• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did you know?

RAMOSS said:
If Jesus existed, then yes, yes he was a Jew. However, the people who wrote about him were either Gentile or from a Hellenized Jewish tradition, and what is said he said is probably quite different that what is claimed he said.

And, what he said or didn't' say doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. Come to think of it , the things Jesus supposedly said about the Pharisees about following the letter and not the spirit of the law can apply to the vast majority of Christians today.
Click to expand...

If what he said doesn't mean a hill of beans to you, then what are you arguing about?

Also No, the writers were not ANY MORE hellenized than the average person was in palestine at the time, just because they wrote in greek doesn't make them hellenized. Matthew, James, Jude, for example are extremely Jewish, and even the Pauline epistles, when read correctly are.
 
RAMOSS said:
From what I see, you dont' understand what you call 'the Old Testament' at all. However, that is ok. It's not your book. It is the book of the Jewiish people.
Click to expand...

It's both ....
 
Luftwaffe said:


Some of the things were obvious but other ones you probably never knew. What do you think? If people use Leviticus 18:22 as an evidential panacea for anti-homosexuality arguments wouldn't they have to use the other parts of the bible as well? If you use one you use all and be proud (sucks to be proud in that), you cant be a quasi christian :shrug:
Click to expand...


You do realize that the Old Testament only applied to Old Testament Jews during Old Testament times, don't you?

And you do realize that there is plenty in the New Testament that speaks out against homosexual sex, don't you?
 
Tucker Case said:
NT prohibition on women speaking at church:

"34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Bitches get stitches if they ask questions in church.
Click to expand...

Read NT Wright "Paul and the faithfullness of God" .... you Can't understand that verse without understanding the context, and how Corinthian religion often worked. Remember this was a specific letter written to a specific Church for a specific reason, we know there were women deacons, we know there were women Preachers, all from Pauls letters. This passage is specific to Corinth, and the way religion in that city (and others) was something women did, and not men, Paul is going against that.

So your church actively violates the new testament's prohibition of female speech in church.

Did you choose not to attend because of that fact?
Click to expand...

Again, I suggest you study more about the passage before you use it to bash Paul.
 
RGacky3 said:
Read NT Wright "Paul and the faithfullness of God" .... you Can't understand that verse without understanding the context, and how Corinthian religion often worked. Remember this was a specific letter written to a specific Church for a specific reason, we know there were women deacons, we know there were women Preachers, all from Pauls letters. This passage is specific to Corinth, and the way religion in that city (and others) was something women did, and not men, Paul is going against that.
Click to expand...

Ah, so when it's something that people want to disagree with in the bible, they justify ignoring it's declarations by pretending it's not actually a decree from god, but a recommendation based on the existing church structure. Got it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, so when it's something that people want to disagree with in the bible, they justify ignoring it's declarations by pretending it's not actually a decree from god, but a recommendation based on the existing church structure. Got it.
Click to expand...

ummm, no, you look at the historical context and the literary context ... as you do With everything.

Have you read any serious Pauline commentary? Have you read about the historical background of Corinth? Or have you just found something that you can go "aha, you see" at?
 
RGacky3 said:
ummm, no, you look at the historical context and the literary context ... as you do With everything.

Have you read any serious Pauline commentary? Have you read about the historical background of Corinth? Or have you just found something that you can go "aha, you see" at?
Click to expand...

Why would I read other people's interpretations of the bible? They are mere mortals, and they are not inspired by God.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why would I read other people's interpretations of the bible? They are mere mortals, and they are not inspired by God.
Click to expand...

So that you can know what the actual historical context of the writers is, it's not interpretations I'm telling you to Research, I'm telling you to actually study the backgrounds, context and so on of the text so you know what you're talking about.
 
RGacky3 said:
So that you can know what the actual historical context of the writers is, it's not interpretations I'm telling you to Research, I'm telling you to actually study the backgrounds, context and so on of the text so you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly the same thing that can be done to ignore the anti-homosexuality aspects of the bible? If one looks at the historical context, the prohibitions on homosexuality clearly become a generalized cultural distaste, rather than something God was likely to push forth.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why would I read other people's interpretations of the bible? They are mere mortals, and they are not inspired by God.
Click to expand...

How do you know whether anyone is inspired by God? You are not God. You seem to be indicating that you are fully self-sufficient. I've never met a fully self-sufficient person who needed a god. What have you come here to discuss?
 
Tucker Case said:
Isn't that exactly the same thing that can be done to ignore the anti-homosexuality aspects of the bible? If one looks at the historical context, the prohibitions on homosexuality clearly become a generalized cultural distaste, rather than something God was likely to push forth.
Click to expand...

Sure, you have to actually LOOK at the situation, and the lanugage used, in that case however it kind of sticks, and nothing else paul Writes contradicts it.

Other Pauline epistles are very pro-feminist and women ARE Teachers and deacons in the NT, so when we find Paul saying that, we need to look further and figure out what his point is.
 
RGacky3 said:
Sure, you have to actually LOOK at the situation, and the lanugage used, in that case however it kind of sticks, and nothing else paul Writes contradicts it.

Other Pauline epistles are very pro-feminist and women ARE Teachers and deacons in the NT, so when we find Paul saying that, we need to look further and figure out what his point is.
Click to expand...

Where does Paul say that women should talk in church?
 
PeteEU said:
God did not make anything.
Click to expand...

Hey that's fine Pete, you don't believe we get it. What I never understand about atheists is the hostility? Are you being harassed by christians a daily basis or something? Relax man those believers aren't out to get ya.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where does Paul say that women should talk in church?
Click to expand...

He doesn't, but other Places he has very egalitarian views of women, and talks about women deacons and Preachers and so on.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where?
Click to expand...

There is no male nor female for all are on in Christ, he had high praise for Prisca, Phoebe (who had a leadership role in the Church), Julia (who also had a leadership role) and many other women.

Then there is teh famous there is no longer male nor female for all are one in Christ passage.

The point is it's Clear Paul recognized women in leadership roles and teaching roles, so we have to look at his other comments in context, and figure out what he's trying to say.
 
RGacky3 said:
There is no male nor female for all are on in Christ, he had high praise for Prisca, Phoebe (who had a leadership role in the Church), Julia (who also had a leadership role) and many other women.

Then there is teh famous there is no longer male nor female for all are one in Christ passage.

The point is it's Clear Paul recognized women in leadership roles and teaching roles, so we have to look at his other comments in context, and figure out what he's trying to say.
Click to expand...

So he was merely contradicting himself by banning women from speaking in church?
 
Tucker Case said:
So he was merely contradicting himself by banning women from speaking in church?
Click to expand...

OR, maybe you have to actually look at the historical context of what he was talking about and why. i.e. the religious atmosphere of the city to which he was writing a letter.
 
RGacky3 said:
OR, maybe you have to actually look at the historical context of what he was talking about and why. i.e. the religious atmosphere of the city to which he was writing a letter.
Click to expand...

But if he was arguing that there is no longer male or female, it seems pretty contradictory to say that women should or should not do anything.


Also, the statement contradicts his opposition to homosexuality. If there is no male or female, you should be able to marry whomever you want.
 
Tucker Case said:
But if he was arguing that there is no longer male or female, it seems pretty contradictory to say that women should or should not do anything.


Also, the statement contradicts his opposition to homosexuality. If there is no male or female, you should be able to marry whomever you want.
Click to expand...

Of coarse it does, if you can only think one demensionally, and you don't understand literary divices or historical context.

Of coarse he wasn't saying it literally, when Reading the scripturse you have to figure out the point the writer was trying to make.

You're Reading the bible like a fundementalist literalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom