Pleasure

[Lycorth]

My wife loves de Sade's books. I got a kick out of his stuff, too. And did you see Quills with Kate Winslet? Great movie about de Sade.

 

But taking him with a grain of salt is always best

 

And what conclusions does the Babble have? All it has, to me, are a bunch of instructions and myths that people thought a god inspired them to write, very few of them containing actual moral teachings. Could you explain?

[currentchristian]

My wife loves de Sade's books. I got a kick out of his stuff, too. And did you see Quills with Kate Winslet? Great movie about de Sade.

 

But taking him with a grain of salt is always best

 

And what conclusions does the Babble have? All it has, to me, are a bunch of instructions and myths that people thought a god inspired them to write, very few of them containing actual moral teachings. Could you explain?

 

I have never read any of de Sade's works, so really I don't know -- just going by what I hear.

 

Your question is a good one and requires three days of writing, likely.

 

Each person will come to their own conclusions about the Bible. Here are the conclusions I take from it:

 

1. There is a Source behind it all.

2. This Source was best represented by Jesus.

3. The best rule to live by is love.

4. One day, everything broken will be fixed.

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

1. There is a Source behind it all.

2. This Source was best represented by Jesus.

3. The best rule to live by is love.

4. One day, everything broken will be fixed.

 

Pretty much what I'd expect you as a individual to get from the Babble, at least given the generally sensible view you take on it.

 

I'll agree with #3, and on #4 to a point, but only that we will be the ones fixing anything, of course. But that's just my take on yours

[currentchristian]

1. There is a Source behind it all.

2. This Source was best represented by Jesus.

3. The best rule to live by is love.

4. One day, everything broken will be fixed.

 

Pretty much what I'd expect you as a individual to get from the Babble, at least given the generally sensible view you take on it.

 

I'll agree with #3, and on #4 to a point, but only that we will be the ones fixing anything, of course. But that's just my take on yours

 

That's fair.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Sorry I have to be a slacker right now due to time; I will only begin with your first reply.

Not a problem.

 

Maybe you are just not being clear and we are arguing on the same side...

...

So maybe you do agree with me and you're just coming across to me wrong. Paul says do not eat it because of the other man. Not because it is wrong to eat sacrificial food, but because your host thinks it's wrong to and you dont want to hurt his conscience. He clearly saysdo not eat it, "out of consideration," not because you should not eat sacrificial food.

 

The reason I see your side as so wrong because you keep saying "you should not eat that food" and leaving it at that. There is no command for not eating sacrificial food, Jesus says that nothing going in through your mouth can defile you. Sacrificial food goes in through the mouth, it does not come out of the heart, therefore it does not defile you. You should ask a blessing on all food.

Okay. We're definately not arguing the same side here, but now that I can more clearly see where the problem lies I think I can quickly clear this up.

 

Food offered in sacrifice (to a pagan god) is not allowed to be eaten. It is a forbidden item. Do not eat it even if it hurts the feelings of your host. Do not allow take their feelings into consideration when it comes to sacrificial food. However, in all other cases, meaning non-sacrificial food, you are free to partake of what you host sets before you and most certainly offer up thanks to your god for it.

 

This is what Paul is stating in those verses and this is the teachings of the early church as well. All foods, except those that had been offered up to pagan gods, were acceptable to eat. This is shocking news to those who are following Jewish dietary restrictions.

 

As for dragging the gospels into this, well, jesus never did away with the Law, and as a result, the dietary restrictions would technically still be in effect. You can even infer that he would have been a vegetarian and that many early xians were very much adherents to a vegetarian diet (from many early documents). Paul's divergence from both the Jewish and (possibly what might be "traditional") xian diet would be very radical but necessary to win converts among the pagan Greeks and Romans. Just as doing away with many strict Jewish rules (like circumcision for example). However, the point of jesus' comment would have been for theological effect rather than a commentary on dietary guidelines.

 

mwc

[QuinnTheEskimo]

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

 

I agree on that, and I think that most Orthodox Jews don't follow the Torah prescripts for animal scarifice for the same reason Xians don't do as Jebus instructed and sell all they have and give it all to the poor, or when either group doesn't obey the majority of instructions found in their holy books.

 

It's illogical, makes one's life excessively complicated and difficult, and in truth has no observable impact on one's life or the world around oneself.

 

Why waste time on things that don't provide an observable benefit, or can be proven to end up doing so? For me, that was part of why I rejected not just Xianity, but any religion whose teachings would cause me to lump all sorts of extraneous stuff on my life and thus burden myself to the point where I couldn't enjoy life or reach my potential. My life was far from happy trying to live up to all sorts of precepts found in the Babble, not because I was evil and wanted to be evil, but because they were chipping away at my happiness and my mood.

 

Just some more stuff to mull over.

 

Well I like how you're thinking. The flaw is in that animal sacrificing, not shaving, not wearing polyester, incense burning, and all the other law is just that, law. The are laws you must live by in order to make atonement for sins. Jesus says that in order for your sins to be forgiven, all you must do is pray to God for forgiveness, and you will be cleansed. In order for salvation, you must believe in Jesus Christ as our savior.

 

In the story of the rich young man,

Mark 10:

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother. 20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 

The point of this story is not that in order for salvation you must sell all your possessions and follow Jesus, infact since Jesus is dead this would not even be relevant, as there is no Jesus to follow around. The point is that the man in his ignorance tells Jesus that he has followed all the commandments earnestly. As a test by Jesus to see if this man's intentions really were to follow God with all his heart and that he is actually trying his very best for eternal life, Jesus tells him to sell all his belongings. Since the man walks away sorrowfully, he obviously really wasnt putting all of himself into that aim for eternal life as he came off as to Jesus. Don't pretend to be better than you really are. I believe that this man would have gone to Heaven, and found salvation. He went before Jesus kneeling, he calls him Good Master, and asks sincerely how to find salvation. Even though he was an ignorant man, he would have been saved because of his belief in Jesus.

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Sorry I have to be a slacker right now due to time; I will only begin with your first reply.

Not a problem.

 

Maybe you are just not being clear and we are arguing on the same side...

...

So maybe you do agree with me and you're just coming across to me wrong. Paul says do not eat it because of the other man. Not because it is wrong to eat sacrificial food, but because your host thinks it's wrong to and you dont want to hurt his conscience. He clearly saysdo not eat it, "out of consideration," not because you should not eat sacrificial food.

 

The reason I see your side as so wrong because you keep saying "you should not eat that food" and leaving it at that. There is no command for not eating sacrificial food, Jesus says that nothing going in through your mouth can defile you. Sacrificial food goes in through the mouth, it does not come out of the heart, therefore it does not defile you. You should ask a blessing on all food.

Okay. We're definately not arguing the same side here, but now that I can more clearly see where the problem lies I think I can quickly clear this up.

 

Food offered in sacrifice (to a pagan god) is not allowed to be eaten. It is a forbidden item. Do not eat it even if it hurts the feelings of your host. Do not allow take their feelings into consideration when it comes to sacrificial food. However, in all other cases, meaning non-sacrificial food, you are free to partake of what you host sets before you and most certainly offer up thanks to your god for it.

 

This is what Paul is stating in those verses and this is the teachings of the early church as well. All foods, except those that had been offered up to pagan gods, were acceptable to eat. This is shocking news to those who are following Jewish dietary restrictions.

 

As for dragging the gospels into this, well, jesus never did away with the Law, and as a result, the dietary restrictions would technically still be in effect. You can even infer that he would have been a vegetarian and that many early xians were very much adherents to a vegetarian diet (from many early documents). Paul's divergence from both the Jewish and (possibly what might be "traditional") xian diet would be very radical but necessary to win converts among the pagan Greeks and Romans. Just as doing away with many strict Jewish rules (like circumcision for example). However, the point of jesus' comment would have been for theological effect rather than a commentary on dietary guidelines.

 

mwc

 

You continue to fight your case even after we examine the verse in detail. So I felt I should check the Matthew Henry's Commentary on the subject.

