California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

[Baylorguy]

I think it is necessary, since most everyone uses the Bible extensively as their support for arguments, to examine the Bible's validity and reliability.

What we have to remember is that Jesus taught his disciples orally; Jesus wrote nothing himself. It follows that traditions about Jesus were circulated by word of mouth, because they were not committed to writing until at least two decades after his death.

Word of mouth is highly volatile.

It was around 40 years after his death until the first canonical gospel was composed, the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not an eyewitness to the events he reports.

The entire New Testament was completed within 70 years of the crucifixion of Christ. That being said, you are missing an obvious but important piece to what you said. This is plenty of time for anyone who was around (including an eyewitness to the works of Christ) to contest or challenge the validity of New Testament writings. Surely one person out of thousands would have stepped up and argued against the credibility of the writings. Curiously, not one ancient manuscript or text ever records a challenge as to the validity of the New Testament writings. You have to also keep in mind that many early Christians died horrible deaths for what they believed... I would not die for sketchy information, would you?

You challenge the validity of the New Testament, yet would you ever question the writings of Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato or any other ancient writing? Probably not... yet these writings pale in comparison to the manuscriptual evidence for the New Testament. As an example, there are approximately 5,600 Greek manuscripts in existence for the New Testament. What about Homer's Iliad? A mere 643 manuscripts... And this is best case scenario. The other writings I mentioned have far less support.

If you are willing to accept these other ancient writings, you must on the basis of accuracy and supporting manuscripts accept the historicity and validity of the New Testament. If on the other hand you reject the New Testament, you must also reject the credibility of virtually all ancient texts.

Another thing is between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, they incorporate nearly all of Mark's gospel into their own gospels, often almost word for word (Markan Priority). In addition, Matthew and Luke make use of a presumed "lost gospel" called "Q" which is a "sayings" gospel (with no narrative framework) almost word for word. Finally, Matthew and Luke make use of information that is unknown to each other, Mark, and "Q."

You fail to mention that the Gospel of Q is hypothetical and nothing more. There is no proof that it ever existed. Two things here... even if the Gospel of Q existed and was used as a reference of other New Testament documents, it does not invalidate Godly inspiration. If one copies from a reliable source, is it not inspired? Copying from an earlier source (Q) does not invalidate New Testament historicity; if anything, it lessens the time interval between when the events happened and when they were actually recorded.

As far as Mark being used as a source for Matthew and Luke... there is no problem. Mark was a disciple of Peter, who was a direct eyewitness and essentially the father of the early church. Furthermore, Matthew, who was a disciple of Jesus, agrees with the writings in Mark. Based on literary credibility and the concept of eyewitnesses, your 'blow' to New Testament credibility falls far short of the mark.

This implies that the New Testament is not reliable at all as a source.

No, it doesn't.

Basically I just wanted to inform--this applies to the New Testament only--you guys about these "quirks" of the New Testament.

I know you probably have good intentions... so please do not take offense to this. Your intent of informing has done just the opposite; it has misinformed, which is the very reason why I have been posting on this thread. That is, an abundance of faulty information and a great lack of truth.

 

[Nitecrawler]

I had something posted here, but have since lost interest in this debate.

 

[Pyro]

First off do you even know what this verse means, or the context that it was used in? You obviously don't and I never said I was without sin.

Do you even know what this verse means?? Context be buggered! (but it was for the stoning of a prostitute.) It is the moral/message of that passage that is relevant: Only (s)he who is without sin is fit to pass judgment upon another. And you make my argument beautifully for me. You are correct that you never said you were without sin but you sure are quick to pass judgement on others...

I don't believe I'm arranging a gay marriage, so please show me where my plank is.

Now who is misapplying context. Again, you ignore the moral of the story: do not point out the flaws of others without admitting to the flaws in yourself. And again I say, you are sure quick to point out how everyone else's view is wrong while ignoring any possibility that your view might be even slightly askew.

My values and where I get my values from may run counter to others on here, I agree.

Values are not the issue at hand here. BaylorGuy has different values than others here as well. And yet I did not direct these answers at him because while he has said that the bible shapes his world view he has not used that world view to oppress or pass judgment upon others.

I stand by my citations. Those passages reflect that mortal man is not fit or free to pass judgement on his fellows. And, by passing judgment on some of those who have contributed to this thread, you are therefore ignoring certain portions of the bible at the same time you are using others to justify your behavior.


