Michael Gerson on rightwing Evangelicalism

[Soul Crusher]

In other words, people have biological urges,

God wants us to have self control.

 

[mcveteran81]

"Bastard children". That's a separate issue. Is it not possible to fornicate and take care of any children that result from it?

"STDs". People can fornicate without getting them.

"Abortion". That's another separate issue. Isn't it possible to fornicate and give birth to children that result from it?

"Sex trafficking". Another separate issue.

"Prostitution". Another separate issue. Why not prohibit prostitution but allow nonmarital consensual sex in which no payment is made?

"Pornography". Another separate issue.

"Sex idolatry". Is it impossible to have nonmarital consensual sex without worship being involved?

As long as a person doesn't do any of the things you listed, is fornication okay?

Wrong. Fornication is defined by having sex with someone not your spouse / wife. Sex trafficking, prostitution, porn are direct correlation to fornication, as they profit greatly from it.

Fornication may not stop STDs or abortions, but on the basis of Godly living these would not be issues in a marriage in which both participants meet and married prior to fornication for STDs and a good likely hood of staying together and raising a family.

 

[mcveteran81]

God wants us to have self control.

God's Word tells us that all discipline is necessary for training toward righteousness. So yeah, there's that.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I don't care about the abolitionists. They found a line or two that they interpreted as being vaguely against slavery while the book, old and new testament, comes down clearly on one side.

And if you really, honestly think the anti slavery movement was founded, or in principle a christian one, I would enjoin you to actually educate yourself on men like Thomas Paine in England and America. Mother of god.

Lulz, the NT doesn't endorse slavery in the least.

And more history that you are wrong about?

Paine was a staunch abolitionist despite the fact that he never wrote on the subject. The biographies on Paine are in error when they attribute "African Slavery in America" and "A Serious Thought" to Paine, and Paine was not a founding member of the first abolitionist organization established in Philadelphia in 1775. However Paine always called for the abolition of slavery in personal corresondence and was close friends with many of the leading abolitionists of his day.

http://www.thomaspaine.org/aboutpaine/what-was-thomas-paine-s-stance-on-slavery.html

Paine the great abolitionist lol The best the website dedicated to him can come up with is that he once wrote to Benjamin Rush the following:

I despair of seeing an abolition of the infernal traffic in Negroes. We must push that matter further on your side of the water. I wish that a few well instructed could be sent among their brethren in bondage; for until they are enabled to take their own part, nothing will be done.​

 

[PainIsLIfe]

A negative claim? Fuck, dude. Here's how it works You make the positive claim that money changers were a corrupt institution in first century Jerusalem, despite their purpose being integral to the operation of the Jewish State. You provided a single mishna and bible passage each, and used them as proof, while no reputable scholar, or any thinking person takes these books as being proof for anything historically or culturally.

I believe I actually mentioned the Mishna, Talmud, and Josephus to support that the Biblical narrative that Jesus took issue with them is supported elsewhere after you claimed that Jesus didn't have issue with them.

You're still trying to spin, but you've yet to post a single source for your claim that Jesus' issue with the high priests didn't include the money changers. You also haven't posted anything to support your outrageous claim that no one cared about the Tyrian Shekel or that the poor weren't being taken advantage of.

So you're like 0 for on sourcing.

The ten commandments are for Jews only. That's why God says thou shalt do no murder, then commands his chosen to go down the mountain and murder people.

Umm, hence when Christianity says that we're all brothers there becomes no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Why do you keep ignoring that? How do you keep ignoring the words of Christ: And the second (greatest commandment) is like the first, to love your neighbor as yourself
Hey, but Hillesvok thinks Christ was totally cool with enslaving your neighbor so that's what Christianity is all about.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

How far does "neighbor" extend, exactly? Reading through the bible, it doesn't seem like neighbor covers much further than your own tribe. God literally orders the genocide of several peoples who were "neighbors" of the hebrews. But that's off topic.

Leviticus 25:44 says: Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

At this point you, if you're honest, you have to admit that it is unquestionably clear that god is giving the green light for slavery. The handful of verses in this thread (and there are many more), are instructions from god on how one is to conduct their slavery.

Point to the part of your book where it states unequivocally that slavery is immoral. So far I have shown that, according to god, slavery is permissible.

Side note: I'm using the King James version for my bible quotes because so many people consider it to be the 'real' version. Going forward I think I will use something readable like the NIV.

Christ seemed to imply your neighbor included your enemies and everyone you come in contact with.

Perhaps you missed the story of the good Samaritan.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I believe I actually mentioned the Mishna, Talmud, and Josephus to support that the Biblical narrative that Jesus took issue with them is supported elsewhere after you claimed that Jesus didn't have issue with them.

