[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...My theological positions were adopted after much personal study. Was I influenced by teachers and Pastors? Sure but, I have always attempted to put the authority of scriptures above any man.

So, how would you respond if I made the same claim: that "I have always attempted to put the authority of scriptures above any man"?

Do you see the problem here? You have an idea of what constitutes "scriptural authority" and I have an idea about what constitutes "scriptural authority", and we both apply these ideas to the biblical text. Furthermore, how can you even know that your own positions are purely "biblical", and that you are not unduly influenced by your own pre-existing sympathies? By your current socioeconomic situation? By your own intelligence and literacy? By your own impression of literature and its purposes and function?

In short, you are attempting to make a claim of objectivity in a venue in which pure objectivity is virtually impossible. Whether you like it or not; regardless of how carefully you try to deflect your own biases and prejudices, you will never help but to see yourself in everything that you read. I think that in light of this, the most pragmatic thing to do is to admit and to embrace one's own interpretive biases. The best model for applying "scriptural authority" is that which is most self-aware of its own weakness, and which is keenly attuned to conforming with the best available evidence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...I have also always held dogma to be a public matter; Something I am willing to debate and defend.

I keep inviting you to challenge me on any individual points with which you disargee, and you continue to return volley with the same, tiresome charge of "German rationalism". Until I see you actually engage with specific points of challenge to your position, then I will choose to disbelieve that you are at all willing or able "to debate and defend."

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...The reason why I site (sic.) biblical scholars and councils is two fold:

I have yet to see you cite ANY biblical scholars or any actual sources with which I could counter.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Firstly, your beliefs again because of your philosophy(german rationalism) are not main stream. You aren't representative of that faith once delivered Jude was talking about....

This is preposterously laughable. In the first place, even if what you say about my position being outside of the mainstream were true, why would this even matter? "Truth" and "reality" are not matters of public opinion, and I strain to form my positions on the basis of the best available evidence, regardless of how closely they conform to popular opinion. In the second place, who appointed YOU to be the arbiter of what is or is not "representative of that faith once delivered"?

Again, you have an opinion about what that is, and I have a counter opinion, and because my position is at enmity with yours, you have declared victory by fiat. It's convenient for you, but sadly, arguments are won and lost and positions are formed most effectively on the body of the best available evidence. Where is your evidence?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Now I know because of your philosophy you believe the goal posts has changed many times in scriptures and through out the centuries. What you fail to see is that you are the one moving them.

In actual fact, I believe the problem here is that YOU cannot recognize your own influences and biases, and how these affect YOUR reading of the text. You talk about the goal posts as if you have no effect on their placement.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Marriage in scriptures has always been between a man and a women.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? I don't think you even understand my arguments in this debate, but I most certainly have never challenged the notion of marriage in Scripture as it is consistently presented to preclude same-sex unions. (However, I would argue at this point that it has NOT always been between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. There are dozens of prominent examples and teachings from Scripture that show that polygamous marriage was tolerated, and that this position changed over time).

Furthermore, I have taken great care to show that the reasons behind the scriptural teachings on marriage are not straightforward, and that they require considerable and careful deliberation. You seem content to merely decode the words on the page of the injunctions and precepts, whereas my own interest lies in their purpose and function. Why does the Bible define marriage as it does? How does it understand its purpose? How does this reflect and apply to the circumstances met in the modern world, which is so dramatically different from the ancient biblical world?

It is these questions precisely that distinguish my position from yours, but these are ALWAYS the sorts of questions that should be applied in any cross-cultural exploration.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Secondly, you call yourself "Textcritic". You could have chosen a name like I did saying where you were born. You could have chosen a name based on your favorite hockey player. You chose to highlight your profession. You have presented yourself as a expert. I will continue to remind you and anyone reading these post that you might be an expert but, you are not orthodox.

What is "orthodox" Who decides? Has it always remained static, or does "orthodox" change and shift over time? How can you be certain that your own definition of "orthodox" is indeed "orthodox"?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...The greatest christian scholars through out the centuries rejected your philosophy and the resulting conclusions.

Who are the "greatest Christian scholars throughout the centuries"? Who decides who were "the greatest"? Why did they reject my position? Why should I care?

You are an incredibly pretentious person if you believe that you have somehow cornered the market on how to evaluate "Christian orthodoxy". Sadly, I suspect that do not even realize how arrogant and condescending your above two sentences really are.