Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jul 2013, 2:38 pm

I originally was looking for a quote from Martin Luther that essentially said that the definition of marriage should be left to the lawyers and the secular authorities. Then I found this source. I just found the extensive detail to be in some sense self-authenticating. Then DF searches for something to discredit this guy (because apparently he doesn't like looking at how Christianity's thinking on marriage has certainly not been static). Well, I think people can be somewhat out there and still do some interesting research which is not compiled anywhere else (and as I said the extensiveness of the research makes it hard believe it was make up) and if youre going to discredit the guy because he has some extreme views I see nothing wrong with pointing out that if you take a look at Christianity on a rational basis it could seem to be loony, too.
As far as evolution, if it is true then it undercuts the foundations of Christianity so I understand why DF will not accept it. We get new findings all of the time and some change our understanding of how humans evolved in significant ways, but I doubt very much that the central understanding that human beings evolved slowly over several million years based on the theory of natural selection will change.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Jul 2013, 3:07 pm

The quote from Martin Luther I was looking for I saw in a book called The History of Political Philosophy, Leo Strauss et al. The quote is as follows:

"What is the proper procedure for us nowadays in matters of marriage and divorce? I have said that this should be left to the lawyers and be subject to secular government. For marriage is a rather secular and outward thing, having to do with wife and children, house and home, and with other matters having to do with the realm of government, all of which have been completely subjected to reason (Genesis 1:28) Therefore we should not tamper with what the government and wise men decide and prescribe on the basis of the laws and reason. Christ is not functioning here (Matthew 5:31-5:32) as a lawyer or governor, to set down or prescribe any regulations for outward conduct." (page 348, citing Luther, Commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, AE, XXI, 93)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jul 2013, 3:16 pm

freeman3 wrote:Then DF searches for something to discredit this guy (because apparently he doesn't like looking at how Christianity's thinking on marriage has certainly not been static).


I relentlessly, single-mindedly pursued something to discredit the guy . . . for 3 seconds. That's how long it took to go the url window and go to his home page.

I don't know how much more plain I can get. Whatever anyone thinks, the standard for Christianity is the Bible--and Jesus didn't stutter.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that if you take a look at Christianity on a rational basis it could seem to be loony, too.


Of course you don't. You're right in line with all your atheist heroes: Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. Good on you. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't want to be associated with them? What? Are they too loony?

As far as evolution, if it is true then it undercuts the foundations of Christianity so I understand why DF will not accept it.


Actually, evolution is a thoroughly predictable response. Read Romans 1 and it's all laid out. You look around, see order, and say to yourself, "Self, this all came from nothing and will one day return to nothing. The fact that there is order, even down to genetic code, just shows it all began with chaos."

Again, you are welcome to it.

We get new findings all of the time and some change our understanding of how humans evolved in significant ways, but I doubt very much that the central understanding that human beings evolved slowly over several million years based on the theory of natural selection will change.


Again, that's your prerogative.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jul 2013, 3:18 pm

freeman3 wrote:The quote from Martin Luther I was looking for I saw in a book called The History of Political Philosophy, Leo Strauss et al. The quote is as follows:

"What is the proper procedure for us nowadays in matters of marriage and divorce? I have said that this should be left to the lawyers and be subject to secular government. For marriage is a rather secular and outward thing, having to do with wife and children, house and home, and with other matters having to do with the realm of government, all of which have been completely subjected to reason (Genesis 1:28) Therefore we should not tamper with what the government and wise men decide and prescribe on the basis of the laws and reason. Christ is not functioning here (Matthew 5:31-5:32) as a lawyer or governor, to set down or prescribe any regulations for outward conduct." (page 348, citing Luther, Commentary on The Sermon on the Mount, AE, XXI, 93)


Great. I'm sure if we could ask Luther, he'd support gay marriage . . .

In fact, he'd probably even deny any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman was sin . . .

:no:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jul 2013, 8:35 am

fate
Dunno, but he seems a bit of a loon
.

http://www.danielrjennings.org/Similari ... ivity.html

Is he a loon because he believes in demonic possession?
If so how can you explan the numerous references to Demonic possession in the New Testament?
I mean Fate, if you beleive in the literal word of the new Testament then you have to believe in demonic possession. And if you have that in common with Jennings how loony is he really?