You're still trying to spin, but you've yet to post a single source for your claim that Jesus' issue with the high priests didn't include the money changers. You also haven't posted anything to support your outrages claim that no one cared about the Tyrian Shekel or that the poor weren't being taken advantage of.

So you're like 0 for on sourcing.



Umm, hence when Christianity says that we're all brothers there becomes no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Why do you keep ignoring that? How do you keep ignoring the words of Christ: And the second (greatest commandment) is like the first, to love your neighbor as yourself
Hey, but Hillesvok thinks Christ was totally cool with enslaving your neighbor so that's what Christianity is all about.

The one thing one could reasonably conclude about Jesus is that if he did indeed consider himself messiah, he would have been against the priestly class.

Josephus, Tacitus spoke about Jesus tangentially, and were not contemporary. The Mishna, Talmud and Bible are not reputable sources. Do you not understand this?

You are conveniently leaving out that Jesus had nothing to do with Paul or the church. Jesus had only the old law to work with. So when he speaks of neighbors, he means Jews. But alas, you could find a passage to contradict this, because Jesus contradicts himself again and again and again, as do the rival schools of thought between the Peter and James as opposed to Paul and Luke.

Lastly, if you're going to make a claim historically, like proving all the nonsense stories of the great battles and cataclysms in the earlier biblical books, you have to back it up with sources that are actually historical.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The one thing one could reasonably conclude about Jesus is that if he did indeed consider himself messiah, he would have been against the priestly class.

Josephus, Tacitus spoke about Jesus tangentially, and were not contemporary. The Mishna, Talmud and Bible are not reputable sources. Do you not understand this?

You are conveniently leaving out that Jesus had nothing to do with Paul or the church. Jesus had only the old law to work with. So when he speaks of neighbors, he means Jews. But alas, you could find a passage to contradict this, because Jesus contradicts himself again and again and again, as do the rival schools of thought between the Peter and James as opposed to Paul and Luke.

Lastly, if you're going to make a claim historically, like proving all the nonsense stories of the great battles and cataclysms in the earlier biblical books, you have to back it up with sources that are actually historical.

Listen you arrogant ignorant twit;
-I never mentioned Paul once in this thread.
-*I never claimed the veracity of the Bible about any battle or cataclysms.
-You're the one that keeps wanting to make this an argument about the Bible being correct.
-I never mentioned Josephus writing about Jesus either (half of what is out there is disputed anyway) there is only 1 statement about Christ considered authentic - that he was James' brother.


Now that we've establish all the shit that I didn't say that you are attributing to me to spin away from your stupid statement that I first replied to, I can address your post.


Josephus wrote about the high priest taking advantage of the poor through the market. Next you're going to tell me that Josephus isn't reliable either.

Damn, I didn't know you were that far behind on the subject. I should have know though since you had no f'n clue about the Tyrian Shekel.

Tell you what; you go read a few history books by various authorities and then come back and we can have a big boy conversation. Because currently you're just trolling me by pretending you have a clue about anything you're talking about and have this deluded fantasy that you can save face by turning this into a debate about the veracity of the Bible (Mishna or Talmud)

 

[TheComebackKid]

Listen you arrogant ignorant twit;
-I never mentioned Paul once in this thread.
-*I never claimed the veracity of the Bible about any battle or cataclysms.
-You're the one that keeps wanting to make this an argument about the Bible being correct.
-I never mentioned Josephus writing about Jesus either (half of what is out there is disputed anyway) there is only 1 statement about Christ considered authentic - that he was James' brother.


Now that we've establish all the shit that I didn't say that you are attributing to me to spin away from your stupid statement that I first replied to, I can address your post.


Josephus wrote about the high priest taking advantage of the poor through the market. Next you're going to tell me that Josephus isn't reliable either.

Damn, I didn't know you were that far behind on the subject. I should have know though since you had no f'n clue about the Tyrian Shekel.

Tell you what; you go read a few history books by various authorities and then come back and we can have a big boy conversation. Because currently you're just trolling me by pretending you have a clue about anything you're talking about and have this deluded fantasy that you can save face by turning this into a debate about the veracity of the Bible (Mishna or Talmud)

*Mic drop*

 

[hillelslovak87]

Listen you arrogant ignorant twit;
-I never mentioned Paul once in this thread.
-*I never claimed the veracity of the Bible about any battle or cataclysms.
-You're the one that keeps wanting to make this an argument about the Bible being correct.
-I never mentioned Josephus writing about Jesus either (half of what is out there is disputed anyway) there is only 1 statement about Christ considered authentic - that he was James' brother.


Now that we've establish all the shit that I didn't say that you are attributing to me to spin away from your stupid statement that I first replied to, I can address your post.


Josephus wrote about the high priest taking advantage of the poor through the market. Next you're going to tell me that Josephus isn't reliable either.

