Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The church I attend


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#121 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 03:00 PM

I never said Jesus said the things I listed..I am just saying your entire argument is not really solid..
And the church of Corinth was the best you could do?..It really proves nothing as the book informs us it written to a particular people, at a particular time, in a particular place..try to keep cultural context because as we see in the NT there were plenty of women that were disciples and deacons..
Here is the article

http://www.timesonli...?Submitted=true



1 Corinthians 14:33-35

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


If you read the verses in Corinthians you would see that it says in ALL CHURCHES not just Corinth. Also you completely ignored the verses in Timothy.

As for the culture argument you bring up. I didn't know Jesus Christ/God's powers were limited by culture. And didn't Paul speak out against having to be circumcised to be saved and didn't he go and preach to the gentiles and say they could be saved too. Is that not completely against culture of the time?
The blame it on culture argument is weak as hell.

Edited by Cat, 02 December 2010 - 03:12 PM.


#122 scpanther22

scpanther22

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,045 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 03:57 PM

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

If you read the verses in Corinthians you would see that it says in ALL CHURCHES not just Corinth. Also you completely ignored the verses in Timothy.

As for the culture argument you bring up. I didn't know Jesus Christ/God's powers were limited by culture. And didn't Paul speak out against having to be circumcised to be saved and didn't he go and preach to the gentiles and say they could be saved too. Is that not completely against culture of the time?
The blame it on culture argument is weak as hell.


not a argument thats facts. The cultural context is made clear by the fact that there were plenty of women disciples and deacons in the church....the entire women looked down in the church thing is old and just as run out as the Jesus was a myth argument.

#123 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,502 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:05 PM

they do that with everything.

"Jesus was against homosexuality, Paul mentions it right here!"

they are too stupid to realize Paul contradicts Jesus at every turn in the bible.


Who has said anything remotely like that?

#124 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,502 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 02 December 2010 - 04:17 PM

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

If you read the verses in Corinthians you would see that it says in ALL CHURCHES not just Corinth. Also you completely ignored the verses in Timothy.


Not disagreeing with you, but most versions have a period between verses 33 and 34.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. <--see the period?
and then... (a new sentence)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Why did you intentionally leave out the "author of confusion" bit? Could it be that the context of the message is about order, not chaos? 2 - 3 men are allowed to talk. Nobody else is.
How about verse 40? Let all things be done decently and in order.

#125 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:15 PM

not a argument thats facts. The cultural context is made clear by the fact that there were plenty of women disciples and deacons in the church....the entire women looked down in the church thing is old and just as run out as the Jesus was a myth argument.


I never said that women didn't do those things. There are lots of old manuscripts outside of the Bible that support that point more so then the Bible does. BUT you are missing the point. You aren't putting it together. The Bible doesn't match the facts. Whether women served in the churches or not doesn't take away that the NT clearly states that they should not. Do you think the Bible is wrong? Do you think that the author of Cornitihans was wrong when he said, Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Edited by Cat, 02 December 2010 - 05:22 PM.


#126 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:17 PM

Not disagreeing with you, but most versions have a period between verses 33 and 34.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. <--see the period?
and then... (a new sentence)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Why did you intentionally leave out the "author of confusion" bit? Could it be that the context of the message is about order, not chaos? 2 - 3 men are allowed to talk. Nobody else is.
How about verse 40? Let all things be done decently and in order.



My Bible has a period after "but of peace" and then starts a new paragraph and "As in all congregations of the saints women should remain silent." is all together.

Here is the whole passage. I think it's pretty clear. It was listed that way from the site i pulled if from I certainly wasn't being dishonest.

But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.
30
But if a revelation is given to another person sitting there, the first one should be silent.
31
For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.
32
Indeed, the spirits of prophets are under the prophets' control,
33
since he is not the God of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones, 10
34
women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
35
But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.
36
Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?
37
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.
38
If anyone does not acknowledge this, he is not acknowledged.
39
So, (my) brothers, strive eagerly to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues,
40
but everything must be done properly and in order.


Edited by Cat, 02 December 2010 - 05:28 PM.