Point being there is but one single entity that has the right to judge me or JLAP or Baylor or anyone else be they straight, gay or other. And you ain't that entity.

 

[Outsiders71]

Do you even know what this verse means?? Context be buggered! (but it was for the stoning of a prostitute.) It is the moral/message of that passage that is relevant: Only (s)he who is without sin is fit to pass judgment upon another. And you make my argument beautifully for me. You are correct that you never said you were without sin but you sure are quick to pass judgement on others...

I don't believe I ever picked up a stone or said to stone anyone. I have not passed judgment on anyone either.

Now who is misapplying context. Again, you ignore the moral of the story: do not point out the flaws of others without admitting to the flaws in yourself. And again I say, you are sure quick to point out how everyone else's view is wrong while ignoring any possibility that your view might be even slightly askew.

Actually the moral of the story here is not to pick out the flaw of someone while you have the same exact flaw. AKA hypocrisy.

In the construct of the Bible I don't believe I was wrong in anything I've said.

Values are not the issue at hand here. BaylorGuy has different values than others here as well. And yet I did not direct these answers at him because while he has said that the bible shapes his world view he has not used that world view to oppress or pass judgment upon others.

Yes because I'm oppressing people and passing judgment . Have you bent to the level of forum troll?

The only thing I've been discussing here is:

1) I believe Gays should have the same rights as heterosexual marriages.
2) I believe the institution of marriage should not be redefined, and instead another name used.

I stand by my citations. Those passages reflect that mortal man is not fit or free to pass judgement on his fellows. And, by passing judgment on some of those who have contributed to this thread, you are therefore ignoring certain portions of the bible at the same time you are using others to justify your behavior.

Sigh. Show me where I have passed judgment on someone. Did I condemn anyone to death or hell? Please do show me.

Your ploy to have me stop speaking the truth of the Bible won't work.

Point being there is but one single entity that has the right to judge me or JLAP or Baylor or anyone else be they straight, gay or other. And you ain't that entity.

And you have now officially flown over the Coo-Coo's nest.

 

[Pyro]

And you have now officially flown over the Coo-Coo's nest.

You are right, I must be a complete and total nutjob to say that only God has the right to judge me and that you are not him. Guess I better change my avatar...

Sigh. Show me where I have passed judgment on someone. Did I condemn anyone to death or hell? Please do show me.

You know, you are absolutely right. You have not said a single judgmental thing. Not once. Especially not two following things. They are not judgmental or veiled insults. Not in the slightest. They are absolute and accurate assessments of who and what I am.

And you have now officially flown over the Coo-Coo's nest.

Have you bent to the level of forum troll?

One of these days I rally am going to listen to the little voice in my head when it tells me not to bother...

Cuckoo super nutjob troll signing off.

 

[rattler]

Have you bent to the level of forum troll?



And you have now officially flown over the Coo-Coo's nest.

i have stayed out of this, hell havent read even 10% of it.....but thats some funny stuff right there Pyro a troll? TFF

 

[Outsiders71]

i have stayed out of this, hell havent read even 10% of it.....but thats some funny stuff right there Pyro a troll? TFF

Dig into this mess rattler and you'll see why I questioned him. He comes out of nowhere and accuses me of judging and condemning people, which I have not. He has added nothing to this discussion besides stirring the pot.

 

[rattler]

no actually he has made very valid points that you choose to ignore......Pyro most definatly aint the issue here........

 

[JB_OrchidGuy]

OMG if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black there. I have no clue what outsider has typed as I am not ignoring his troll behind. If anyone is a troll it is Outsider. 90% of his posts are in these religious threads or in a political one. I think I may have seen one or two posts in a plant related thread.

I have had the feeling you have been judging everyone in this thread outsider. Since the beginning. Why do you think I get so emotionaly charged reading your posts because they are so underhandedly dripping with reticule and sarcasm. All the while trying to pass your "moral" views.

 

[scottychaos]

One of these days I rally am going to listen to the little voice in my head when it tells me not to bother...

I dont understand why anyone bothers..
its obvious you cant fight religious fanatacism with logic or reason..
they are immune to it..they HAVE to be immue to it in order to hold the beliefs they do.

hence..its not worth it..dont bother..

the sky is pink..

scot

 

[Outsiders71]

no actually he has made very valid points that you choose to ignore......Pyro most definatly aint the issue here........

