman]

Have you ever heard of Jonestown?

Sure, what's the connection with the Avatar then?

 

[CriticalThought]

Sure, what's the connection with the Avatar then?

People die for lies. Lots do.

 

[Logicman]

People die for lies. Lots do.

Do they know it's a lie when they die for it?

 

[CriticalThought]

Do they know it's a lie when they die for it?

Most likely not.

 

[Navy Pride]

I had an epiphany.

I think the reason why some people are so damned horrified about the acceptance of SSM is that there will be an automatic assumption that when they say they're married, other people will assume they're married to a member of the same sex.

When you say you're married right now, you're automatically deemed straight.

.

Once SSM becomes accepted that assumption goes away.

I think those anti-ssm people are probably scared crapless people will assume they're gay.

'm I right or am I right?

:2razz::lol::mrgreen::2wave::lamo

What a bunch of horse****

 

[Dragonfly]

What a bunch of horse****

Is it?

Tell me why you care so much about what other people do, when it obviously will have no direct or indirect effect on your life?

Two gay people getting married will have about as much effect on you and your life as the same two people eating a cheeseburger.

Your life will not change.

So why try to prevent something that has no effect on you, but will make others happy and content with life?

If it's not your own selfish fear, what is it?