That last sentence is interesting. The crusades began when the Knights Templar (monks) put together an international  army that ravaged, raped and murdered thousands. Christianity has always been corrupted. As soon as the world is done with all religion it will be a better place.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:46am:


So why are slaves accepted as part of life in your book?

SOB

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:


The incest lobby agrees wholeheartedly with your statement.
Live and let live they always say.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:


yeah and who runs all those schools?  church.  who runs all thos hospitals? church.  who founded social welfare? church

yeah terrible people

Quantum wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:38am:


This thread is about Rudd arguing with a pastor over gay marriage, so it would be reasonable for me to have assumed that's what you cared about. I went back to the post I replied to and in the quote I was responding to, you were saying "Kevin is putting on a show." I assumed you were talking about gay marriage then.

You didn't put enough emphasis on the statement that you weren't talking about gay marriage, so every time you mentioned anything that was associated with gay marriage, like "Kevin putting on a show" or Kevin going against mainstream Christian ideology, I assumed you were still talking about that.

Quantum wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:38am:


Actually I think it's E. P. Sanders who has the "new perspective on Paul" thing. I actually haven't explored the views of those three scholars in depth. I've been looking at other stuff, but based on the little I have read on N. T. Wright, he seems to have a different view. E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright and Geza Vermes all have different views on Jesus. The important thing is that their views on Jesus differ from mainstream Christianity.

Quantum wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 9:38am:


Many of Jesus' teachings in the Synoptic Gospels have their basis in Jewish oral tradition. This has huge implications for biblical interpretation and biblical authority.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:50am:


I was talking about biblical interpretation. If that's the topic, then I was on topic.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:50am:


It isn't that simple. You have to know the history and context of the text. As a biblical scholar you should be familiar with the terms "exegesis" and "hermeneutics." You should know that you don't just take the words in the Bible for granted. They have a history and context.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 10:50am:


If you have really been reading my posts carefully, you'd know that I definitely do not accept "anything" or "everything" and my "position" hasn't been "changing." If that was the case, I wouldn't have consistently been in disagreement with you in this thread.

I think I have been quite clear that your views on biblical interpretation and therefore biblical authority are overly simplistic. Here's one example of your overly simplistic thinking:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:


FYI, you can believe in all the prophets, in all of Jesus' miracles and still disagree on important issues. If you think your attitude fixes everything then you're wrong. It does the complete opposite, which is why Christianity has split into dozens of sects. Judaism had the same problem 2,000 years ago, which is why Jesus asked the question, "which is the most important commandment?" Some things are more important than others. It's relative.

Mnemonic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:


no, Quantum and I disagree with you because you have a wishy-washy view of the Bible.  I believe in its inerrancy and that it is all 100% the Word of God.  You can quote all your 'alternative' writers all you like.  They've all come and gone a hundred times before and the Bible remains inerrant.

We fell that Rudd has taken his Christian beliefs and biblical doctrines and thrown them out the window just to seek more votes. to most people , they don't care since they don't really care about the Bible anyhow.  But I do.  Rudd has shown that NOTHING is beyond selling for votes.  His attacking the Bible on slavery was pitiful.  He clearly knows very little about the Bible and even more obviously, doesn't care a great deal.