DJA wrote:
DJA wrote:
Christian Seberino wrote:
On Mon, March 26, 2007 12:02 pm, Gabriel Sechan wrote:
Paul in the New Testament offers a solution for people who need
sex...
1 Cor 7:9 "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" The
Bible's
solution is *marriage*. It never says to be repressed. You may
not like
the Bible's solution but it certainly does *not* command repression.
That is repression. The fact that they allow a narrow outlet (oh,
and you
better make it right the first time, because you can't take that
choice
back) doesn't stop it from being repression. Most repressive
political
regimes have 1 outlet, its useful for their control of their
populace. No
outlet means something will eventually burst. Giving an outlet
means it
can
be controlled.
What do you mean? Do you mean we should be free to do absolutely
anything
we want or else we are being "repressed"? There are many things
that are
partially controlled for good reasons. When someone gets angry
there is a
proper controlled way to deal with it. We wouldn't say they are
allowed
to get a gun and go completely crazy to not feel repressed.
That's a specious argument, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
Likewise,
marriage is a responsible way to deal with certain needs.
Sex does not biologically require marriage. Marriage is a social
contract, not a moral imperative for those who want to have sex, the
(mostly mis-transcribed and/or made up [1]) opinions of a 2000 years
dead theologist notwithstanding.
There are many
good reasons for marrying not just for individuals but for society as a
whole.
Chris
Well, duh. There are also many good reasons for having sex, not just
for individuals, but for society as a whole. However, the two are not
intrinsically intertwined except in some peoples' heads.
Forgot the footnote:
[1] "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. 2005 HarperSanFrancisco
ISBN-13: 978-0-06-073817-4.
I'm afraid you'll have to do more to support your beliefs than just
quoting the Bible (I suspect this is true to some degree of most any
other religions' primary scriptures as well).
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than Bart D. Erman to subsantiate
your position.
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/others/misunderstanding-christianity-do-scribal-changes-really-matter-and-why.html
<excerpt>
In /Misquoting Jesus/, Bart Ehrman seems, on the surface, to present a
convincing case for the lack of trustworthiness of the New Testament
based on changes to the ancient manuscripts during the scribal copying
process, particularly in the second and third centuries. Unfortunately,
he is not always the objective scholar that he claims to be. This work,
while providing an interesting documentary on the discipline of textual
criticism, only tells half the story.
Although Ehrman acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of these
scribal changes are those (such as spelling errors) that are, in his own
words, "completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance" (p.
207), he repeatedly breezes over this critical point and focuses instead
on the much rarer intentional scribal additions or changes, most of
which have already been removed in our modern translations or, even if
preserved, have little or no impact on Christian doctrine.
In addition, Ehrman often misrepresents the body of modern scholarship
as agreeing with him on controversial matters when, in fact, some of the
most highly acclaimed New Testament scholars — including Ehrman’s own
mentor, Bruce Metzger — disagree with him. Although, at the end of the
book, Ehrman admits that "competent … highly intelligent scholars often
come to opposite conclusions" (p. 208), until that point, he repeatedly
uses the inclusive term "scholars" or "most scholars" to support his
conclusions, even though this is rarely true.
Particularly disturbing is when Ehrman speculates on issues of
authenticity based on his own personal opinion or responses to the text
rather than any historical evidence (for example, he views minor
differences from one gospel to another as deliberate attempts to change
the message and present a different view of history) then, later in the
book, switches from calling these statements of speculation to
statements of fact.
Take, for example, his contention that Matthew and Luke deliberately
“deleted” references to Jesus’ emotion (either compassion or anger,
depending on the variant reading one chooses) in healing the leper in
Mark 1:41. Because Ehrman prefers the rarer variant reading that Jesus
was angry rather than compassionate, he argues that Matthew and Luke’s
more sparse descriptions were deliberate attempts to hide what he
believes would have been an embarrassing fact. Ehrman’s contention
ignores the glaring problem that, if the gospel writers had penchant for
removing embarrassing references, they overlooked far more embarrassing
ones, such as Peter’s rejection of Jesus, Thomas’ unbelief, and the fact
that the empty tomb was discovered by women. If they left in /these
/embarrassing details, why would they go out of their way to omit
something as innocuous as this? More importantly, the contention that
this is a deliberate omission (thus casting doubt on the motives of the
writers) is a personal interpretation overlaid on the text — and one
completely baseless in fact.
Subjective Rejection
Ironically, Ehrman uses his training in textual criticism as the basis
for rejecting his Christian faith. And yet, even in Ehrman’s own tacit
admission, not one example given in the book touches the core teachings
of Christianity.
Certainly, some scribal additions bolstered the New Testament’s claims
to Jesus’ divinity, for example, but there are a plethora of references,
including Jesus’ own words, that are not under dispute. And not one of
these discrepancies calls into question the heart of the Christian
message, including the details concerning the atoning death, trial, and
resurrection of Christ, which form the heart of the Christian faith.
</excerpt>
The entire article is quite good to denounce your supposed expert.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
