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

hinault

hinault wrote: »

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

I'd like to see the Church weed out the apostates within it's own ranks, and McVerry and Kennedy would top that list.

Whatever "good work" they do is obliterated by their failure to accept the marriage teaching of Jesus Christ.
Catholics should be lobbying the hierarchy for the removal of clergy who fail to publicly endorse the teaching of the church.
Both McVerry and Kennedy, and all the rest of the clergy who called for a YES vote should be dismissed from their ministry.

I would whole heartedly and fully support this. Who'd be left?

hinault

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's always going to be relative because it depends on which particular arbiter of morality you decide to follow.

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

myfreespirit

hinault wrote: »

Where society legislates to legalise sin.
I won't be adhering to that law.

Every citizen of the Republic is bound to adhere to the rightful laws of the land - there are not if's, but's or maybe's about it. You cannot choose which laws to obey and which laws you will choose to break. Although quite how you intend not to adhere to that law escapes me...

The attitude expressed is symptomatic of (admittedly now changed) Church attitudes to child abuse, where the priests and hierachy appeared to believe that canon law was superior to state law, so they did not need to report any of the abuse to the authorities; indeed they appeared to believe they could, like this poster, ignore the law of the land and carry on regardless.

We live in a democratic lawful society, where we are required to adhere to the states laws.
Of course, this does not affect anybody's religious belief in the slightest, they are quite free to practice whatever religious norms they like.

ravima

Whatever ya think, this letter is not Christian. A Christian would pray for the writer, that God in his goodness, would heal their wounded personality. God love 'em.

At a basic level, Christians love the sinner, but hate the sin. The human person is the primacy.

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Whose moral standards do you apply?

hinault

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Whose moral standards do you apply?

The Catechism.

Alf Veedersane wrote:

It's always going to be relative because it depends on which particular arbiter of morality you decide to follow.

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

The Catechism.



What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Yours is the catechism.

hinault

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Yours is the catechism.

It's always going to be relative because it depends on which particular arbiter of morality you decide to follow

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Is there any chance that you're going to answer this question.

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

What is the "particular arbiter of morality"?

Is there any chance that you're going to answer this question.

Ok, I didn't think I'd have to explain it but different beliefs have a different arbiter of what's morally right and what's morally wrong.

Yours is the catechism. That's fine.

But the catechism isn't the arbiter of morality for everyone.

A final thought: Jesus said "Love one another. As I have loved you so you must love one another".

hinault

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Ok, I didn't think I'd have to explain it but different beliefs have a different arbiter of what's morally right and what's morally wrong.

Another moral relativist.

coolbeans

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

Another moral relativist.

Is there any other kind ?

Alf Veedersane

hinault wrote: »

Another moral relativist.

So there are no other religions?

Alf Veedersane

coolbeans wrote: »

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

I don't have an issue with the beliefs. I don't agree with them at all but that's beside the point.

I just have an issue with - though maybe it's how it comes across in text format - the tenor of the posts.

Though the cynic in me thinks that there are people who call themselves Catholic that turn a blind eye to other elements such as set before marriage amongst others (in general rather than related to this thread)

hinault

coolbeans wrote: »

I think life would be a lot easier if à la carte catholics faced the truth about their faith on the census forms i.e. that they, for the most part, are not catholic due to the fact that they don't live a strictly catholic life. You can't pick + choose what suits you and still call yourself catholic.

People like hinault only do and say what the church has been teaching and no matter how ridiculous these teachings are at least we know where we stand in terms of his/her standpoint. No matter how vociferously I disagree with these teachings at least hinault follows thru and therefore has earned the right to refer to him/herself as a catholic unlike most of those who identify as such who don't practice what they preach.

I try as much as possible to follow the rules and policies of the Church.

But like every single one of us, I'm a sinner. I'm human. I make mistakes and I commit sin.
And without God's mercy I cannot be saved from myself.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

jungleman

hinault wrote: »

I try as much as possible to follow the rules and policies of the Church.

