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.
Anyone who says Saint Paul was a heretic- and calls themselves a Christian should reconsider that label.
First you have the fact the early church accepted his writtings as scripture which shows that they didn't believe he was heretical. Next as an Orthodox Christian they must show that their Paul free version of Christianity had constantly existed in Christian history.
I tend to agree with you, even though I am a non-believer. I can see why a Christian might emphasize Jesus over Paul (since Christians believe Jesus is God). But to say Paul is a heretic? To me, that's pushing it. Yes, I'm wary of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but at some point I'd say it's no longer a fallacy. Paul authored most of the NT...if Paul was actually a heretic, why did the early church fail to kick him out? How did his heretical writings make it into the canon? If Christianity was corrupted by heretics from the get-go, why would one want to be part of such a corrupt religion in the first place?
When all a "Christian" can do is talk about the Bible, use the Bible as a weapon against those they feel are different, and ignore the plight their religion puts some people in because they foolishly see words in black and white (like the Pharisees), then they are bibliolators. They mix up written words with the Living Word and often use the two interchangeably. It's quite easy to spot some of that in certain threads on CD.
That is idolatry.
Whoa let's back up a moment. If you do not talk about some reference of something that explain perhaps what Jesus has said or what he has taught then there are either one or two things happening:
(1) You obviously do not believe you are subject to error or misunderstanding because how else would you know what is right or wrong?
(2) You have an awareness of what actually happened and what was actually said, but no reference to it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Are you saying that there is too much "proof texting" in fundamentalism that ignores context and possible nuances? Is that what you mean by foolishly seeing words in black and white?
By Living Word are you referring to Jesus?
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 LAW calls for an eye for an eye. It's in black and white. Jesus rejected words supposedly from the mouth of God to Moses by stating "But I say unto you---."
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 He afforded everyone--except those most biblical of the biblical Pharisees.
Whoa let's back up a moment. If you do not talk about some reference of something that explain perhaps what Jesus has said or what he has taught then there are either one or two things happening:
(1) You obviously do not believe you are subject to error or misunderstanding because how else would you know what is right or wrong?
(2) You have an awareness of what actually happened and what was actually said, but no reference to it.
I thought just like you and glorified scripture. Then God began changing me again and again over the years.
I in no way understand scripture aside from what Z-Man has pointed out to you---Love The Lord your God with all you mind and strength, and keep that first one by keeping the second--by loving your neighbor as yourself. When you keep those ideas of a simplified Bible in the forefront of every action you take, it's almost impossible to make a mistake.
Yet if you search for rules and commandments that need to be obeyed because they are in black and white-- you find yourself straying from that simple idea of Jesus for a two commandment lifestyle. There is not one thing beyond those two great commandments that need to be taught from scripture. Without knowing a single other Bible fact, an otherwise ignorant person can be a Christ follower.
The ones thinking and reasoning are today's Pharisees.
Soren Kierkeegard understood that concept when he recommended burning all the Bibles so people could live for Christ. Paul frequently mucked it up by not following those two. But then he had an excuse, he never knew any of the words spoken by Jesus Himself.
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 LAW calls for an eye for an eye. It's in black and white. Jesus rejected words supposedly from the mouth of God to Moses by stating "But I say unto you---."
It's no wonder that Jesus ticked off the religious authorities for saying such things. But then again, there's that famous passage where Jesus says that "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law, and not one letter of the law will be removed" or something to that effect.
Adding to the confusion for me personally is the following: In the conservative Lutheran theology I was raised in, the whole bible is said to be divided into "Law" and "Gospel", and that distinction is said to be the key to understanding all scripture. I don't think we ever even used the term "Mosaic Law" in our lexicon. We just called any kind of command by God or Jesus to be "law" (which merely showed us what filthy and rotten sinners we were) and any promise of free salvation / redemption to be "gospel." But I digress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
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 He afforded everyone--except those most biblical of the biblical Pharisees.
I agree that it's absurd when Christians use the OT laws in Leviticus against homosexuality when that same book talks about stoning disobedient children, not mixing fabrics, not eating shell fish, etc. But they can always fall back on St. Paul [the heretic] and his divinely inspired condemnation of homosexuality.
(Godwin's Second Law: any debate about Christian theology will inevitably change into a debate about homosexuality.)
I thought just like you and glorified scripture. Then God began changing me again and again over the years.
I in no way understand scripture aside from what Z-Man has pointed out to you---Love The Lord your God with all you mind and strength, and keep that first one by keeping the second--by loving your neighbor as yourself. When you keep those ideas of a simplified Bible in the forefront of every action you take, it's almost impossible to make a mistake.
Yet if you search for rules and commandments that need to be obeyed because they are in black and white-- you find yourself straying from that simple idea of Jesus for a two commandment lifestyle. There is not one thing beyond those two great commandments that need to be taught from scripture. Without knowing a single other Bible fact, an otherwise ignorant person can be a Christ follower.
The ones thinking and reasoning are today's Pharisees.
Soren Kierkeegard understood that concept when he recommended burning all the Bibles so people could live for Christ. Paul frequently mucked it up by not following those two. But then he had an excuse, he never knew any of the words spoken by Jesus Himself.
Once again, you make no attempt to address what I said.
Once again, you make no attempt to address what I said.
And once again you've made no statement worth addressing. I'm simply pointing out to uncertain individuals that there is a better, and far simpler, way of understanding Jesus--practice what He taught in those two commandments and whatever other biblical teaching fits in to those two while being suspicious of anything in the Bible or anyone that teaches contrary to Jesus' summation of the LAW.
It's no wonder that Jesus ticked off the religious authorities for saying such things. But then again, there's that famous passage where Jesus says that "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law, and not one letter of the law will be removed" or something to that effect.
Adding to the confusion for me personally is the following: In the conservative Lutheran theology I was raised in, the whole bible is said to be divided into "Law" and "Gospel", and that distinction is said to be the key to understanding all scripture. I don't think we ever even used the term "Mosaic Law" in our lexicon. We just called any kind of command by God or Jesus to be "law" (which merely showed us what filthy and rotten sinners we were) and any promise of free salvation / redemption to be "gospel." But I digress.
I agree that it's absurd when Christians use the OT laws in Leviticus against homosexuality when that same book talks about stoning disobedient children, not mixing fabrics, not eating shell fish, etc. But they can always fall back on St. Paul [the heretic] and his divinely inspired condemnation of homosexuality.
(Godwin's Second Law: any debate about Christian theology will inevitably change into a debate about homosexuality.)
Here's Godwin's Third Law: Any debate about Christian theology will inevitably be hijacked by a self-professed atheist!! You do a great job of involving yourself in things about which you supposedly do not care! But I digress.
None of the LAW is removed because Jesus foresaw that one can't pull the Bible out of the hands of anyone committed to seeing all of us liberal Christians and atheists burning in hell. He knew it would still be plaguing us 2000 years later. He fulfilled the LAW with His two Great Commandments. Once we depart from those we are indeed on a slippery slope.
But then, if that is all that was preached, pretty soon people wouldn't need all the messages that preachers can dig out of Paul. And offerings would fall off along with attendance. Oh, wait, that IS what is happening.
It's no wonder that Jesus ticked off the religious authorities for saying such things. But then again, there's that famous passage where Jesus says that "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law, and not one letter of the law will be removed" or something to that effect.
Adding to the confusion for me personally is the following: In the conservative Lutheran theology I was raised in, the whole bible is said to be divided into "Law" and "Gospel", and that distinction is said to be the key to understanding all scripture. I don't think we ever even used the term "Mosaic Law" in our lexicon. We just called any kind of command by God or Jesus to be "law" (which merely showed us what filthy and rotten sinners we were) and any promise of free salvation / redemption to be "gospel." But I digress.
I agree that it's absurd when Christians use the OT laws in Leviticus against homosexuality when that same book talks about stoning disobedient children, not mixing fabrics, not eating shell fish, etc. But they can always fall back on St. Paul [the heretic] and his divinely inspired condemnation of homosexuality.
(Godwin's Second Law: any debate about Christian theology will inevitably change into a debate about homosexuality.)
Please explain your INSISTENCE that believers in God and Jesus MUST accept and believe everything in the Bible as the word of God, Freak . . especially since you do NOT believe at all. What is your gig?? What do you hope to accomplish by your tenacious absurdity in these fora?
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.
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.