Mark 9:18
Matthew 12:43
Acts 19:13 and Acts 19:12
etc etc http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_exor1.htm

Is he a loon because he lists comparisons between descriptions of demonic possession and alien abduction and draws a conclusion about them? Surely you alread agree with his first column, (demonic possession).... so you're half way to agreeing with him...
Besides, what does his comparison with these two |phenomenon", one of which you surely ascribe 100 percent authenticitiy to anyway, have to do with his careful historical analyis of the changes in Christianity's views on marriage?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jul 2013, 9:45 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Dunno, but he seems a bit of a loon
.

http://www.danielrjennings.org/Similari ... ivity.html

Is he a loon because he believes in demonic possession?
If so how can you explan the numerous references to Demonic possession in the New Testament?


That's an odd conclusion from what I said. Oh, yeah, it's you.

No, alien abductions is the issue. Feel free to post ALL of those in the NT.

Besides, what does his comparison with these two |phenomenon", one of which you surely ascribe 100 percent authenticitiy to anyway, have to do with his careful historical analyis of the changes in Christianity's views on marriage?


If you want to argue for alien abduction, that will be quite fascinating. Maybe you can base it on Loving v. Virginia?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jul 2013, 11:53 am

fate
If you want to argue for alien abduction, that will be quite fascinating. Maybe you can base it on Loving v. Virginia?


You're saying jennings is a loon because he believes in alien abductions?
If you bothered to read what he wrote, he actually doesn't.
He claims they are actually demonic possession.
Which you believe in .....
Now, is he loony?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jul 2013, 12:51 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
If you want to argue for alien abduction, that will be quite fascinating. Maybe you can base it on Loving v. Virginia?


You're saying jennings is a loon because he believes in alien abductions?
If you bothered to read what he wrote, he actually doesn't.
He claims they are actually demonic possession.
Which you believe in .....
Now, is he loony?


The whole idea of comparing alien abduction reports to anything is loony. Sorry. Now, you may think it is a fine thing to do . . . that's your right.

Of course, I think extraterrestrials ought to be able whomever they want, based on Loving--how about you?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jul 2013, 7:38 pm

yes he did talk about alien abduction and was talking about how what was once thought of as demonic possession may well have been alien abductions even in bible days.
Yes, he most certainly is a loon.
If you happen to believe in alien abductions, sorry to have lumped you with loons, but if you believe in that sort of thing then welcome to looneyville.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jul 2013, 12:00 am

GMTom wrote:yes he did talk about alien abduction and was talking about how what was once thought of as demonic possession may well have been alien abductions even in bible days.
Yes, he most certainly is a loon.
If you happen to believe in alien abductions, sorry to have lumped you with loons, but if you believe in that sort of thing then welcome to looneyville.

Aliens who dissipate when someone cries out 'Jesus'? Perhaps you didn't read what the Reverend's article actially said.

I believe in neither phenomenon, but I am at a loss to understand how it has anything to do eith the veracity of his other article on marriage. His statements are heavily sourced.

Loving is relevant to marriage law, alien abductions are not.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jul 2013, 12:37 pm

tom
yes he did talk about alien abduction and was talking about how what was once thought of as demonic possession

Once thought of????
Fate are you going to take Tom to task for this? Or describe him as loony for writing this?
According to the New testament, demonic possession is a reality. And every word of the NT is truth.
So please be consistent and correct Tom.

danivon
I believe in neither phenomenon, but I am at a loss to understand how it has anything to do eith the veracity of his other article on marriage. His statements are heavily sourced.


It doesn't. I thought Fates attempt at discrediting the author interesting since the author expresses the same belief in the reality of demonic possession as Fate does. To the extent that he believes it could explain another phenomenon of strange human behaviour.
But, according to Fate, he's not to be trusted on another issue that he diligently sources and supports .. . simply because he holds the same belief in demonic possession as Fate.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jul 2013, 1:05 pm

rickyp wrote:It doesn't. I thought Fates attempt at discrediting the author interesting since the author expresses the same belief in the reality of demonic possession as Fate does.


That is a lie. Period. You have no idea what I believe about demonic possession.

This whole conversation is ridiculous. A man gives his opinion or he does historical research. I have two responses:

1. The man is not God; no mere man is. Therefore, all the opinions of men, whomever they were or are, are opinions of creatures, not the Creator.

2. I'm only going to be swayed by Scriptural arguments on this topic. None of you are believers (that I know of), so you fail the test of 1 Cor. 2:14. Thus, the conversation, for me, is over.

But, according to Fate, he's not to be trusted on another issue that he diligently sources and supports .. . simply because he holds the same belief in demonic possession as Fate.


Repeating a lie doesn't add credibility. You already know that.

And no, I've no interest in debating what the man said vs. what I believe.

Have a nice day.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Jul 2013, 7:19 pm

Huh? You want to pull apart what I said and dissect it in some way to try and paint yourself in a superior position? Yeah, that sounds like Rickyp. The guy believes in alien abductions and wants us to think they have been around since waaaay back. What people called possession he wants to now call alien abduction. That makes him loony.

If I might have said something somewhat wrong, gee, excuse me even though I was quite clear, you instead want to play foolish games that make you look petty by trying to dissect the way I said something ...shame on you Ricky!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 6:25 am

fate

That is a lie. Period. You have no idea what I believe about demonic possession
.
To the contrary....
I asked
rickyp
Is he a loon because he believes in demonic possession?


fate

No, alien abductions is the issue.

Its quite clear where you stand ....
You've also plainly stated your belief in the literal truth of the new Testament...

Tom
What people called possession he wants to now call alien abduction. That makes him loony

The problem Tom,. is't that people "called" something demonic possession.....and don't anymore. If you are a literalist like Fate, the truth of the NT is still reality. Therefore demonic possession is still real. And when you write this way, you aren't supporting his view. You're dismissing him every bit as much as Jennings...
Further, by discounting Jennings analysis without having actually read it ... you aren't actually taking issue with the conclusions of Jennings second report.. . Jennings indicates that he beleives that people who report alient abduction are experiencing something. He simply provides a comparison to the experiences of people reporting demonic possession. Since he sees so many similarities his conclusion is that alien abductions are actually demonic possessions.
There are a thousand arguements one could make about the physcology of reports of either.... In fact there is a well documented clinical condition in which people beleive their loved ones have been replaced by strangers, actors or even aliens. Its a disassociative condition, with a detailed clinical history in a fair number of cases. (and a recent epsidoe of Perception featured the condition...!!)
The point is that, as Danivon pointed out as I did earlier.... even if Jennings is loony, which hasn't been established.... .
He still made a cogent case that the way the Christian church treated marriage evolved a great deal.... Rather than deal with the abundant detailed evidence and sourcing - Fate resorted to an ad hominem attack. And did so before actually considering how jennings so called "loony" belief matched his.... A belief in demonic possession.
You evidentally didn't read either of jennings works eiher or understand the conflict Fate is dealing with when labelling a fellow traveller in the belief of demonic possession "loony".
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 15 Jul 2013, 6:45 am

Wrong...
People most certainly do claim demonic possessions still to this day.
Where did I say I agreed with this persons crazy views? Where did I say I did not believe demonic possession was possible? Because this nut-job links the two, I simply must follow?
Not so!
I did find this opinion "interesting", yes. When I earlier mentioned it was an interesting position, I kind of assumed you knew I in fact did read it, but wait, you once again jumped to a conclusion that I did not do so.

You made a giant assumption, when we do not agree with your views, you are far too quick to leap to a conclusion that simply is not so. Because you believe alien abductions are crazy and you believe possession is crazy, then we all must think the same? That's just not so, one simply does not equal the other and lumping them together is not correct. Yes, DF (and I) called this guy a loon because of his alien encounter beliefs, we made an ad hominem attack on him, and I would debate this being such, I would say this sheds light on his thinking and is pertinent to the issue at hand, but does that now give you the right to do the exact same thing to others? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me!?