Evangelicals, Trump and a Quick Bible Study

[Dundee]

I  know those fanatical evangelicals.
They are the worst of the worst!

[Abaddon_ire]

See i knew you wanted to play!

Abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a being where the social contract would apply. Your own Bible says as much, though I defer to science. 
So are you saying the OT got it wrong? Was that not also penned under the influence of Yahweh? Or did Yahweh change his mind? And please cite for me in the NT where it now says "life begins at conception". 

that does not follow.. does abortion only happen at conception? in west virginia abortion can happen after birth. why would it need to focus on life beginning at conception when you monsters are killing babies after they leave the womb? show me where a completely viable/ can live outside the mother is not considered murder. in fact I can look up the statute but if a woman is carring a baby she intends on keeping and it has a heart beat it is considered murder if someone where to kill that baby. so again show me where killing a fully developed baby is not murder as i have demonstrated it is a abortion practice.

You are an idiot. All of my children were planned. The first spontaneously aborted at 12 weeks. I and wife wept. We went on to have the planned two. The eldest is now an adult. Both are atheist through no doing of mine. The simple fact that you blame the parents for miscarriages makes you a scumbag.

Same question as before. Are you saying the OT is wrong? 

not for OT jews. Christians are not Ot jews. even jews today are not OT jews nor do they nor can they live by the law you are too foolish to not apply to people in a completely different religion.

Moron. Your jebus endorses the OT. Have you not read your magic book? That's embarrassing.

So the OT is wrong then?

not for ot jews. NT christian live by the law in it's completed form. which boils down to 2 laws. so no need to itemize.

Nope. There are 613 laws and your jebus endorsed all of them in the NT. Want chapter and verse for the book you never read? I can provide that, but you don't want it.

sanctified marriage is the key.

Had one, didn't work. got financially raped and got the hell out. Starting to wonder if you have ever even had a relationship of any sort.

Show me chapter and verse where it says "one man and one woman"

are you lying to yourself and me or too stupid to make the distinction i made fit your understanding? sanctified does not mean one man one woman intellectually dishonest paladin.. it means man and woman, numbers of man and women can vary. in the ot it was ok to take on as many wives as yo could afford. in the nt paul limited this to one man and one woman in 1 cor 7. as the discussion of justifying homosexuality comes down to sanctification defined as man and woman not numbers of husbands to wives is unimportant, as the different sexes are being highlighted. which again is narrowed down to one man and one woman in nt times. either way this still excludes any type of homosexual relationship as same sex partners can not find a sanctified example of same sex marriage. your argument is over sport. don't make me drag you through the mud. if you have questions ask them nicely.

1/2 truth= whole liar. man and woman appears in the bible as being the only case for a marriage god approves.

Why should anyone care what some magic book has to say about anything at all? Does that mean Harry Potter is real? Because it is in a book?

But not ONE man and ONE woman. Dance around that point all you like. 

So the bible is wrong?

apples and oranges/misdirection/red herring. because the subject matter is homosexual marriage, not number of spouses. to which despite the number of women david was married to at one time the only relevant point to this discussion of gay marriage is all his partners were born female.. Hence sanctified marriage.

Is there some part of the word "ONE" that you find confusing? 

Yes. It conflicts with the bible claim of hundreds.

After this point you wander off into myth so I don't care about that.

Your mythology means fuck all to me, or to anyone with a brain.

---

As an atheist, I hold bible study with my children, We read it. I know what is in it, but they are shocked what is mandated in it.

Genocide, incest, human sacrifice, rape, and on and on through a catalog of atrocity. Why are my kids atheist? Because we read the evil book.

Something Drich will never do.

Now, I intentionally did not impose atheism on my kids, I wanted them to reach their own conclusions.

And they did. And I was proud of them.

My eldest is in the place of saying "Got any evidence? No? Then fuck right off"

The younger is in the position of "fashion". If it aint about "fashion" she doesn't care. Not surprising.

But given our bible study, we always end up in a place. They will say "No way the bible says that" to which I reply "let me open the magic book because it really does".
Some reading later, they will say "that's nukking futs" (paraphrased)

Anyhoo, I introduced them to Drich posts. Do you think you can guess their response? Yep, even children can spot a clown.

[Jehanne]

Jesus never said anything about either abortion or gay rights. He did, however, spend a lot of time talking about the things that liberals like. He denounced greed. He instructed us to care for the poor and unfortunate. He healed the sick. He preached a message of peace.