#127 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,474 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:43 PM

just as an FYI, that single quote from the Archbishop out of context is a bit... misleading about his personal views, but I suspect trying to explain that wouldn't really get anywhere. Suffice to say, he was speaking as much about any sex outside of reproduction as anything with that last comment.

The point is that when you start "interpreting" a written work to justify your own goals, you're not adhering to the body of work anymore, your subverting it. This is the core mechanic of apostasy, and possibly heresy.


Just about everything requires interpretation is the point. The question is whose interpretation is "correct." This has changed through the centuries, and continues to change.

Ok. I can agree that many Churches no longer look at the Bible literally. Just means they are apostate, and not practicing Christianity, but their own version of religion.


So. Question.

When Christianity was first undergoing what I would consider the religion's creations - when early theologians were tossing ideas around, adding, removing texts, what exactly was Christianity then? What was Christianity before the New Testament was formalized? Was it not "Christianity"? Could today's modern interpretations of divine inspiration coming from Jesus and God but not requiring literal interpretation not simply be a branch of Christianity?

eh. I'm not even a Christian, I don't know enough about this stuff to honestly keep this going. My point is just that perhaps some would view them as not practicing Christianity and being heretical, but others might just see it as the gradual evolution of a religion that has been changing since some apparently really special dude was crucified some couple thousand years ago.

edit: and actually, what Cat above is pointing out is precisely what drives a lot of the "modern synthesis" stuff.

#128 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:46 PM

That's debatable. Even if he at best shattered the cultural norms of the day it was still not even close enough to what a perfect god would have done if you believe slavery and unequality aren't moral. And oh yeah those cultural norms were set up by his OT laws and commands. If the event of God coming to earth in man form was a earth shaking as everyone makes it out to be you'd think he'd be comfortable taking a much more strong moral stand on those tough "cultural issues".

As for taking things out of context if that is referred to me then prove I took them out of context...i beg of you.


The context wasn't for you cat, don't sweat that.

And you are correct about the OT driving those norms, thus, the whole beauty and reason for Jesus.
I don't recall Jesus owning a slave or saying we had too. If people today are misunderstanding scriptures despite copious books and websites, I got a hunch with less info floating around that those folks were worse at it. No Borders Books to go over the lastest papryus.

And you want a stonger stance on some issues when Jesus had other focuses. Doesn't mean he didn't care but his time was limited and he had to get other things in motion. That would be a great future coffee with JC. :)

#129 Starscream

Starscream

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts
  • LocationLaurinburg, NC

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:50 PM

You can call it wrong, you can call it discrimination. You can give it all manner of labels like "hate" or "ignorance" or "fundamentalism"... but the FACTS of the written context of Christian religion are completely at odds with homosexual lifestyle acceptance. Period. It's just as black and white as the facts of our natural universe like gravity.

Religion evolves. Many things in the OT, such as "an eye for an eye", were no longer applicable in the NT. Jesus' message contradicted some things in the OT. It's been 2000 years since Paul was alive (a roundabout figure), I think many churches are starting to come around on homosexuality too. My church allows women to serve as deacons, which is a no-no for many more conservative/fundamentalist churches. Religion, like mankind, is an evolving entity.

If you are Christian, go read John 14 and come back and say the same thing.

I read it and I don't see how it applies to Christians holding different beliefs from one another. I believe that God created the world, but that the seven day Adam and Eve story is just a story, a parable. Does that mean I'm not a Christian to you? Did Judas go to hell? Many Christians still debate the issue. 10% tithe. Is that before or after taxes? We all hold different beliefs in regards to certian principles.

#130 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:54 PM

The context wasn't for you cat, don't sweat that.

And you are correct about the OT driving those norms, thus, the whole beauty and reason for Jesus.
I don't recall Jesus owning a slave or saying we had too. If people today are misunderstanding scriptures despite copious books and websites, I got a hunch with less info floating around that those folks were worse at it. No Borders Books to go over the lastest papryus.