But like every single one of us, I'm a sinner. I'm human. I make mistakes and I commit sin.
And without God's mercy I cannot be saved from myself.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

On the subject of the Yes vote, what do you see as the greater sin:

• The fact that gay people have gay sex and are now legally able to get married

or

• Religious members who would prefer to ignore equality and would rather that gay people have less rights than straight people? Which would surely be against Catholic teachings?

hinault

jungleman wrote: »

On the subject of the Yes vote, what do you see as the greater sin:

• The fact that gay people have gay sex and are now legally able to get married

or

• Religious members who would prefer to ignore equality and would rather that gay people have less rights than straight people? Which would surely be against Catholic teachings?

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

Gospel of St Matthew Chapter 19
Gospel of St Mark

jungleman

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

Does it not bother you on a human level? Knowing that for years gay people have been dehumanised and criminalised, and that you would take the teachings of the church and apply them in a way which encourages segregation?

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Gospel of St Matthew Chapter 19

I can't see it in the former. Here it is, quoted in its entirety:

1 And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, *and came into the confines of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 *And the Pharisees came to him tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 But he answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he *who made man in the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:

5 *For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say to him: *Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?

8 He saith to them: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 *And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he who shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not good to marry.

11 He said to them: All receive not this word, but they to whom it is given.

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can receive, let him receive it.

13 *Then were little children presented to him, that he should lay his hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said to them: *Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

15 And when he had laid his hands upon them, he departed thence.

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good Master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?

17 But he said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith to him: Which? And Jesus said: *Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth: what is yet wanting to me?

21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

25 And when the disciples had heard this, they wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?

28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundred-fold, and shall possess life everlasting.

30 *But many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.

Perhaps you can explain exactly where it says what you claim? If anything, this bit sounds like it strongly advocates gay relationships:

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can receive, let him receive it.

hinault

jungleman wrote: »

Does it not bother you on a human level? Knowing that for years gay people have been dehumanised and criminalised, and that you would take the teachings of the church and apply them in a way which encourages segregation?

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

I can't see it in the former. Here it is, quoted in its entirety:
Perhaps you can explain exactly where it says what you claim?

Verse 5.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Verse 5.

*For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

I interpret it differently, especially in the light of the verse I quoted.

How do you know your interpretation is the one intended by an infinitely loving God?

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

I interpret it differently, especially in the light of the verse I quoted.

What you interpret is of zero interest to me.

Gospel of St Mark chapter 10 verses 7-9 also explains Jesus teaching on marriage.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

What you interpret is of zero interest to me.

Then what makes you think that your interpretation is of interest to anyone else?

hinault

RecordStraight wrote: »

Then what makes you think that your interpretation is of interest to anyone else?

Clearly it is of interest to you!

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

That's your BELIEF. Nothing to do with the law of the land.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ taught that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

The advocacy for homosexual marriage runs completely counter to what Jesus Christ taught.

Where did he every say ONLY?

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

The fact that homosexuals were criminalised was wrong, in my opinion.

I don't advocate segregation. Nor do I discriminate.
All sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is a mortal sin.

So whether it is the homosexual, or the unmarried heterosexual, enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin.

You do discriminate your attitude narrow and your point of view very blinkered.
I already asked this question but you did not answer.

What study have you done on the origins and authenticity of the Gospels?
Who wrote them? When where they written?

I have met a lot of people like you, the Church is infallible and the bible to be taken literally.

You say you have zero interest in other peoples interpretation but take on board an interpretation given by the Church which when you looks at it is just another group of men with funny hat's!

People like you scare me a little you seem to have an inability to think for yourself but feel the need to champion views on society dream-pt up literally thousands of years ago.

I see you jumped from "You would not be adhering to that law" to "advocating" you then go on and say things like "enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin"

A mortal sin was something that Catholic church made up, it literally made it up and decided here is a list of things that god will not forgive and you will go to hell among them are divorce, contraception, masturbation, suicide etc etc...

This has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Have you ever actually looked at the history of the Catholic Church?

People with moderate intelligence eventually started to question this, as most of it simply did not add up.

People with mental health issues who are not accountable for their actions that commit suicide how does that work?

A woman who suffers physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband.. No divorce?

Aids stricken countries, no condoms?

You want to buy into absolute nonsense that is fine but most sensible people I think would consider you a fool with very foolish views..

I know you think your right and in the end you when in heaven you will be vindicated by pointing the finger or whatever it is you are trying to do on this thread.

Let me ask another question, what if you are wrong? And I know this might be challenging for you but perhaps just ponder that for a while.

galljga1

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You do discriminate your attitude narrow and your point of view very blinkered.
I already asked this question but you did not answer.