Do an experiment for me, would you?  Get an old (or, even new, they are still sold) red-letter Bible, the type that have the words of Jesus in the Gospels colored in red, and read the Gospel of Mark.  If and when you do this, you will not find many words of Jesus in Mark.  As for Matthew and Luke, most of the so-called words of Jesus come from a hypothetical source which scholars call 'Q'.  As for John, the Jesus Seminar, in its Five Gospels, coded John as being entirely in black, indicating, in the Fellows opinion, that not a single phrase found in the Gospel of John can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

As so, the words of Jesus have, largely, been lost to time.  In any case, the earliest words of Jesus are, clearly, apocalyptic.  He was not an ethical teacher, even if he, on occasion, taught ethics.  The Romans, respecting the rule of law and tradition, both Roman and non, did not execute individuals for teaching ethics, only for sedition against the empire and other crimes, and almost certainly, that's what landed Jesus in trouble.

[Fake Messiah]

As for Matthew and Luke, most of the so-called words of Jesus come from a hypothetical source which scholars call 'Q'. 

Actually, most of Jesus words come from old testament.

[Jehanne]

As for Matthew and Luke, most of the so-called words of Jesus come from a hypothetical source which scholars call 'Q'. 

Actually, most of Jesus words come from old testament.

Problem is that Jesus did not speak them.  Third generation Christians came along put those words on his lips.

[Fake Messiah]

Problem is that Jesus did not speak them.  Third generation Christians came along put those words on his lips.

Sure, considering that the only historical person on which Jesus was based was when Mark borrowed the trial from Josephus's story of Jesus ben-Ananias. Ben-Ananias preached about the soon-coming judgment, the destruction of the temple, and the end of ordinary life, for example, weddings (Matthew 24:38). Ben-Ananias was then hauled before the Roman procurator, who interrogated him but got only silence for an answer, and was ultimately let go with little flogging.

So if you consider Jesus ben-Ananias as historical Jesus then Jesus didn't say any of that, but again, almost everything Jesus "said" was copied from the old testament, and perhaps the bigger question is: what makes someone who constantly quotes what other people said special?

[Pat Mustard]

Jesus never said anything about either abortion or gay rights. He did, however, spend a lot of time talking about the things that liberals like. He denounced greed. He instructed us to care for the poor and unfortunate. He healed the sick. He preached a message of peace.

Do an experiment for me, would you?  Get an old (or, even new, they are still sold) red-letter Bible, the type that have the words of Jesus in the Gospels colored in red, and read the Gospel of Mark.  If and when you do this, you will not find many words of Jesus in Mark.  As for Matthew and Luke, most of the so-called words of Jesus come from a hypothetical source which scholars call 'Q'.  As for John, the Jesus Seminar, in its Five Gospels, coded John as being entirely in black, indicating, in the Fellows opinion, that not a single phrase found in the Gospel of John can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

As so, the words of Jesus have, largely, been lost to time.  In any case, the earliest words of Jesus are, clearly, apocalyptic.  He was not an ethical teacher, even if he, on occasion, taught ethics.  The Romans, respecting the rule of law and tradition, both Roman and non, did not execute individuals for teaching ethics, only for sedition against the empire and other crimes, and almost certainly, that's what landed Jesus in trouble.

Most of Mark is deriverd from the apocryphal Q, biblical "scholars" also believe.

[Jehanne]

Do an experiment for me, would you?  Get an old (or, even new, they are still sold) red-letter Bible, the type that have the words of Jesus in the Gospels colored in red, and read the Gospel of Mark.  If and when you do this, you will not find many words of Jesus in Mark.  As for Matthew and Luke, most of the so-called words of Jesus come from a hypothetical source which scholars call 'Q'.  As for John, the Jesus Seminar, in its Five Gospels, coded John as being entirely in black, indicating, in the Fellows opinion, that not a single phrase found in the Gospel of John can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

As so, the words of Jesus have, largely, been lost to time.  In any case, the earliest words of Jesus are, clearly, apocalyptic.  He was not an ethical teacher, even if he, on occasion, taught ethics.  The Romans, respecting the rule of law and tradition, both Roman and non, did not execute individuals for teaching ethics, only for sedition against the empire and other crimes, and almost certainly, that's what landed Jesus in trouble.

Most of Mark is deriverd from the apocryphal Q, biblical "scholars" also believe.

What is your source for that claim?

[The Grand Nudger]

The source of the Q Hypothesis is, essentially, a venn diagram of when and how the synoptic gospels agree and disagree.

One of two things must be true. Some order of the synoptic gospels resolves the synoptic problem, the double tradition problem, and the triple tradition problem..... or some order -plus- the addition of an (or many) unknown sources account for the synoptic problem, the double tradition problem, and the triple tradition problem.

IDK if it fits to call it apocryphal, though. It's status as apocrypha, in this context, is an accident of history and not a comment on it's state as fundamental to christian belief.

[Fake Messiah]

Q seems to be a forced conjecture from people who desperately want there to be some historical Jesus behind the gospels. I don't see why it couldn't be that Mark wrote his gospel first and then Matthew copied Mark and added a few more things and then Luke copied them both and added a few of his things.

But then again, maybe Q did exist as from of sayings from Torah and that some people started prescribing those saying to some hypotheticall guy.