Hmmm. Says Paul. Jesus, however, thinks differently:
Luke 14: If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
So Jesus and Paul seem to be in contradiction here. I find it curious that you’ve decided to go with Paul over Jesus, who is supposed to be the son of God and founder of the entire religion.
You asked for the reason I held the seemingly ludicrous position that I have a primary duty to provide for my family, I gave you one.
If you want to cherry-pick verses and authorities to advance your proposition that a Christian ought to allow himself and others to die in order to satisfy the whims of others, you’re going to have to find a different dance partner.
This isn’t poker, where the guy who comes up with the best hand of Bible verses wins.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and attempted to explain myself to you. You responded by jumping up and down with a “No, you’re WRONG because LOOK AT THIS!”
You’re not interested in debate, you’re interested in a fight.
And thus, I answer your second question as would a Christian: by walking away from you.
Not quite. I don’t think it’s ludicrous that you have a duty to provide for your family. Jesus does. If you think it’s your primary duty to provide for your family, good for you. No argument here. But don’t try to attribute it to christianity, cause that isn’t where you got that value. It came from somewhere else.
Huh? I was responding to your cherry-picked verses. Let’s not have a double standard here, one standard will do just fine. Either cherry picking is ok, or it’s not.
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said you were wrong, I pointed out that the verses you quote are contradicted by others.
So NOW you’re going to act like a christian. Not dozens of posts ago, not when I offered a truce. No, you wait until there’s a question you can’t answer, and then pretend that as a christian you’re above getting involved in this type of thing. Do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
That may be some sort of comfort in Shirley-land, but here in reality, where we can read words and understand their meaning, your protestations do not carry a great deal of weight in light of what you’ve actually said in this thread.
In context, it looks a lot like you are saying you’re better than religious people. Did you say intrinsically better? No, but to claim that “better” is not even close to “intrinsically better” does strain the old credibility meter.
Well, you’ve shown that he didn’t get that value from Jesus…you didn’t show that he didn’t get that value from Christianity. Christianity might value family, even if Jesus didn’t.
Well Miller’s claim was that Shirley’s claim was “I’m better than religious people because I don’t believe in God, (paraphrased)” whereas Shirley’s claim seems to me to be “I’m better than religious people because I’m able to correct myself when I make an error. (paraphrased)” To me, Shirley’s claim isn’t any better or less insulting than what Miller claimed she said, but is different.
But DCMS didn’t claim that “better is not even close to intrinsically better”. He never even used the word better.
Seems he’s saying he’s more willing to change his mind and that he may be ignorant while others are delusional and if given the choice he’d rather remain ignorant. That’s not saying he’s “intrinsically better than all people who believe in God”. Saying one is better than another is a different matter.
If I claim I’m more able to admit my errors and that I’m less stubborn than folks with, say, special needs, I’m not exactly claiming to be better than them. The fact that Miller said that DCMS said he was intrinsically better than all people who believe in God makes his claim even more inaccurate.
But DCMS didn’t claim to be proud of it. It was a distinction between what he does and what he believes religious people do when confronted with error.
I won’t say all religious people do it, but many, if not most, come to a conclusion that their holy book is correct and then cherry pick evidence to support it instead of gathering evidence and then coming to a conclusion.
Provide enough evidence to Christians that there never was a global food and some will claim that the evidence must be wrong because the Bible says so and others will distort the story beyond what’s reasonable instead of plain accepting that it’s wrong.
Come to think of it, being able to admit one is wrong when so much of the world is unable to do so, may just be something to be proud of.
Hi kaylasdad. I never used the word “better,” I said I was different. But I won’t argue that “better” is a fair implication. However, you need to compare what Miller claimed with what I said. He didn’t go really off-track and into retardville until his second claim. Miller said:
The reason he claims that I claim I am better than people who believe in God is not even close to being correct. I claimed that I was different because I was willing to evaluate new evidence and admit that I was wrong when I am presented with new evidence. Not that I am “better” because I “don’t believe in God.” For your reference, my statement was:
His statement bears almost no resemblance to mine.