 

"V. He urges them to refrain where they will give offence, while yet he allows it lawful to eat what was set before them as common food, though it had been offered in sacrifice. "Another man's conscience is no measure to our conduct. What he thinks unlawful is not thereby made unlawful to me, but may be a matter of liberty still; and as long as I own God as a giver of my food, and render him thanks for it, it is very unjust to reproach me for using it.""

 

Basically, you can eat any food, just stay away from anything that would offend your neighbor. I believe if you re-examine the verse you will see that this is exactly what Paul is saying.

 

Anywho, this is not even about what foods you can and cannot eat. The whole passage is about doing things to the glory of God, and showing love to your neighbors in all.

[Lycorth]

The point of this story is not that in order for salvation you must sell all your possessions and follow Jesus, infact since Jesus is dead this would not even be relevant, as there is no Jesus to follow around.

 

Since Jebus is dead, then why bother following anything he said, then? If you can discard one thing he instructed, why not discard it all? Why do away with one thing that Jebus said, just because it's hard?

 

That's why I couldn't remain a Xian. It requires you to lump all this unecessary bullshit onto your life, all with the premise of eternal happiness, like some sort of spiritual vampirism, or perhaps analogous to the promise of eternal life Sauron gave to the nine kings of Men who were to become the enslaved Nazgul.

 

Doing things like that always ends up robbing a person of happiness in life by orienting life towards working for some "hereafter" rather than making the best of the world we are in. That's part of how Xianity is anti-pleasure, as much as there are very real passages wherein Xians are encouraged to give up all worldly items and pleasures, all for the sake of a god who refuses to appear to a single person today.

 

That, and Jebus also said the law will not pass away, nor that he came to do away with the law, so all that inane crap about blended fibers and not shaving and so forth is still valid, you know.

 

Think about it - how can a religion with all those implications also be friendly to the pursuit of earthly pleasure and fulfillment? When it's examined on its face and interpreted according to the plain text of its holy books, it clearly doesn't.

[currentchristian]

The point of this story is not that in order for salvation you must sell all your possessions and follow Jesus, infact since Jesus is dead this would not even be relevant, as there is no Jesus to follow around.

 

Since Jebus is dead, then why bother following anything he said, then? If you can discard one thing he instructed, why not discard it all? Why do away with one thing that Jebus said, just because it's hard?

 

That's why I couldn't remain a Xian. It requires you to lump all this unecessary bullshit onto your life, all with the premise of eternal happiness, like some sort of spiritual vampirism, or perhaps analogous to the promise of eternal life Sauron gave to the nine kings of Men who were to become the enslaved Nazgul.

 

Doing things like that always ends up robbing a person of happiness in life by orienting life towards working for some "hereafter" rather than making the best of the world we are in. That's part of how Xianity is anti-pleasure, as much as there are very real passages wherein Xians are encouraged to give up all worldly items and pleasures, all for the sake of a god who refuses to appear to a single person today.

 

That, and Jebus also said the law will not pass away, nor that he came to do away with the law, so all that inane crap about blended fibers and not shaving and so forth is still valid, you know.

 

Think about it - how can a religion with all those implications also be friendly to the pursuit of earthly pleasure and fulfillment? When it's examined on its face and interpreted according to the plain text of its holy books, it clearly doesn't.

 

The Bible in like our wonderful U.S. Constitution: Open to many interpretations. That's a strength, from my perspective. The Bible should be a living, breathing, evolving document, as our Constitution is.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

You continue to fight your case even after we examine the verse in detail. So I felt I should check the Matthew Henry's Commentary on the subject.

 

"V. He urges them to refrain where they will give offence, while yet he allows it lawful to eat what was set before them as common food, though it had been offered in sacrifice. "Another man's conscience is no measure to our conduct. What he thinks unlawful is not thereby made unlawful to me, but may be a matter of liberty still; and as long as I own God as a giver of my food, and render him thanks for it, it is very unjust to reproach me for using it.""

 

Basically, you can eat any food, just stay away from anything that would offend your neighbor. I believe if you re-examine the verse you will see that this is exactly what Paul is saying.

 

Anywho, this is not even about what foods you can and cannot eat. The whole passage is about doing things to the glory of God, and showing love to your neighbors in all.

I'm not familiar with this commentary but I made myself familiar with it since you introduced it here. So why did you skip this section:

 

IV. Yet, even at such an entertainment, he adds, if any should say it was a thing that had been offered to idols, they should refrain: Eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience’ sake.

Which, again, states that if the food set before the person is known to be sacrificial food then that person is NOT to eat that food otherwise they can eat it.

 

Even your own chosen commentator agrees with me on this issue.

 

I'm not sure why you you have a need to make this passage say something that it doesn't. I'm not entirely sure what your motivation is but both Paul, and your commentator, agree with me on this. Also, I'll also touch again on what I said in another post. This has nothing to do with any comments in the gospels.

 

In case you feel like dragging this out I went over to Crosswalk.com and her's a couple more commentaries from the study guides (just the top two from the list) on this passage:

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament

 

To follow out this rule, these are his instructions: Whatsoever was sold in the market they should eat without question of conscience. If any man said, "This was sacrificed to idols," it was a proof that he had conscience of an idol. They should then not eat of it, because of his conscience. For as to him who was free, his liberty could not be judged by the conscience of the other; for, as to doctrine, and where there was knowledge, the apostle recognises it as a truth that the idol was nothing.

 

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

this is offered in sacrifice unto idols;

...

now when any at the feast, either believer or unbeliever, should thus point at any particular dish, and affirm this of it; then the apostle's advice is, eat not for his sake that showed it:

who, if a weak believer, will be grieved and wounded; and if an infidel, will be hardened in his impiety, and be furnished with an opportunity of reproaching the Christians, as variable, insincere, and unfaithful in their religion.

 

 

I could have kept going down the list of commentaries (they had maybe a dozen or so) but I didn't see the point since I think my point on this one issue is, hopefully, made by now.

 

mwc

[mwc]

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

 

I just thought I'd chime in and hopefully clear this up real quick for you.

 

When the temple fell in 70CE the Jews thought it would be rebuilt fairly quickly (in about 3 years actually in some of the documents I've read). That obviously didn't happen. Time went on and the second rebellion happened and the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and a pagan temple was built on their holy mountain. That pretty much ended their religion since it requires the temple.

 

Along comes the Mishnah and Rabbinic Judaism. It's basically what the Pharisees were supposed to have believed, without all the temple stuff. In a way it's like xianity sans a savior at this point (and a permanent hell concept since everyone save a select few actually remain in eternal torment according to their beliefs).

 

Anyhow, they can have many messiahs (they've already had Cyrus the Great in the bible for example...and technically any of their kings or high priests is a messiah...I've even had it explained to me that a messiah is born each generation but only "activated" by their god if he finds it to be necessary) but there will be only one "moshiach" and that's the one that will do all the prophecies according to the OT (such as bringing the kingdom, writing the law on everyone's heart and restoring the temple). They will know who this person is because all these things will come to pass, in there entirety, during that persons life as per the writings. If at any point this person falls short of completing their tasks, then they were not the one.

 

Anyhow, it's because of the Mishnah and the adoption of Rabbinic Judaism that the Jews do not adhere to the Law in its entirety. It's impossible without the temple and until the moshiach is sent by their god to build the third temple and restore the Law as per the prophecies they are unable to do anymore than live by the interpretation they do.

 

The truly orthodox Jews take it much further, even obeying the Sabbath Years in crop production, which Israel's officials wishes they would stop doing because, despite promises to the contrary, YHWH isn't giving up the abundant crops on those years and these people keep getting subsidies from the government in order to survive. So, there are those who try to obey the old Law, minus the temple of course but most people adhere to the Rabbinic view.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

You know Varok, that's a really good point you bring up. And yes, I was referring to Judaism today. It has always boggled me why they don't follow the Old Testament Laws. Certainly they should be since their messiah hasnt come. They reason they present when asked is that they do not have a Temple. In which case, they seem to be doomed without a Temple. However I believe that most Jews today are only Jewish due to heritage, most of them don't seem to know the Old Testament at all, and if they do don't follow nearly as much as they should. Anyways, I don't want to go off on another tangent.