What study have you done on the origins and authenticity of the Gospels?
Who wrote them? When where they written?

I have met a lot of people like you, the Church is infallible and the bible to be taken literally.

You say you have zero interest in other peoples interpretation but take on board an interpretation given by the Church which when you looks at it is just another group of men with funny hat's!

People like you scare me a little you seem to have an inability to think for yourself but feel the need to champion views on society dream-pt up literally thousands of years ago.

I seem you jumped from "You would not be adhering to that law" to "advocating" you then go on and say things like "enaging in sexual acts, they're both committing mortal sin"

A mortal sin was something that Catholic church made up, it literally made it up and decided here is a list of things that god will not forgive and you will go to hell among them are divorce, contraception, masturbation, suicide etc etc...

This has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Have you ever actually looked at the history of the Catholic Church?

People with moderate intelligence eventually started to question this, as most of it simply did not add up.

People with mental health issues who are not accountable for their actions that commit suicide how does that work?

A woman who suffers physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband.. No divorce?

Aids stricken countries, no condoms?

You want to buy into absolute nonsense that is fine but most sensible people I think would consider you a fool with very foolish views..

I know you think your right and in the end you when in heaven you will be vindicated by pointing the finger or whatever it is you are trying to do on this thread.

Let me ask another question, what if you are wrong? And I know this might be challenging for you but perhaps just ponder that for a while.

There really is no point in an exchange with this narrow minded bigot. His mind is closed.

Delirium

galljga1 wrote: »

There really is no point in an exchange with this narrow minded bigot. His mind is closed.

MOD NOTE

Carded for personal abuse.

Please avoid such posts in the future.

Thanks for attention.

oldrnwisr

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

There are contemporary writimgs which speak of Jesus so his existence is factual.

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

There was a contemporary historian called Josephus who mentions Him

No, there are no contempraneous accounts of Jesus. Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus having only been born 4 years after Jesus was already dead. Besides the only authentic reference to Jesus in Jospehus writings comes from Book 20,9,1 which states:

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Hardly a detailed biography that.

The existence of Jesus is probable not factual. The claim that a man named Jesus existed in Palestine 2000 years ago is a very ordinary claim and thus only requires a very ordinary level of evidence to substantitate. What we have on Jesus is vague and circumstantial but it is sufficient to say that it's likely he existed. However, to say that Jesus' existence is factual and by factual in the strict defintion:

"confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent"

is misleading.

hinault wrote: »

There is no allegedly about it. Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal.

If Jesus Christ countenanced other forms of marriage it is reasonable to assume that (i) Jesus would have stated so, and (ii) that the gospels would have recorded Jesus saying so.
Therefore Jesus did not countenance other forms of marriage because the gospel tells us what Jesus did countenance in terms of marriage.

It's interesting how atheists try to use what isn't in the Bible to make their spurious claims.

Says the poster attempting to make an argument from silence.

You're doing exactly the same thing that you're accusing atheists of doing, trying to draw positive conclusions from negative evidence.

To say that Jesus teaches that man-woman marriage is the ONLY valid form of marriage on the basis that he doesn't mention any other forms of marriage or relationship is highly disingenuous.

You've made the case for man-woman marriage on the basis of Mark 10 and Matthew 19. This is problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, you claim above that if Jesus had mentioned such a thing that it would be recorded in the gospels. However, it is clear that this is not the case. The gospels were written over a period of approximately 40 years beginning 40 years after Jesus death. They contain many factual inaccuracies and contradict each other in many places. The idea that they are a faithful and more importantly trustworthy account of what Jesus said and did is weak at best.

Secondly, let's talk about the specific claims made in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Mark, Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptics since they share the same basic narrative. This is because Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke both copy heavily from Mark's gospel. So it is unsurprising when we see a story pop up again in Matthew or Luke's gospel. So the reference in Matthew 19 is just a result of Matthew copying over 90% of his gospel from Mark. However, when Luke deletes the reference to Genesis in Luke 16:18, we get a different story which doesn't fit with the thrust of the argument made by Mark 10.
What is also interesting is that while there is only 12% of the content shared between the synoptics and the gospel of John there are 11 events which are retold in all four gospels. Now while some of these bear the hallmarks of copying too, the fact that the teaching about marriage isn't one of them is quite telling.

