Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't like religious quackery, whether it's on the Christian left or the Christian right. That's why I care. Both camps are making outrageous claims.
The Right makes the outrageous claim to have a direct revelation from the Christian God via the bible. And they use that appeal to absolute authority to bludgeon anyone who doesn't agree with them.
The various C-D representatives of the Left are making all sorts of wacky claims on here, like that St. Paul was a heretic, that personal altered states of consciousness prove certain things about that Christian God, and that the Christianity of the last 2000 years was somehow not "true" Christianity. If liberal Christianity is the right and true form of Christianity, then why did it not surface until the 20th century?
Both movements have me utterly convinced that religion is first and foremost about politics. The political views come first, and then the scriptures and traditions are interpreted in such a manner as to support said views. It's always best to have God on our side, isn't it? It's probably part of our tribal DNA.
If you are basing your views on religion, based on how people behave then you will never see anything that satisfy you. Let me put it to you like this, if someone created a piece of furniture and created an instruction manual for it. If there are some people who are able to put the furniture together and many who can't, is that an indictment on the way the furniture is made or the people who are putting it together. Clearly there are people who were able to put it together, but in this case you aren't focused on the furniture, if it's a good piece of furniture or if it's possible to put it together, you are focused on the people who can't put it together which could be a number of reasons that have nothing to do with the actual furniture itself.
I don't like religious quackery, whether it's on the Christian left or the Christian right. That's why I care. Both camps are making outrageous claims.
The Right makes the outrageous claim to have a direct revelation from the Christian God via the bible. And they use that appeal to absolute authority to bludgeon anyone who doesn't agree with them.
The various C-D representatives of the Left are making all sorts of wacky claims on here, like that St. Paul was a heretic, that personal altered states of consciousness prove certain things about that Christian God, and that the Christianity of the last 2000 years was somehow not "true" Christianity. If liberal Christianity is the right and true form of Christianity, then why did it not surface until the 20th century?
Both movements have me utterly convinced that religion is first and foremost about politics. The political views come first, and then the scriptures and traditions are interpreted in such a manner as to support said views. It's always best to have God on our side, isn't it? It's probably part of our tribal DNA.
Fine and dandy. We are all quacks. Judge us not by our talk but by results or even intended results of our faith. If it is morally acceptable what is your problem? If it is immoral shout it to the housetops.
My faith revolves around the works that can be accomplished for those who are poor, homeless disenfranchised, treated unequally by church or government, and looks to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Are these goals that work for you? If not condemn them roundly--there are plenty of Christians who do. If those goals are good in your eyes are you suspicious that they are somehow self serving?
I'm not seeking affirmation from anyone about my beliefs. My job as a Christ follower is to find TODAY someone who has a need I can meet--and that's rarely to quote a Bible verse.
What results are you looking for in life? The only thing any of your posts convey is that you are happy finding flaws in people and the Bible. I agree with you. People and the Bible have a lot of flaws. What are you going to do about it? Try to make a difference for someone today, or pout that the flaws in people and the Bible are preventing you from doing any good for someone else?
Paul was a man. A converted sinful man. He made mistakes. He left us some letters that contain his human flaws. Your posts reflect some similar human flaws--as do mine. But Paul still witnessed to Someone greater than himself. He may have misinterpreted or failed to make clear to 21st century erasers what he meant. But his letters are his flawed finger pointing to one who is not flawed. Where his writing meshes with Jesus' teaching and example, he is a good witness. Where it does not, then he deserves criticism. Sort of like all the rest of us.
Judge results. More than that, be a part of good results for someone, somewhere TODAY. Who knows it might even be a Christian. We need good results every bit as much as you do---and that way you can practice loving your enemy.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 06-16-2015 at 03:14 AM..
Paul was most definitely a heretic. ... even if Peter embraced Paul as the apostle to the nations this does not make it so.
Peter knew Jesus. Peter traveled for three years with Jesus, listening firsthand to his teachings. Jesus called Peter The Rock upon which He would build His church.
Peter accepted Paul.
Some modern people, alive 2,000 years after Jesus, who never met Jesus or listened firsthand to his teachings, reject Paul.
Whose judgment are you gonna trust? That of Peter? Or that of these modern people?
