Anyone?

[BigBrothaCon]

Christy,

All I can say is that God said that His word is eternal and that He would destroy any man that defileth it.  So you have to trust that the existing Word is true.  Once again it comes down to faith and what you believe in.  That meaning that we have to have faith in what we don't see sometimes or comprehend.  Some call it blind faith, but for me it is different because I can truly say that the spirit of God is with me because of my relationship with him.  If you don't let him in then you probably don't have the same feeling for God as I do.  Just my belief.

Andwhat,

To tell you the truth, I am trying to get more understanding about this whole gay thing also.  The NT might not readily say anything about homosexuality, but we have to remember that in the beginning God created man and woman so man would not be alone.  I have to take that literal because it is actually saying that God created man and woman in the beginning and that is how man came about.  I believe if God had wanted man and man to be together, then he would have allowed them to be able to reproduce together.  That is in the natural sense also.  It just makes common sense to me that God wanted man to be with woman not the other way around.  Once again my belief.

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

Quote: from BigBrothaCon on 5:24 pm on Nov. 29, 2001[br]I believe if God had wanted man and man to be together, then he would have allowed them to be able to reproduce together.  That is in the natural sense also.  It just makes common sense to me that God wanted man to be with woman not the other way around.  Once again my belief.

With that, I will agree.  Not because the Bible does or does not say so... but because that is my belief.

 

[Hessian]

andwhat wrote a quote from US News ...

" Paul had not been among the original disciples of Jesus. Nor had he been converted by them. Consequently, he gave little defference to their views when they differed from what he believed Christ ahd revealed to him directly. He was summoned to Jerusalem to explain himself to the pillars of the Jerusalem church: the apostles James, Peter and John."

I'll approach this in two ways andwhat.
1st: German textual Criticism and even the likes of Tom Jefferson want to say that Paul twisted the direction of the Church and distorted the true teachings of Christ.
Why do they want to claim this??? Hmmm?

Because Paul wrote a lot of the NT including powerful statements condemning wild behavior in the Church of Corinth and also the portion I quoted long ago regarding his blatant condemnation of gay behavior (Romans 1: 24-32)
Thus, if we can discredit Paul...we don't have to listen to his teachings.
2) What the clipping from US News does not address is the OUTCOME of that meeting with the apostles: Acts 15... Peter speaks, James speaks, and it concludes that they approve of his teachings, sending additional missionaries with them "with our beloved Barnabas and Paul" vs 25. There is no schism, no threats..only letters to authenticate their message sent with them.
Who records this? Paul?...No, Dr LUKE who wrote one of the synoptic gospels and was a witness to Christ's life. Would HE allow Christ's message to be twisted? I think not!
Paul testifies to the Corinthians that he is an apostle (1 Cor 1:1, 9:1)...If he was an imposter or liar...his writings would have been tossed at the Council of Nicea and the NT would only be 1/2 of what it is.
Peter is still writing 30 years after Christ (The Epistle is dated to the mid 60's AD)and does he tear into Paul's teaching and urge people to avoid him? NO! Does he take time to point out that Paul was not "one of the 12" absolutely not. Thus...there was a common cause, and their was unity, and Paul does NOT create his own version of Christianity.
Veritas.
(PS Thanks for the post BBC, That took some time!)

 

[Jimmyrich]

BBC,

While it makes sense, to us, that man and woman are together for the purposes of, if nothing else, reproduction, why would it STILL be WRONG for two men/women to be toghether?  Surely our sole purpose on this earth is NOT merely to procreate?  "Go forth and multiply" sure. But that was when there were TWO people on Earth. Again, OT meant for the specific times.  Surely we can agree that we are to accomplish more on this earth than reproduction.  I mean, that's more of a scientific view of "why we are here" than a religious one.  But if you are looking for more meaning in life, especially as is laid out in the NT, it would seem that there is more to life than that.
That being said, if you are only able to reach the conclusion, BBC, that homosexuality is wrong because of your OWN "common sense reasoning" and NOT anything that comes from God, shouldn't there be some room for questioning there?

 

[andwhat]

Hessien, when Paul proclaimed himself to be an apostle to the Corinthians, guess who named him an apostle, thats right Paul himself. Go back and try and find where Paul is named an postle by anyone.

"British biographer A.N. Wilson, in his 1997 book Paul: The mind of the Apostle, argues that Paul's Risen Christ had little to do with the historical Jesus. There was no qupoting of Jesus' parables or aphorisms is Paul's writings, adds Gregory C. Jenks, rector at St. Matthew's Anglican church, in Drayton, australlia. Some Scholars argue that Paul simply may not have known of Jesus' teaching."

Well golly gee hessien it seems to me that if the NT is all about Jesus and his life and his teachings, then its pretty interesting that Paul might not have had any knowledge of them. Kinda funny how the four apostles who were with Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached very different stuff from Paul who did not follow Jesus around.
I also find it interesting that you attacked good old Tom Jefferson on this one, b/c Tom Jefferson was one of the framers of the Constitution, which you claimed is not a living document, just like the Bible isn't. hmm, that is interesting.
Hessien, you also did not touch upon the fact that while condemning gays, Paul also repeatedly condemns women and the quotes I have presented where women should not be allowed to speak and should not be in a position of power over men. Oh and Acts is largely attributed to Paul also, so good bye Dr Luke.
You say that Tom Jefferson and German textual criticism both attempt to discredit Paul b/c he speaks out against wild behavious. Funny but I don't see how Tom Jefferson had all the time to be out having wild all male orgies while he was busy creating a new nation. And we all know that there's nothing that German biblical scholars enjoy more than an orgy so they were obviouslly trying to save their own asses. Yet you don't acknowledge or seem to be willing to concede the fact that both these sources had justifiable reasons to question Paul's teachings, see what Paul says about women as an example.

 

[Christy]

BBC, what is it with you constantly throwing out this "G-d is with me because of my relationship with him" and you insinuate my relationship just isn't as rock solid and "enlightened" as yours.   My relationship is simply different than yours.  I don't find it empowering to throw out, and hide behind Biblical verses.  He has given me free will.  He's given me the free will to understand what Christianity is all about.  I can't even comprehend throwing out scripture to belittle a class of human beings.  But you aren't saying it or TT  or Hessian isn't saying it.  It's G-d saying.  G-d has never empowered me to declare someone an "abomination".  I'd be ashamed and humiliated for belittling someone "in the name of G-d".   That is not my call and I refuse to jump on that bandwagon.  

Just for clarity purposes, it is a FACT that there are numerous mis-translations from the original scriptures.  His word is eternal,  translaters are not.  

 

[Hessian]

andwhat...
I really wish I could clarify for you the position I took but your reply is quite tangled.
Fact1) Paul was heavity criticized by Deist Jefferson. Why/ Because Jefferson was not interested in the Faith side of following Christ...and Paul is all about what it takes to be a follower.
Fact 2) The German Higher Criticism wanted to discount the validity of the entire word of God period: No other agenda.

I did not mean to imply that they were in favor of wild behavior...OK?

You say that The Synoptic Writers preached very different stuff from Paul...In a sense, your right: They did Life & teachings of Christ. But Luke and Paul traveled long and far together.
Luke DID write Acts  (not debatable)

Paul's writings and Teachings were aproved by the apostles in Jerusalem (see my previous post)

Paul addresses numerous problems in many of his epistles. His statements regarding the women's role in church---this is a matter of hot debate between denominations today....sorry: no hard and fast answer here. UNDER NO CONDITIONS does this remove Paul from his rightful place a a leader (beloved by his brothers in Jerusalem) in the Early church.
James, John, Peter...all had plenty of opportunities to warn/scold/criticize Paul's missionary efforts and teachings. They never did....they endorsed him.
Veritas.

 

[andwhat]

Hessien, I will nto argue that Paul was not an important memeber of the early church or a leader of that. That is quite true. It still doesn't eman that he couldn't be wrong on some things, especially since his comments towards women are under such scrutiny now.
Question, why do you say that Luke did write Acts, undebateable? Were you there, did you see it written? Umm no. the plain fact is that scholars aren't even that positive of who wrote any of the NT. They have an idea, but absolutely no proof since none of this can be verified but an independent other source. I have seen arguments presented that Luke did write Acts, but I have seen more that accredit Acts to Paul. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whetehr Paul or Luke wrotes Acts is irrelevant.

 

[yornoc]

StarBuck on 7:36 pm on Feb. 5, 2002[br]Oh Please, citing numerous verses out of context in order to demonstrate the alleged "contradictions and hypocricies" of the bible is the oldest trick in the book for trying to bait someone into an argument - an argument where have no desire to truly listen to the opposing views.

If you expect the poor misguided "Christians" to respect your opinions that the bible (and perhaps GOD himself?) is bunk, then it seems rationale that you should reciprocate the respect.

Amen!

 

[jimmy]

Clap all you want. The arguement was ABOUT the contradictions in the bible, thus, it was perfectly appropriate to cite the passages in question. All that "out of context" nonsense is a cheap way of evading the very real and widely aknowledged contradictions found in that text (even many theologians agree; it's the substance of much of their inquiriy).  The thing I find interesting is that people on this thread come down on us for calling Christians to explain certain beliefs etc. and assert that we aren't "respecting" their views or listening with open ears. First of all, read above in earlier posts to see the creedence we lend to BigBrothaCon's remarks about this subject. He addressed everything specifically and did a good job of explaining. Everyone who cries out that we aren't "respecting" their views has either been reluctant to share them, or is missing the point that this was a DISCUSSION about an issue, not an all-out attack.