rickyp wrote: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'd make a horrible lawyer.

Because I said he's not a loon for believing in demon possession, you conclude I'm on the same page as he is.

This is what I was responding to:

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.

So, to state that you would have to know EXACTLY what I believe about demonic possession. You don't.

You lied.

You've also plainly stated your belief in the literal truth of the new Testament..

.

And, I do. However, that does not tell you what I believe about the extent or even existence of demonic possession today, does it? The NT speaks of people having the power to heal, to speak in tongues, etc. I don't believe those things are extant, so you would be wrong to claim I believe in them.

You're just making up my positions as you go along. Please stop.
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".

No, I'm dealing with a patently dishonest person: you.

I still don't see how his views on demonic possession and/or alien encounters does anything to hallenge the assertions (with quoted sources and cited references) he makes on the evolution of the Christian views on marriage.

Loon or not, is it too much to ask that you guys quit arguing bitterly over a sidebar and come back to the topic of marriage?

Was Jennings' essay on marriage wrong, and if so how?

danivon wrote:I still don't see how his views on demonic possession and/or alien encounters does anything to hallenge the assertions (with quoted sources and cited references) he makes on the evolution of the Christian views on marriage.

Loon or not, is it too much to ask that you guys quit arguing bitterly over a sidebar and come back to the topic of marriage?

Was Jennings' essay on marriage wrong, and if so how?

You folks may argue about it all you want. I've no interest, as I've indicated, in arguing about a man's historical thesis. Whatever some people (allegedly) thought is immaterial to what the Bible says. Furthermore, is someone supposed to investigate each and every person's historical opinion and make sure the thesis is correct?

No thanks.

Hmmm. For someone so uninterested in arguing, you are posting quite a lot of argumentative posts.

He did not, by the way, just present opinion, he used a series of quotes from prominent Christian thinkers as factual assertions. I haven't suggested you try to prove his opinion wrong, just asked whether he got his facts right. If not, well, that undermines his piece in a far more effective way than being all snotty about a completely unrelated article.

The various interpretations in Jennings' marriage article - particularly those from Reformation and post-Reformation figures - was from the Bible. I guess what you are really saying is that your reading of it is more reliable than any of theirs, which is a fine claim to make. Even so, the point is that the interpretation of marriage has varied even among Biblical scholars over the centuries. I can guarantee that each of them would claim, as you appear to, that their interpretation is the one that is timeless and consistent with the scripture, and all the others are just irrelevant fripperies.

Question is, how are we to know what the True interpretation is when there are so many different views over time and across denominations? And how can we be sure it is timeless and the real traditional meaning of marriage before we even consider pre- and non-Christian thoughts on marriage?

I have been reticent to wade into the "discussion" of late due to the lack of hearing one another.

Personally, I think the argument of "Christian" values and ethics by those who are (IMHO) not Christian is foolish. It is being used as a sledge to smeer.
It would be similar to me using the ethic and values of NAMBLA when talking about the pro-gay marriage side of the argument.

Tawdry and beneath us...

danivon wrote:Hmmm. For someone so uninterested in arguing, you are posting quite a lot of argumentative posts.

No, I'm not arguing this topic. I said that.

He did not, by the way, just present opinion, he used a series of quotes from prominent Christian thinkers as factual assertions. I haven't suggested you try to prove his opinion wrong, just asked whether he got his facts right.

Actually, they are not "facts." They are the opinions of some learned men. They are not inerrant nor are they infallible. I've no interest in determining if he understood them correctly. That would require many, many hours of research. You are willing to accept his research, apparently, on face value. I am not. In part, because some of what he believes appears quite out of the ordinary for a Christian.

If not, well, that undermines his piece in a far more effective way than being all snotty about a completely unrelated article.

. . . by the same man whose research you're quite willing to swallow whole.

The various interpretations in Jennings' marriage article - particularly those from Reformation and post-Reformation figures - was from the Bible.

It's his interpretation of their interpretation of the Bible.

That's really not something I'm interested in.

bbauska - I think you are being unfair. We have been told that the new legal position goes against the 'moral' and 'traditional' definitions of marriage. It was one of the Christians here who linked those to the Biblical definition, the Christian definition. So, we are not allowed to respond to that? DF called it intolerant, you call it foolish and sneering.

DF- The point is that I have not 'swallowed' it, or 'taken it at face value'. I found it interesting, I checked up on one of the claims that most surprised me, and I asked if it were correct on the other claims it made on the facts (yes, they are all opinions, but heis not asserting them as his own, but as the positions of historical figures, which are pieces of evidence concerning the fluidity or otherwise of the 'Christian' view of marriage). If he is correct, it is not some slam-dunk, but it is interesting how things have varied even within Christianity - and let us please accept that Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage, as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, other pre-Christian faiths have their own views, as do more recently founded religions and of course the secular world.

If you don't want the Christian definition (and your interpretation of it) to be discussed by us heathens, it probbaly wasn't the best idea to bring it into the discussions as 'the moral definition', eh?

I would be careful when it comes to religion, it's all very personal. Trying to say one person or a million people think "this" does not mean any other person would believe the exact same thing. because this guy said so does not mean anyone here must now believe what he had said. Lumping people together on such a personal issue is never wise!

And this dismissal of jennings is only natural. Whatever his opinion, whatever his backing, he was found to have some crazy alien abduction ideas, to now immediately dismiss other things he said is only natural. Let's say you brought in an expert witness for a trial, then it is found that he thinks his dog was abducted by martians and now he can read his dogs mind, he also publishes books about the end of the world coming soon due to a giant space spider coming to eat us next week. Will the jury now trust this loon after hearing his views about other things even though he may very well be an "expert" on what he is speaking about? I don't think so, to dismiss this guy after hearing about his alien abduction nonsense is only natural of course.

danivon wrote:bbauska - I think you are being unfair. We have been told that the new legal position goes against the 'moral' and 'traditional' definitions of marriage.

First, since your hobby is to pick at nits, there is no "new legal position." No one has declared that homosexual marriage is the law of the land from sea to shining sea.

I don't believe I argued about "traditional" definitions.

It was one of the Christians here who linked those to the Biblical definition, the Christian definition. So, we are not allowed to respond to that? DF called it intolerant, you call it foolish and sneering.

I said your response is intolerant.

DF- The point is that I have not 'swallowed' it, or 'taken it at face value'. I found it interesting, I checked up on one of the claims that most surprised me, and I asked if it were correct on the other claims it made on the facts (yes, they are all opinions, but heis not asserting them as his own, but as the positions of historical figures, which are pieces of evidence concerning the fluidity or otherwise of the 'Christian' view of marriage).

You miss my point, naturally. The "Christian view" of marriage is not defined by snippets of writings from Luther or whomever. Again, I'm confident that if one was to do justice to reviewing that article it would be a PhD thesis. You would have to exhaustively review the writings of each Christian author cited to determine whether a given quote or quotes accurately represented their position. That is why I'm not willing to respond to it--I'm not working on a PhD on the history of the Protestant understanding of marriage.

It is my hypothesis that if we were to ask the men cited they about homosexual marriage directly they would not affirm it. I have seen no evidence to contradict that. I'm also not aware of evidence of any men I would consider to hold orthodox views of salvation (Luther, Calvin, etc), either being polygamous or suggesting the Bible permits it. There is a big problem for such a view--Ephesians 5 compares the marriage relationship with that of Christ and the church. It says Christ died for the church and that husbands are to emulate that attitude of self-sacrifice. Christ did not die for many wives, nor are husbands commanded to love multiple wives.

If he is correct, it is not some slam-dunk, but it is interesting how things have varied even within Christianity - and let us please accept that Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage, as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, other pre-Christian faiths have their own views, as do more recently founded religions and of course the secular world.

That's fine. However, if there is one morality, that issued and designed by God, then what Hindus, Buddhists, and secularists believe is immaterial in terms of altering morality. They may declare "moral" whatever they like; it won't change what IS moral. That is unalterable.

If you don't want the Christian definition (and your interpretation of it) to be discussed by us heathens, it probbaly wasn't the best idea to bring it into the discussions as 'the moral definition', eh?

Actually, I didn't do it in a way that suggested all had to bow to it. I've said over and over again that you may believe as you please. I don't know what else to say. I'm not going to argue morality with someone who believes it evolves. There is no objectivity in such a world view and so it is a complete waste of time to debate with someone whose footing can easily shift.

You misunderstand. I was directing the comment to Dr. Fate. The "us" is Christians.

bbauska wrote:You misunderstand. I was directing the comment to Dr. Fate. The "us" is Christians.

Then maybe I don't understand. I have been declining to engage in a debate over Christian morality. It is an utter waste of time. It is Danivon who keeps wanting to debate it.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:You misunderstand. I was directing the comment to Dr. Fate. The "us" is Christians.

Then maybe I don't understand. I have been declining to engage in a debate over Christian morality. It is an utter waste of time. It is Danivon who keeps wanting to debate it.

The merits, or lack thereof, of DOMA are fair game IMHO. However discussing the difference between demonic possession and alien abduction with a person who is ONLY trying to smear Christianity in the marketplace is not beneficial.

I have stated that DOMA was the law, and it should be followed. Now that it is no longer the law, then it is only a personal choice. I don't have to agree with the law, I only have to follow it. People should be allowed their personal choices, as long as they do not violate the law.

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:You misunderstand. I was directing the comment to Dr. Fate. The "us" is Christians.

Then maybe I don't understand. I have been declining to engage in a debate over Christian morality. It is an utter waste of time. It is Danivon who keeps wanting to debate it.

The merits, or lack thereof, of DOMA are fair game IMHO. However discussing the difference between demonic possession and alien abduction with a person who is ONLY trying to smear Christianity in the marketplace is not beneficial.

I did not do that. All I said was I think the comparison is so nutty as to discredit the author because he is looking for an explanation into a phenomena I don't believe exists (alien abductions).

I have stated that DOMA was the law, and it should be followed. Now that it is no longer the law, then it is only a personal choice. I don't have to agree with the law, I only have to follow it. People should be allowed their personal choices, as long as they do not violate the law.

Again, we don't disagree.

The law is the law. However, the law does not define morality. If that were the case, I would have to agree that abortion is moral. I would have to agree that adultery, pornography, and any number of other sins are moral. I don't.

I can obey the law and not view it as the definition of morality. I'm not surprised that others may want to invert that--it's their right and I won't debate that.

Agreed. Just helping terminate a bad turn of this discussion.

bbauska wrote:Agreed. Just helping terminate a bad turn of this discussion.

That's what I have wanted.