Wasn't Twain the damnedest ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is the Spirituality forum. Debates is next door.

Are you saying that rational debates are not possible in the Spirituality Forum? Or that insults are integral to discussions on this forum? Or both?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You try to be insulting and demeaning all the time. You just suck at it.

You're right. Would I be better at it if I called people names like "snotnose", "nitpicker" and "weasel" all the time?

Originally posted by bbarr
That's a dumb (and trivial) slogan, not a substantive description of Aristotle's ethical theory.

And the Golden Rule is a substantive description of Jesus's?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Seriously; have you ever actually read the Bible?

I think the non-believers here know that passage better than the xians. No surprise really what with those reddish-pink spectacles of theirs getting in the way.

Originally posted by telerion
I think the non-believers here know that passage better than the xians. No surprise really what with those reddish-pink spectacles of theirs getting in the way.

That may be true in a lot (maybe even most) cases. I was taught quite early on that the first six or seven books in the Bible weren't meant to be taken literally and also that the Levitical laws had been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That may be true in a lot (maybe even most) cases. I was taught quite early on that the first six or seven books in the Bible weren't meant to be taken literally and also that the Levitical laws had been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.

No worries. You've already demonstrated to me that you have a good knowledge of the scripture.

Edit: But you're not a xian, remember? You're a Catholic.

Originally posted by telerion
Edit: But you're not a xian, remember? You're a Catholic.

😀

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And the Golden Rule is a substantive description of Jesus's?

No, it's a instance of a general approach to ethics that is philosophically unsatisfactory.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, it's a instance of a general approach to ethics that is philosophically unsatisfactory.

I'm guessing that's because of the "What would a masochist do?" question?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Seriously; have you ever actually read the Bible?

Seriously: yes. Did you have a question requiring an answer therein?

Originally posted by bbarr
A person's influence is no indication of their genius (see G.W Bush). Jesus' moral teachings were relatively simplistic, and many of his claims succumb to fairly obvious counterexamples. Even my introductory students have no problem coming up with counterexamples to the Golden Rule. Aristotle's ethical theory is incomparably better than Jesus'. If you thro interesting and meaningful work, and to cultivate nourishing personal relationships.

Bush, Clinton, et al, are temporary players on the scene, affecting a transient influence soon to be relegated to the novelties of the past. While Jesus' moral teachings are rather rudimentary in nature, His revelation of God is something in an altogether different category. Of course counterexamples are available with any moral code which rests on certain postulations; certainly Aristotles' table stands on legs as well.

Throwing a dart in Harvard's faculty lounge will yield any number of geniuses relative to their chosen fields. Let's see one of them alter the course of history in such a manner as to change the way we date the same.

And the truth of Christianity does follow their genius, as Christianity was the main course, not a side dish. To throw Bertrand Russell in the same company is laughable.

You say we should believe Jesus when He "declaims on Judiac doctrine," shows you either know nothing of history or you assume others won't challenge such an absurd assertion. Why should anyone believe Jesus' teachings relative to Judiasm? He certainly didn't receive the traditional training commensurate with authority, wasn't ordained according to the traditions of the time. etc. He was an intinerant preacher, possessing no authority but the popular vote of a few people. His sum total of writings amount to an undetermined scratching in the dirt! Can't have it both ways on this one.

I will agree that Christianity (the religion) has been used in many manner of hurtful ways. This holds true for everything man touches, unfortunately. Any method of authority with which man can pry others can be/has been/will be used toward nefarious ends.

You don't stop teaching because others have used their teaching authority to molest children, do you? I do not cease to be a father simply because other fathers have forced themselves on their children. We do not cease to be patriotic simply because some are using love of country against us.

Christianity as a relationship with God is not a religion in the sense of things one can/must do to win the approbation of God. The issue in Christianity is not sin, it is Jesus Christ: what do you say (believe) about Jesus Christ? That is the issue in salvation, for every person to answer for themselves.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
So apparently, the bible must not be the final authority on all matters, remotely related or otherwise. It doesn't even have any good chess advice.

I.e., chess doesn't really "matter."

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you suggest that he become dumber so that he can embrace Christianity?

What on earth did this last comment mean if not that?

Nemesio

From our beginnings, we take everything on faith. Even the building blocks of knowledge to ascertain that 1+1=2 is taken on faith. As we gather enough building blocks to begin creating something of our own (or, at least we think it's our own), we gradually move further and further away from faith into the realms of reason, philosophy and etc. And yet all that we have in all capacties is based on faith.

It certainly does not require a dumbing down in order to accept the veracity of Scripture (and its power). However, one must at least acquiesce the fulcrum of faith in ones life. Reason, philosophy or mastery of any of the tangibles of this life can only take a person so far. It has been my experience that those who reject the God of the Bible do so not based on the evidence or lack thereof. Instead, they do so on the basis of expecting God to answer to them.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]... it is that god's responsibility to make himself known

Then how come I don't know him?[/b]

Well, you certainly know of Him!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I.e., chess doesn't really "matter."

"all matters" = "all potential subjects of discussion". In that context, the word 'matter' does not speak to the relevance of the subject, which is why the claim, "the Bible is the final authority on all matters" sounds absurd.