Listen, I'm not here to play forum buddy favorites, but if you want to step into this mess please provide me a quote of what I said that has anything to do with Pyro said. You arrive on the scene stating you've only ready 10% of this what 18 page thread and you some how know his statements have merit. Please. I have not judged anyone or condemned anyone. I only suggested my opinion why marriage should not be redefined and yes I used the Bible as my basis (which is the origin of marriage).

 

[Outsiders71]

OMG if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black there. I have no clue what outsider has typed as I am not ignoring his troll behind. If anyone is a troll it is Outsider. 90% of his posts are in these religious threads or in a political one. I think I may have seen one or two posts in a plant related thread.

First off lets practice some word comprehension. I said "Have you bent to the level of a forum troll?". I never said he was one.

Secondly I haven't had much time for my CP hobby so yes I haven't posted much in that realm lately. So now all the sudden I'm a troll? Lets face it folks, certain people don't want my voice heard on here. Too bad.

I have had the feeling you have been judging everyone in this thread outsider. Since the beginning. Why do you think I get so emotionaly charged reading your posts because they are so underhandedly dripping with reticule and sarcasm. All the while trying to pass your "moral" views.

1) I have not judged anyone.
2) Why is your opinion the only allowed expressed opinion.

 

[scottychaos]

http://www.cagle.com/news/GayMarriageCA/images/thompson.jpg

 

[Outsiders71]

I dont understand why anyone bothers..
its obvious you cant fight religious fanatacism with logic or reason..
they are immune to it..they HAVE to be immue to it in order to hold the beliefs they do.

hence..its not worth it..dont bother..

the sky is pink..

scot

So now we're going to label me a religious fanatic. Then what shall we call you Scot, a lukewarm Christian?

 

[rattler]

nah but i have argued this subject with you before......i know your arguments....have read the last few pages with Pyro's posts....he presents new ideas, you present the same old crap.....has nothing to do with "forum buddies" hell im "forum buddies" with Clint and argue with him on crap all the time cause we dont see eye to eye....Bruce and i have gone rounds and rounds for years yet i have no issues calling him a "forum buddy"......

everyone here knows your views cause you make the same damn argument over and over and refuse to use any logic at all.....you have your beliefs and thats fine but if you aint going to budge on any of your thoughts why bother arguing with ppl.......all your going to do is piss ppl off and not convert anyone cause you refuse to look at anything in any other light but your own.....never seen you concede that someone else with a view different than your own has a good incite.....

 

[Outsiders71]

everyone here knows your views cause you make the same damn argument over and over and refuse to use any logic at all.....you have your beliefs and thats fine but if you aint going to budge on any of your thoughts why bother arguing with ppl.......all your going to do is piss ppl off and not convert anyone cause you refuse to look at anything in any other light but your own.....never seen you concede that someone else with a view different than your own has a good incite.....

I would rather people be pissed off by knowing the truth then by believing distorted versions of it. Conceding to people by promoting values that are counter to God, never converted anybody either.

 

[rattler]

I would rather people be pissed off by knowing the truth then by believing distorted versions of it. Conceding to people by promoting values that are counter to God, never converted anybody either.

never said to conceed....and pissed off ppl never conceed to your views weither your right our not....

 

[JB_OrchidGuy]

I would rather people be pissed off by knowing the truth then by believing distorted versions of it. Conceding to people by promoting values that are counter to God, never converted anybody either.

And this is coming from a young person who is only 23 y/o who has the best possible view of the world ever and knows everything. Hell he hasn't even finished maturing yet.

 

[Outsiders71]

never said to conceed....and pissed off ppl never conceed to your views weither your right our not....

My goal is not to conquer terraforums, or try to convert people to my views. I'm just stating or correcting the one side of the story that is either 1) never told or 2) twisted and distorted. You don't see me getting all bent out of shape because people have opposing views.

 

[Outsiders71]

And this is coming from a young person who is only 23 y/o who has the best possible view of the world ever and knows everything. Hell he hasn't even finished maturing yet.

Since when is age called into question here at terraforums? Secondly do you know first hand my upbringing or maturity level or my life experiences? I suppose after your last string of replies in this thread, that you're going to suggest that you are the incarnation of maturity and wisdom?