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

You really need to read the bible if your going to refer to it.
Paul speaks clearly about homosexuality in romans 1.

We've been through this before in the gay megathread and katydid has also refuted this in post 105 above. There are other things which Paul speaks about which the vast majority of Christians do not agree with. What makes Paul right about homosexuality?

katydid

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The existence of Jesus is probable not factual. The claim that a man named Jesus existed in Palestine 2000 years ago is a very ordinary claim and thus only requires a very ordinary level of evidence to substantitate. What we have on Jesus is vague and circumstantial but it is sufficient to say that it's likely he existed.

Good point there. The mistake, however, a lot of sceptics make is to assume that because there is no factual, biographical information, that is proof Jesus did NOT exist. When in fact it proves neither one thing nor the other.

The reality is that unless you were a rich or important person at that time, your existence was rarely documented as an individual. A son of a carpenter and a wandering preacher would not have come into the official radar in any documentary sense.

However, we must realise that history, bibliography and the like had a whole different meaning at that time. You only have to look at "historians" like Heroditus to see that fact and fiction, truth and myth are almost interchangeable. The basic idea was almost always embroidered on to suit the agenda of the writer. In that context, I think we can assume that there was a person on whom the oral and written accounts are based.

Of course the fact that the gospels are very much copied from each other does make one suspicious, but we need to remember that they also drew on another source, named "Q", which itself originated from somewhere. I think it's highly unlikely that these accounts sprang out of nowhere and had no basis. The discrepancies and the omissions are simply the result of second hand and third hand reporting - but it would be extremely unlikely that they were all based on a non-existent person.

As a Christian, I am happy to accept that what Jesus is reported as saying and doing in the Gospels have to be taken on board with reservations, given the nature of how and when the Gospels were written. But, having said that, that doesn't take away from the essence of what Jesus said in the slightest. Ask ten people who have just listened to a sermon or a political speech what has just been said, and you will get ten different accounts. But, hopefully, the listeners will all have grasped the general gist of what was said.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Clearly it is of interest to you!

Only is so far as you choose an uncharitable and mean-spirited interpretation of something in a religion that is supposed to be founded on charity and generosity of spirit.

I find it interesting how people spin Christianity to fit their own personality and prejudices.

barretsimpson

RecordStraight wrote: »

Only is so far as you choose an uncharitable and mean-spirited interpretation of something in a religion that is supposed to be founded on charity and generosity of spirit.

I find it interesting how people spin Christianity to fit their own personality and prejudices.

Now aint that the truth, both "Christians" and non Christians alike

oldrnwisr

katydid wrote: »

Good point there. The mistake, however, a lot of sceptics make is to assume that because there is no factual, biographical information, that is proof Jesus did NOT exist. When in fact it proves neither one thing nor the other.

Agreed. Jesus mythicists irritate me no end.

katydid wrote: »

The reality is that unless you were a rich or important person at that time, your existence was rarely documented as an individual. A son of a carpenter and a wandering preacher would not have come into the official radar in any documentary sense.

Well, here's the thing.
Firstly, a lot of people seem to that Jesus being the son of a carpenter meant that somehow he was working class or dirt poor. It is likely that Jesus was incredibly wealthy in the context of his society. Being a carpenter in a society where everything was made of wood would have been a lucrative occupation. Moreover, being a carpenter so close to the Sea of Galilee with lots of local fisherman, its probable that Joseph had his hand in shipbuilding and repair too. This means that Jesus was more likely to be akin to the cast of Made in Chelsea than Frank McCourt. He was literate and well-schooled in rabbinical teaching, something unusual within the wider society.
Secondly, despite the claims of the gospels that Jesus' fame spread far and wide this doesn't seem to be the case. Although we do have writings from his followers down the line, we don't have that much from people outside of that sphere and certainly nothing contempraneous. So Jesus didn't come up on the radar. The only authentic references to Jesus from non-biblical sources are sideline mentions like Josephus above.

katydid wrote: »

However, we must realise that history, bibliography and the like had a whole different meaning at that time. You only have to look at "historians" like Heroditus to see that fact and fiction, truth and myth are almost interchangeable. The basic idea was almost always embroidered on to suit the agenda of the writer. In that context, I think we can assume that there was a person on whom the oral and written accounts are based.