And you want a stonger stance on some issues when Jesus had other focuses. Doesn't mean he didn't care but his time was limited and he had to get other things in motion. That would be a great future coffee with JC. :)


But Christians believe Jesus is God. And if that is the case the he existed with God during that time when God told Moses to take slaves and God made it pretty clear by his commands that he was fine with slavery. IF god was talking to Moses as clearly as the OT makes it seem then why not say, "hey slavery is wrong. People shouldn't be treated like property". Instead he told them to take people as slaves and when they disobeyed at times for not taking slaves or killing everyone like God commanded then they were punished. Same goes for Jesus (god) he said all kinds of things in the gospels but he never once spoke against slavery. That's pretty lame. He didn't have time to speak out about slavery but he did have time to discourage lusting after women which is a completely natural thing and not physically hurting anyone.

Edited by Cat, 02 December 2010 - 06:00 PM.


#131 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,712 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:54 PM

they do that with everything.

"Jesus was against homosexuality, Paul mentions it right here!"

they are too stupid to realize Paul contradicts Jesus at every turn in the bible.


Contradict or a different focus? What did Paul specifically say or do that undermined(contradict) what Jesus said/was about?

Jesus did say to follow the Two greatest commandments and all things hinge on that(what is in the bible).
So that simple yet huge expectation is laid out. Now follow the trail after that and you can come to some conclusions on what Jesus believed or condemed or expected.

Jesus didn't have his own place to stay. Is he saying we should be homeless or bums? He didn't have a coin to prove to the Roman soldier about taxes and your respect for gov and public office. He had to borrow from someone.

But also said all people will know you are his disciples if we love one another. Not if we are in giant mega size church, or one type race church. Or who gives the most, sacrifices the most etc.
He just said love. Which goes back to those 2 commandments. By doing that and getting into peoples lives to help etc, some interesting conversations come up.

#132 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,505 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:56 PM

Posted Image

#133 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:17 PM

just as an FYI, that single quote from the Archbishop out of context is a bit... misleading about his personal views, but I suspect trying to explain that wouldn't really get anywhere. Suffice to say, he was speaking as much about any sex outside of reproduction as anything with that last comment.


Which would embody homosexual relations, so I don't see how that's misleading.

Just about everything requires interpretation is the point. The question is whose interpretation is "correct." This has changed through the centuries, and continues to change.


Interpretation is a slippery slope. There's a line you cross when you "interpret" something to mean the exact reverse of what its saying in plain language.

The question is NOT whose interpretation is correct. It's who's interpretation follows the meaning of the words as written.

When Christianity was first undergoing what I would consider the religion's creations - when early theologians were tossing ideas around, adding, removing texts, what exactly was Christianity then? My point is just that perhaps some would view them as not practicing Christianity and being heretical, but others might just see it as the gradual evolution of a religion that has been changing since some apparently really special dude was crucified some couple thousand years ago.


I'll answer this question because it completely agrees with the point I've been making.

The first "Christians" were all Jews or Jewish proselytes. They were rejecting or modifying the followings of Judaism because they believed the prophetical Messiah had come in the form of Jesus. The didn't give themselves a label, but they were forming a new religion. They certainly weren't "Jews" anymore.

Likewise, if these modern day churches are abandoning teachings of Jesus Christ regarding "Sexual Immorality", they are becoming a new religion. They are no longer conforming to his instructions. They are no longer Christian in practice. Only in name.

For them to stay members of a denomination that is supposed to exemplify his teachings is hypocritical to me. They should break off, form their own religion, and let the people who might consider joining their congregation know that they "sort of" follow the bible... but not everything.

And these "changes to interpretation" is why I condemn the modern Church as a joke. As an example Zod recently gave... Christian Churches accept divorce and remarriage for whatever reason these days, when in fact the Bible is VERY specific and critical of divorce. It's just another apostasy by Churches to accept a social trend.

#134 Panthers128

Panthers128

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:47 PM

Sounds like an awful church.

#135 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,502 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:41 PM

I read it and I don't see how it applies to Christians holding different beliefs from one another. I believe that God created the world, but that the seven day Adam and Eve story is just a story, a parable. Does that mean I'm not a Christian to you? Did Judas go to hell? Many Christians still debate the issue. 10% tithe. Is that before or after taxes? We all hold different beliefs in regards to certian principles.


None of those are commandments.
Jesus said to keep His commandments.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.