Peter knew Jesus. Peter traveled for three years with Jesus, listening firsthand to his teachings. Jesus called Peter The Rock upon which He would build His church.
Peter accepted Paul.
Some modern people, alive 2,000 years after Jesus, who never met Jesus or listened firsthand to his teachings, reject Paul.
Whose judgment are you gonna trust? That of Peter? Or that of these modern people?
Peter knew Jesus. Peter traveled for three years with Jesus, listening firsthand to his teachings. Jesus called Peter The Rock upon which He would build His church.
Peter accepted Paul.
Some modern people, alive 2,000 years after Jesus, who never met Jesus or listened firsthand to his teachings, reject Paul.
Whose judgment are you gonna trust? That of Peter? Or that of these modern people?
Peter never endorsed Paul. You display the same astonishing lack of knowledge regarding who wrote various letters and the gospels. Your reference to 2 Peter, chapter 3 might be valid IF Peter had written those words. Both in literary style and content, the vast majority of scholars admit 2 Peter was never written by the apostle, and may have even been written by a follower of Paul.
To give yourself better credibility, read scholarly works on the authorship of both Old and New Testaments. Most people think Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet literary style critics have maintained for decades that Moses wrote nothing at all, but that some editor conflated the writings of at least four authors into the first five books of the OT. It's easy to spot in Hebrew, more difficult in English. The two Genesis stories are a prime example. Both are very different in details of when things actually occurred. That's because two different authors were squeezed into the same space.
Read about apocryphal literature. Christians readily accept that some of those stories were written by other than whose name is found on it. They accept that because those writings didn't make it into the Bible. But there is every bit as strong evidence that not all letters attributed to Paul were penned by him. People develop writing styles that remain virtually unchanged throughout their lives. As an English literature major I can recognize the author of some material by style. Shakespeare is easy. e.e. cummings (no capitals in his writing) is another easy one.
But to make blanket statements regarding acceptance or rejection of Paul's writing based on spuriously written letters is not being fair to Peter, Paul, nor the unknown author of 2 Peter (Mary? LoL!).
When one is too invested in their belief system to fail to question sources or motives, they become a dubious witness to the truth.
Peter never endorsed Paul. Some early Christian fathers did, including Marcion, who has been adjudged by the Church to be one of the greatest of the early Christian heretics himself. That's not a good recommendation. It would be like Charles Manson insisting you are not a serial killer. Hardly a resounding or reassuring endorsement.
The LAW called for stoning of the woman caught in adultery. It's in black and white. Jesus didn't follow the LAW because it dehumanized a sinner--as He recognized we all are. ... The hypocrisy is when that LAW is still used to dehumanize people such as homosexuals, when every word and act of Jesus recorded in the gospels rejects the glorification of scripture over the respect ... .
Jesus forgave the woman, but he still called her a sinner. He said, "Go and sin no more." And the woman did not deny that her adultery was a sin. She did not boast of Adultery Pride.
Jesus is ready to forgive all sin. No one should be dehumanized. But similarly, sin should be recognized and labeled as such. Jesus never suggested that adultery or homosexuality were not sins.
It's one thing to ask to be forgiven for a sin. It's another to take Pride in a sin and demand that one be celebrated for it.
Jesus forgave the woman, but he still called her a sinner. He said, "Go and sin no more." And the woman did not deny that her adultery was a sin. She did not boast of Adultery Pride.
Jesus is ready to forgive all sin. No one should be dehumanized. But similarly, sin should be recognized and labeled as such. Jesus never suggested that adultery or homosexuality were not sins.
It's one thing to ask to be forgiven for a sin. It's another to take Pride in a sin and demand that one be celebrated for it.
And it is a whole other game for someone to be CLAIMING what is SIN and telling others when SIN is pretty much God's concern.
Jesus forgave the woman, but he still called her a sinner. He said, "Go and sin no more." And the woman did not deny that her adultery was a sin. She did not boast of Adultery Pride.
Jesus is ready to forgive all sin. No one should be dehumanized. But similarly, sin should be recognized and labeled as such. Jesus never suggested that adultery or homosexuality were not sins.
It's one thing to ask to be forgiven for a sin. It's another to take Pride in a sin and demand that one be celebrated for it.
It's always strange to me that people who have no grasp on what Jesus' words and actions mean jump on that final line in an apocryphal story. Although it is one of my favorite stories it is NOT in the earliest texts we have of the gospel of John. It was added by a scribe years later.
The importance of that story is that Jesus rejected what the Pharisees knew was in the OT. God specifically called for death by stoning for adulterers. They were right, and Jesus knew it. But Jesus gave us an example of how to treat others. He didn't grill the woman to ask if she was repentant first. He just forgave her.
Do you think she never sinned again--remember Jesus did not say to commit no more adultery, He said SIN NO MORE. Did she obey that command, or is it likely Jesus knew she could not, try as she might, and He had already forgiven her?
Jesus certainly did speak of the sin of adultery--and in conjunction with divorce which is quite prevalent among Christians, who ignore His warnings frequently and consistently. They sit in churches everywhere while committing adultery over and over with their new spouses. But our culture accepts it. If it did not, roughly one quarter of church goers would be out on their ears.
Jesus certainly did NOT condemn either homosexual love nor even acts. And since you are not well read on a scholarly basis look up all OT references to Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuality was not their sin according to at least three prophets--Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. The reference Jesus made to villages that would not receive His disciples, that it would be better for Sodom and Gommorrah than for those who rejected His disciples has to do with the Jewish understanding of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah--failure to provide food, shelter, and protection to strangers.
Paul is the only one who suggests homosexual acts are sinful, but even the words he used in Greek are words that indicate what other literature describes as acts between older men and young boys, the latter of whom were temple prostitutes. That kind of sex, like temple heterosexual sex, was idolatry.
Finally, how does despising anyone for any sin they commit make you a better person? How does denigrating them assist you in following Jesus Great Commandments of loving your neighbor like yourself--because you certainly overlook your own sin? In the second chapter of Romans, the first verse, Paul explains to Roman Christians that they shouldn't be looking down their noses at those he described in the first chapter because they were DOING THE SAME THING. And I think he didn't necessarily mean that in a literal sense, but rather that their own sins condemned them in the way they condemned others.
God made everything and called it good. He made homosexual lions, elephants, cattle, dogs, penguins, virtually every kind of primate, and even flies. You can look them up on YouTube and get an eyeful. In fact, humans, with about a five percent homosexuality rate aren't even close to the most homosexual of animals, which is some species of monkeys at an astounding 19%. And animal homosexuality is in both males and females of at least 450 species. God made all this and called it good in Genesis. The only thing God attributed as not good in those earlier chapters is that He saw it was not good for man to be alone. So He made woman. But the fact is He still said it is not good for man to be alone means that religions with improper views of scripture trying to teach homosexuals to live alone are going against both God and Paul, who stated it is better to marry than to burn. But your beliefs condemn homosexuals to something I doubt you are capable of.
The message of Jesus is about mercy, love, forgiveness, and acceptance. The message of Pharisees is the same today as in His day--- sin, judgment, condemnation, exclusiveness, and therby self righteousness. Whatever you think about homosexuality right now is how God views you. Once you change your views, God will change His.
Just saying---don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. And every one of us in the human condition lives in a glass house.
My Catholic study Bible (the Navarre series) does not believe that Moses wrote anything. Its commentaries discuss the various traditions -- the Priestly, Deuteronomic, etc. -- which a much later editor pulled together. And since the majority of Christians are Catholic, it's unlikely that most Christians believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. (Unfortunately, most Catholics likely have no opinion on the subject, because they never thought about it.)
Yet my Navarre Catholic study Bible states that Peter wrote both letters attributed to him. And it's a Bible that is well versed is Bible scholarship.
My Catholic study Bible (the Navarre series) does not believe that Moses wrote anything. Its commentaries discuss the various traditions -- the Priestly, Deuteronomic, etc. -- which a much later editor pulled together. And since the majority of Christians are Catholic, it's unlikely that most Christians believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. (Unfortunately, most Catholics likely have no opinion on the subject, because they never thought about it.)
Yet my Navarre Catholic study Bible states that Peter wrote both letters attributed to him. And it's a Bible that is well versed is Bible scholarship.
This is what happens when you put more importance on commentary than the bible...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