In general I agree, however, while it's true that history and biography of the time were different to how they are now, it's also true that none of the gospels are written like historical or biographical accounts. There are several reasons for this.

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

hinault

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To say that Jesus teaches that man-woman marriage is the ONLY valid form of marriage on the basis that he doesn't mention any other forms of marriage or relationship is highly disingenuous.

How is it disingenuous? Explain how it is disingenuous?

The teaching of Jesus Christ is clear that marriage applies only to unions between men and woman.

Jesus never countenanced any other relationship. If Jesus did please quote chapter and verse.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You've made the case for man-woman marriage on the basis of Mark 10 and Matthew 19. This is problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, you claim above that if Jesus had mentioned such a thing that it would be recorded in the gospels. However, it is clear that this is not the case. The gospels were written over a period of approximately 40 years beginning 40 years after Jesus death. They contain many factual inaccuracies and contradict each other in many places. The idea that they are a faithful and more importantly trustworthy account of what Jesus said and did is weak at best.

We possess over 5,000 copies of gospels dating from the 1st century.
Each of these copies were hand written.
99% of each of these copies are exact replicas of the other 4,999 copies.
The miracle is that these 5,000 copies were found throughout locations in the Near East, Greece, Italy.
The copy of the gospel by Luke located in Asia Minor is exactly the same gospel of Luke located Rome.

Your claim that the gospels contradict each other is baloney. The gospels don't contradict each other. Some gospels are more detailed about certain events than other gospels, agreed. Some gospels refer to events which other gospels give no account of, agreed. But this doesn't amount to contradiction.

If I say that I was born on the 1st December, but my brother says I was born at 12.35hrs on the 1st December, is that a contradiction? Of course it's not.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, let's talk about the specific claims made in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Mark, Matthew and Luke are referred to as the synoptics since they share the same basic narrative. This is because Matthew and to a lesser extent Luke both copy heavily from Mark's gospel. So it is unsurprising when we see a story pop up again in Matthew or Luke's gospel. So the reference in Matthew 19 is just a result of Matthew copying over 90% of his gospel from Mark. However, when Luke deletes the reference to Genesis in Luke 16:18, we get a different story which doesn't fit with the thrust of the argument made by Mark 10.
What is also interesting is that while there is only 12% of the content shared between the synoptics and the gospel of John there are 11 events which are retold in all four gospels. Now while some of these bear the hallmarks of copying too, the fact that the teaching about marriage isn't one of them is quite telling.

Or Jesus said what he said and Mark and Matthew separately wrote what Jesus said about marriage.

oldrnwisr

hinault wrote: »

How is it disingenuous? Explain how it is disingenuous?

The teaching of Jesus Christ is clear that marriage applies only to unions between men and woman.

Jesus never countenanced any other relationship. If Jesus did please quote chapter and verse.

It is disingenuous because you are drawing a positive conclusion from negative evidence. Let me explain with an example. Let's say that I make a statement like this:

"Apples are great. Everyone should eat apples because God gave them to us as a gift."

Does this mean that apples are great? Certainly.

Does this mean that oranges should never be eaten or don't come from God. No. Not at all.

The fact that Jesus doesn't mention something only means that it wasn't recorded. It doesn't mean he condemened it. It means the gospel authors didn't make any mention of it.

hinault wrote: »

We possess over 5,000 copies of gospels dating from the 1st century.
Each of these copies were hand written.
99% of each of these copies are exact replicas of the other 4,999 copies.
The miracle is that these 5,000 copies were found throughout locations in the Near East, Greece, Italy.
The copy of the gospel by Luke located in Asia Minor is exactly the same gospel of Luke located Rome.

OK, let's get this out of the way first. The fact that the copies we have agree to each other does not mean that the texts themselves agree to the facts. Even if the gospel of Mark had been faithfully copied from the original every time (which of course it hasn't, i.e. 16:9-20) there is still a forty year gap between the composition of the gospel and the events it describes. So it doesn't matter how many copies there are of Mark now, it doesn't bridge the original gap between the events and the writing of the gospel.

hinault wrote: »

Your claim that the gospels contradict each other is baloney. The gospels don't contradict each other. Some gospels are more detailed about certain events than other gospels, agreed. Some gospels refer to events which other gospels give no account of, agreed. But this doesn't amount to contradiction.

