Printable View
Oh, well I agree that you should be entitled to all that legal stuff. Why not? I'm just saying that it's silly pretending something's not true when it's pretty well fortified in the scriptures, as far as the Paul issue goes. It's like calling the 10 commandments void because Moses could have altered them or something bogus. If you want to discard the story of Paul, then you may as well discard half of the rest of the bible.
Sier, you should start another thread, but since you brought it up:
1) Paul was a ROMAN Jew who persecuted Christian Jews (in essence, killed them.)
2) Paul most likely suffered from epilepsy which accounts for him being blinded for 3 days.
3) If Christ never chose to show himself to anyone outside of his disciples (not apostles) why was Paul singled out?
4) The birth of Christianity was an oral tradition. All epistles included in the NT was written at least 100 years after his death. Even church leaders agree that the authors of those books are not who they're attributed to.
5) Christ called Peter the rock upon which his church will be founded on. If the Holy spirit moved through the men who put the Bible together, why was Peter's epistle not found until after the Bible was created.
6) Mary Magdalene was the first to see Christ after he was raised. The gospel according to Mary was around when the Bible was put together. Why wasn't it included?
7) Also, why is it whenever there's something like the Spanish Inquisition happens or other persecutions, Paul's are the words used to justify the persecution and not Christ's?
All these questions and lack of answers to them led me to leave the church. Since I did, I've done a lot of research into this time period, starting with Roman history, Christian history and now, I'm researching Jewish.
What I've found has NOT led me back to the church. In fact, I'm so fascinated by the Jewish religion, I'm thinking of going to synagogues and talking with Rabbis.
I didn't mean for this to become a religious debate. However, for the record, I don't give a flying **** whether my union with another is blessed by any religion. See my last post for what I do care about.
Having a step father in the clergy and a sister studying to be, you can imagine my shock at finding out that "church leaders agree" that the New Testament books are not by who they are claimed to be.
This is drifting farther and farther off topic, and I am late coming and all, but as far as I know, most church leaders take it that the majority of the source information of the NT as well as the OT is reliable enough.
If you want to know why the Gospel of Mary isn't included in the Canon, read it along with many other writings that predate included writings. It isn't about dates, it is about not following along with established accepted scripture, therefore not seeming legitimately to follow in the line of previous revelations.
I have to disagree with Sier though, sin is not all bundled together as equal in the Bible, as far as I can tell. There is even one "unforgiveable" sin, which most Christian people I talk to seem to agree must be related to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It's rather vague, but it is there.
Anyhow, trying to argue that homosexuality is not a sin from the Biblical point really doesn't do a thing for the legal aspects of this. It seems more or less just a tactic to make it safe to accuse Sier of being a homophobe. For what it's worth, Sier, I don't agree with your "sin is sin" stance but I don't take you for a homophobe. then again, despite my repeated explanations about my uncle who was gay and friends I have had who were gay and also knew all my beliefs and just accepted me and we got along, repeatedly, on the internet, people accuse me of the same. It is a common tactic, and people just in general feel safer being MUCH ruder and more confrontational than they would normally be in public, where the social repuercusions for being constantly hateful are much harsher.
Just in general, people feel safer being rude in text, from books to magazines to whatever, than they do in person.
I threw my lot in with people who thought it would be a good idea to have a more or less gender neutral "union" some 4 years ago, and at the time I was even accused of being a homopobe for -that-, even though now it appears to be a position that is gaining some appeal even among more liberal minded folk, from the aspect of separation of church and state I suppose.
Anyhow... I couldn't resist. I will kick myself tomorrow I am sure when I read any replies I get.
I just wish the best for everyone. I wish everyone could be happy and somehow find a common ground and some peace about this issue. It drives me batshit crazy.
James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."
I think that verse pretty much states that sin is sin, no matter what the sin is. It doesn't really go "Except for little white lies, or old fashion laws", it just says the whole law. As far as blasphemy goes, you're right ;)
Well, the "whole law" had allowances for sin, and also levels of punishment for sin that was beyond redemption through sacrifice, so I don't see that verse as directly addressing the issue, but I am familiar enough with "the wages of sin is death" and so on. It's just that certain sins are addressed in the NT regarding church discipline as things that a person could be put out of the church for, whereas at other points people are encouraged to forgive and make peace. One verse even declares nothing in and of itself is sinful, so that opens a whole different horizon over which to address the issue. But in a practical sense, I think it does little good to tell people, "the sin of murder is just like telling a white lie," when it more or less goes against common sense. We all feel in our conscience that this is just not true. What I might say instead is, once sin has run its course, there's really no such thing as "a little bit dead". It hardly matters whether one dies of a heart attack, in a gunfight, or peacefuly in their sleep, they are still quite dead.Quote:
Originally posted by Sier
James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."
I think that verse pretty much states that sin is sin, no matter what the sin is. It doesn't really go "Except for little white lies, or old fashion laws", it just says the whole law. As far as blasphemy goes, you're right ;)
There are without doubt levels of reward in heaven. I am a little vague as to whether there are levels of punishment after judgement. But to me, even if not, levels of reward in heaven indicate a sliding scale of achievement that resonates with what most of us feel in our conscience is proper, that is to say, that there are levels of goodness and badness and that a punishment should fit its crime, and so forth.
Can you tell me where in the bible it tells of "levels" of heaven and such? And where it says a sin is less hurtful than another one in God's eyes? Not trying to be mean, I just wonder what you have to back up this stuff. Alot of people on this forum just say "The bible says this the bible says that" yet never ever back up a claim, when it'd make these arguments more interesting. ;)
I usually have the opposite effect, as in, "Lok would you please quit quoting the Bible you freak???" Somehow I don't feel it is appropriate here to have a big Bible scripture quoting fest, but I will send my stuff to you on the little direct mail here.
Thanks, thats probably better anyways :p Sorry for pulling the forum into bible debate mode.
Okay.. I'm sure yall are going to hate me for this.. but I can't help myself...
Are you saying that, according to Levithians (sp?) I can eat Paul if you put him in the water because he had scales put in his eyes?
tee hee.. oh.. and I support gay/lesbian marriage! All the gay/lesbian people I know and adore are very loving and wonderful people. I think gays and lesbians deserve the same rights with the one they love that I will get with my husband when I get married.
(yes! I managed to be on topic!)
:p
Well this topic is heating up again with Shrub putting his support behind an amendment banning Gay marriage. I personally doubt that he expects it to even pass Congress, but his support of it is to galvanize support among the right-wingers.
I can't figure out their rhetoric. How does allowing gays to marry damage marriage between heterosexual couples? I can understand if they feel that homosexuality is sinful and that the government should not respect a sinful coupling. I completely disagree, but it's consistent at least. I just can't see any connection between what they say they're protecting, which is heterosexual marriage, and what they're fighting against, homosexual marriage. Do they think that because the option to marry another person of the same sex exists, people will not get married to someone of the opposite sex? Maybe in a vanishingly small number of cases but not to any significant degree.