Damn, I didn't know you were that far behind on the subject. I should have know though since you had no f'n clue about the Tyrian Shekel.

Tell you what; you go read a few history books by various authorities and then come back and we can have a big boy conversation. Because currently you're just trolling me by pretending you have a clue about anything you're talking about and have this deluded fantasy that you can save face by turning this into a debate about the veracity of the Bible (Mishna or Talmud)

More insults. That Christian charity on display.

I said that the money changers were essential in Jewish life, and that the story displays a lack of knowledge regarding jewish customs by the biblical gospel writers. You stated that they ripped people off, and used the Mishna and Bible, which are not reliable sources historically.

You have yet to provide any proof. But no, it's me, who is not some worthless sinner on a mission for a cosmic deity, who is arrogant....

 

[Neph]

You're all arguing about a book that contradicts itself a hundred times over. That's the only reason you can have these ridiculous circular arguments and yet ignore the brutal honesty within it.

PS I'm sorry your book condones slavery. Maybe rather than being Gods word it is something put together by people in a darker time.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You're all arguing about a book that contradicts itself a hundred times over. That's the only reason you can have these ridiculous circular arguments and yet ignore the brutal honesty within it.

PS I'm sorry your book condones slavery. Maybe rather than being Gods word it is something put together by people in a darker time.

The bible isn't a book, it's a collection of books from different authors from different epochs compiled by different councils centuries ago. They couldn't even agree on the collection as individual canons range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to the 81 books of the Tewahedo canon. It's an interesting collection that contains beautiful poetry and philosophy as well as brutal savagery. Why anyone knowing it's history would believe it is the word of a 'god' seams strange to me.

 

[Quequeg]

God wants us to have self control.

How do you know?

 

[ShadBo]

Question(s) for you. How does it feel to know you will stand before God and be judged no matter what you believe or don't believe? A little over / under would be cool on how you think its going to fair for you breh.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Your god has been judged and found wanting.

The god of the bible is an immoral maniac. My morality is superior to it in almost every way.

 

[Neph]

 

[ShinkanPo]

The bible isn't a book, it's a collection of books from different authors from different epochs compiled by different councils centuries ago. They couldn't even agree on the collection as individual canons range from the 66 books of the Protestant canon to the 81 books of the Tewahedo canon. It's an interesting collection that contains beautiful poetry and philosophy as well as brutal savagery. Why anyone knowing it's history would believe it is the word of a 'god' seams strange to me.

Do correct me if I am wrong

Why are the evangelicals say Catholicism/Orthodoxy is not Biblical Christianity?

How can they say that? If not for the Catholics/Orthkdox they would not even be aware of the existence of the Bible.

If I am not mistaken. The Catholics/Orthodoxy are the ones who have compiled all the books that we know today as the bible so who knows if everything in it wsd modified or even outright fabricated by the Early Roman Churches during the 3rd or 4th Century?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Do correct me if I am wrong

Why are the evangelicals say Catholicism/Orthodoxy is not Biblical Christianity?

How can they say that? If not for the Catholics/Orthkdox they would not even be aware of the existence of the Bible.

If I am not mistaken. The Catholics/Orthodoxy are the ones who have compiled all the books that we know today as the bible so who knows if everything in it wsd modified or even outright fabricated by the Early Roman Churches during the 3rd or 4th Century?

It's not quite that simple, back in the early days of the church there were no Catholics or Orthodox. There were the Pauline (followers of Paul and 99.99999% of the Christians you see today), Gnostics, Ebionites, Arianists etc and what they believed was very different than what you would call "Christianity" today. The Paulines eventually won out and declared all the rest heretics and wiped out all the other churches, from there they began compiling the canon.

Christianity from there was divided into the Latin or Catholic church and the Eastern or Greek Orthodox. Today's Evangelicals believe that the Catholics and Orthodox today have strayed from the original teachings of the Pauline church and want a reformation to go back to strictly teaching from the bible without the rituals, ceremony and hierarchy that came after. The problem is, I really don't think most know the history and how the bible and the early church formed in the first place.

 

[Son of Jamin]

There's a good chance the Hebrew word 'Almah' was mistranslated to 'Virgin'. A lot of Hebrew scholars believe the word simply means maiden or young woman. In fact, I don't believe the mistranslation in the Septuagint gave rise to any pre-Christian Hellenized Jews that believed in the virginal conception of Immanuel.

The Hebrew word almah is used seven times in the Old Testament and in each time in context of a chaste and unmarried woman.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The Hebrew word almah is used seven times in the Old Testament and in each time in context of a chaste and unmarried woman.

Almah does not explicitly denote virginity but I'll concede that it is implied. If the author wanted to explicitly denote virginity he could have used the Hebrew word bethulah. I don't know of any Hebrew sect that believed that Immanuel would be born of a virgin before or after the Septuagint translation.