[hysterical laughter] Ahahahahahaha [/hysterical laughter]

Of course they contradict each other. It has nothing to do with detail, it has to do with specific claims made by certain gospel authors which are contradicted by other gospel authors regarding events which are depicted by both of them. We'll be here all day if we have to go through all of them but let's look at a few.

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Matthew 2:1-2

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register."
Luke 2:1-3

In Matthew's gospel Jesus' birth is depicted as occurring during the reign of King Herod who died in 4BCE. However, Luke's gospel has Jesus' birth occur after a census ordered while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 6CE. So both stories cannot be true. This is not a difference in detail. This is a direct contradiction.

And here's another one.

"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Mark 14:12

"When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon."
John 19:13-14

In Mark's gospel Jesus and his disciples celebrate the Last Supper which is the passover sedr, the feast eaten on passover eve. He is then arrested, taken away, tried and executed the next day on Passover (something btw the Jews would never have done). However, John's gospel places the last supper on the day before and the execution on Passover eve. This is a direct contraditiction. It's not a disagreement over detail.

Or another one:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Matthew 1:16


And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Luke 3:23

Even in small things there are contradictions.

Like I said, I'm not talking about the difference between Genesis 1 and 2 here. I'm talking about specific direct contradictions in the bible (both OT and NT) of which there are many. And these are just contradictions about basic facts which the authors should have been able to get right. This doesn't even begin to talk about the philosophical rifts between the authors, like this one:

"“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
Mark 7:18-19

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:19

There is a contradiction here between the author of Mark's gospel who follows Pauline writings advocating abandonment of Jewish laws and practices whereas the author of Matthew's gospel follows James' approach of being obedient to the mitzvot.

hinault wrote: »

Or Jesus said what he said and Mark and Matthew separately wrote what Jesus said about marriage.

Except that they didn't write separately. Over 90% of the text in Matthew's gospel is copied verbatim from Mark. Where there are differences it is either to a) incorporate other sayings such as those from Q b) correct a mistake Mark has made such as his error in geography in Chapter 5 or c) make a theological change such as the one detailed above. Neither Matthew or Mark are directly reporting what Jesus said because neither of them were contemporaries or eyewitnesses.

barretsimpson

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The fact that Jesus doesn't mention something only means that it wasn't recorded. It doesn't mean he condemened it. It means the gospel authors didn't make any mention of it.

Haha ya got them . . .
Exactly, no mention of drugs, porn etc. all those good things. Yeah baby.

barretsimpson

oldrnwisr wrote: »

[hysterical laughter] Ahahahahahaha [/hysterical laughter]

MANIC YEAAAAAH !

ShowMeTheCash

barretsimpson wrote: »

Haha ya got them . . .
Exactly, no mention of drugs, porn etc. all those good things. Yeah baby.

Catholic Church deem masturbation as a mortal sin so be careful with the porn!

eviltwin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Catholic Church deem masturbation as a mortal sin so be careful with the porn!

Do they? :eek: Why

barretsimpson

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Catholic Church deem masturbation as a mortal sin so be careful with the porn!

you'd be better to lay off that, you'll go blind

Delirium

barretsimpson wrote: »

you'd be better to lay off that, you'll go blind

MOD NOTE

Lets try keep to the topic please.

Thanks for your attention.

ShowMeTheCash

barretsimpson wrote: »

you'd be better to lay off that, you'll go blind

Another myth and you changed your original post awfully fast!

barretsimpson

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Another myth and you changed your original post awfully fast!

now now, telling porkie pies is also a sin for you bad boy, you'll need more tissues

horseburger

JohnBee wrote: »

Not sure if people have heard David Quinn comment on the yes vote but just wondering how Christians feel?

Basically his attitude was that they had an uphill battle, that their tactics failed and that they started their campaign too late.

I found this very patronizing. It almost suggests that the outcome of the referendum, in his view, is that it represents the outcome of the best campaign. To me this is quite small minded of him. Why can he (and Iona) not just accept that this is a sign of the will of the people and that his views (and that of the mothers and fathers group) are minority views that are out of place in 2015?

I thought the response by David Quinn to the comments made by the Referendum Commission Chairman Justice Kevin Cross in the in the second of the live RTE One results programmes on Saturday was interesting.

Niall Collins TD Fianna Fail had just commended Justice Kevin Cross and Geoffrey Shannon, Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, for bringing clarity in describing what would follow on, in terms of family law, in the event of a Yes or No vote.

David Quinn responded by opining that Justice Kevin Cross had said things that would favour both the arguments made by the Yes campaigners and also the No campaigners.

David Quinn, at the 44 minute mark said that if there was a yes vote that it would mean that it would not be possible to give preference to motherhood and fatherhood in areas of family law in relation to issues like adoption and surrogacy.

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10422876/

He said in relation to wanting a preference for motherhood and fatherhood that “my concerns are that our laws can’t reflect that anymore”.

He said “the referendum commission gave advice that, I would say was helpful to the Yes side and also some advice that was helpful to the No side. For example, he confirmed our point of view that if the referendum goes through, which it has, it would be very difficult for any future government to pass a law around things like adoption and surrogacy and AHR to try to give a preference to motherhood and fatherhood in our laws. He basically confirmed that fact and that’s something we were advancing through the campaign".

Niall Collins later emphasised that regardless of how surrogacy is legislated in Ireland, Irish citizens could still avail of surrogacy procedures abroad.

It was emphasised in the pre-legislative discussion on the Children and Family Relationship Bill on 9th April 2014 that gay and lesbian couples can already raise children and avail of surrogacy and sperm and egg donation, regardless of the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

http://media.heanet.ie/oireachtas/as...n=07:00:51.000

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp...7&StartDate=01


Neither the result of the Referendum or the detail in the Children and Family Relationships Bill questioned whether or not gay and lesbian couples could raise children, yet this issue, is highlighted regularly by No campaign groups like Mothers and Fathers Matter and Iona Institute, questioning the ability of those couples to raise children, in comparison to heterosexual couples.

Why does David Quinn want to implement preferences of family types for issues like adoption?

What evidence does he have to suggest that a child raised by a heterosexual couple would be brought up in a safer, stable home than that of a gay or lesbian couple?

What evidence does he have to suggest that children brought up by heterosexual parents fare better than that of gay or lesbian couples?

He didn't make reference to any study suggesting that, on the RTE results show on Saturday, so is it just on his opinion, that he is basing his call for a preference of a particular family type, in terms of adoption and surrogacy?

As I understand it, there is no definite study to suggest that there should be a generalisation to prefer one type of family over another, that there is no definite study to justify giving an automatic preference, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, to heterosexual couples. As I understand it, these things are decided on a case by case basis.

here is an article that highlights inaccurate statements by Mothers and Fathers Matter, on this topic:

http://keithjy.wix.com/mots#!Mothers-and-Fathers-Matter-The-Truth-Doesnt/c218b/5538ff430cf23d01644653ec

I find his call for a conscience clause to be quite bizarre. I can’t understand why he is calling for a conscience clause to enable businesses refuse a service to people, for example for a business transaction relating to civil partnerships or civil marriages for gay and lesbian couples.


He has spoken about wanting to implement a conscience clause on numerous occasions in media interviews and debates during the referendum campaign.

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3896

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/8/17333/23rd_March_2015_-_Moncrieff_Part_1/

https://www.newstalk.ie/reader/47.301/43901/0/

It seems to me that he wants companies to be able to refuse services, based on the owners religious beliefs, relating to things that are entirely legal in Ireland, even though, in the case of civil partnerships and civil marriage, religious churches or church representatives are not being forced to officiate at those ceremonies.

Why does he want the government to implement a law enabling a business to refuse to provide a service to a customer, for example for something relating to a civil partnership or civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples?

For example, in the case of Beulah Print in Drogheda, the printer was asked by a salon owner, Jonathon Brennan, - who had been dealing with Beulah Print for four years, getting his business stationery, for his hairdressing business, printed by them – to print out his civil partnership invites.

The printer owners refused to print them out, based on their religious beliefs, saying they were against same sex marriage.

(Jonathon Brennan spoke about the issue on LMFM's Michael Reade Show on Thursday 5th March.)

http://www.lmfm.ie/Local-News-Info/Article/?ItemID=3666

http://www.lmfm.ie/Podcasts/Podcasts/Show.aspx?showalias=The-Michael-Reade-Show-1#6654

http://utv.vo.llnwd.net/o16/LMFM/2015/03/04/Loosetalk040315.mp3

But in asking the print company to print the invites, Jonathon Brennan wasn’t insulting or disrespecting the religious beliefs of the owners. He wasn’t asking the printer to print out a slogan insulting their religion, nor was he asking the business to print a slogan for the campaign for a Yes vote in the referendum.

I think it could be argued also, that in the case of Asher’s Bakery, that even if the customer - who asked the baking company to include, on the cake, a slogan endorsing gay marriage – knew about the owners religious beliefs, that they weren’t trying to insult the owners religious beliefs, in that they weren’t asking the owners to change their religious beliefs.

If, for example, either Beulah Print or Asher's Bakery had been asked to print out a slogan insulting any religious belief or religious organisation or Church, it would be understandable if either business refused to print it.

For example, when the band Cradle of Filth had t shirts out around 16 or 17 years ago with “Jesus is a ****” printed on the back, it would be understandable why a printing business with a religious ethos, would refuse to print them.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/offensive-cradle-of-filth-t-shirt-in-new-zealand-museum-exhibition/

http://metalhammer.teamrock.com/news/2015-02-13/offensive-cradle-of-filth-t-shirt-goes-on-display

But in the two recent cases of Asher’s Bakery and Beulah Print, it could be argued, I think, that neither of the company owners were being insulted because of their religious beliefs.

I think the fact that Beulah Print refused to print out the civil partnership invites, shows an intolerance of a union that has been legal in Ireland since 2010, and it also highlights a contradiction in the No campaign, in that, campaigners like David Quinn, who argued against the introduction of civil partnerships five years ago, were saying throughout the referendum campaign, to retain civil partnerships, even though he endorses the idea of introducing a conscience clause that would, for example, permit a business like Beulah Print, to refuse to print out civil partnership invitations.

hinault

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It is disingenuous because you are drawing a positive conclusion from negative evidence. Let me explain with an example. Let's say that I make a statement like this:

"Apples are great. Everyone should eat apples because God gave them to us as a gift."

Does this mean that apples are great? Certainly.

Does this mean that oranges should never be eaten or don't come from God. No. Not at all.

The fact that Jesus doesn't mention something only means that it wasn't recorded. It doesn't mean he condemened it. It means the gospel authors didn't make any mention of it.

Eh, I'm not drawing a conclusion from anything other than the complete absence of any reference to Jesus countenancing a relationship other than one between a man and a woman.

If one accepts that the gospel is the inerrant word of God, it is reasonable to assume that a directive about marriage would explicitly state that unions other than one man and one woman would be countenanced.
There isn't, because no such relationship was countenanced.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's get this out of the way first. The fact that the copies we have agree to each other does not mean that the texts themselves agree to the facts. Even if the gospel of Mark had been faithfully copied from the original every time (which of course it hasn't, i.e. 16:9-20) there is still a forty year gap between the composition of the gospel and the events it describes. So it doesn't matter how many copies there are of Mark now, it doesn't bridge the original gap between the events and the writing of the gospel.

Hold on there.

We possess over 5,000 copies of the gospels dating from the 1st centures, found throughout disparate locations all hand written, which agree with each other in 99% throughout.
In other words the copy of Mark found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Mark found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

And this applies with each of the other copies of the 1st century gospels.
Matthew, John, Luke, each of the copies of the 5,000+ first century versions replicate each other in 99%.

In other words the copy of John found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of John found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Matthew found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?


In other words the copy of Luke found in 1st century Rome, is exactly the same as the copy of Luke found in 1st century Syria, is exactly the same as the one found in 1st century Israel, among those 5,000 copies. OK?

I'm going to deal separately with the spurious points that you raise about gospel contradiction separately.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Eh, I'm not drawing a conclusion from anything other than the complete absence of any reference to Jesus countenancing a relationship other than one between a man and a woman.

If one accepts that the gospel is the inerrant word of God, it is reasonable to assume that a directive about marriage would explicitly state that unions other than one man and one woman would be countenanced.
There isn't, because no such relationship was countenanced.

That's exactly the point oldrnwisr was making.

To give another example.

A person tells people a story in which their dad drove them to the cinema to meet some friends.

What you are doing essentially, is claiming that based on the story they tell, that they are opposed to women drivers.