 

I just thought I'd chime in and hopefully clear this up real quick for you.

 

When the temple fell in 70CE the Jews thought it would be rebuilt fairly quickly (in about 3 years actually in some of the documents I've read). That obviously didn't happen. Time went on and the second rebellion happened and the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem and a pagan temple was built on their holy mountain. That pretty much ended their religion since it requires the temple.

 

Along comes the Mishnah and Rabbinic Judaism. It's basically what the Pharisees were supposed to have believed, without all the temple stuff. In a way it's like xianity sans a savior at this point (and a permanent hell concept since everyone save a select few actually remain in eternal torment according to their beliefs).

 

Anyhow, they can have many messiahs (they've already had Cyrus the Great in the bible for example...and technically any of their kings or high priests is a messiah...I've even had it explained to me that a messiah is born each generation but only "activated" by their god if he finds it to be necessary) but there will be only one "moshiach" and that's the one that will do all the prophecies according to the OT (such as bringing the kingdom, writing the law on everyone's heart and restoring the temple). They will know who this person is because all these things will come to pass, in there entirety, during that persons life as per the writings. If at any point this person falls short of completing their tasks, then they were not the one.

 

Anyhow, it's because of the Mishnah and the adoption of Rabbinic Judaism that the Jews do not adhere to the Law in its entirety. It's impossible without the temple and until the moshiach is sent by their god to build the third temple and restore the Law as per the prophecies they are unable to do anymore than live by the interpretation they do.

 

The truly orthodox Jews take it much further, even obeying the Sabbath Years in crop production, which Israel's officials wishes they would stop doing because, despite promises to the contrary, YHWH isn't giving up the abundant crops on those years and these people keep getting subsidies from the government in order to survive. So, there are those who try to obey the old Law, minus the temple of course but most people adhere to the Rabbinic view.

 

mwc

 

Excellent summary of a book I'm reading right now: From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, about that nearly 400-year period from the Maccabean revolt (origin of Hanukkah, BTW) to the publication of the Mishnah at the end of the 2nd century C.E. A good read by a leading scholar on Judaism, Shaye J.D. Cohen.

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

Excellent summary of a book I'm reading right now: From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, about that nearly 400-year period from the Maccabean revolt (origin of Hanukkah, BTW) to the publication of the Mishnah at the end of the 2nd century C.E. A good read by a leading scholar on Judaism, Shaye J.D. Cohen.

Thanks. You can clear up any mistakes I made then (considering it all came off the top of my head except for "moshiach"...I always have to look that up).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

The Bible in like our wonderful U.S. Constitution: Open to many interpretations. That's a strength, from my perspective. The Bible should be a living, breathing, evolving document, as our Constitution is.

Okay. That's cool. But how does that goes with the fundamentalists views or the literalists? If it's a living and changing document can "Hell" or "Salvation" all of a sudden be excluded from the dogma through new revelations and interpretations?

[mwc]

Okay. That's cool. But how does that goes with the fundamentalists views or the literalists? If it's a living and changing document can "Hell" or "Salvation" all of a sudden be excluded from the dogma through new revelations and interpretations?

 

Yes, exactly. Why is it that people do away with the "hell" portion and keep the other? Where is the universal damnation doctrine? At the very least why isn't the canon flexible?

 

By the way, welcome back, Hans.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Yes, exactly. Why is it that people do away with the "hell" portion and keep the other? Where is the universal damnation doctrine? At the very least why isn't the canon flexible?

 

By the way, welcome back, Hans.

Thanks man, we'll see how much or how long I can do it, crazy times at work...

 

If Hell or Salvation can be omitted from the doctrine, then what's the use of the religion?

 

If it can't, why even claim it is a dynamic and flexible religion?

 

-edit- I forgot this...

 

And if it is flexible to only a certain extent then who or what decides what can be "flexible" and what can not? Is it people with special revelations, government, church, tradition or some codex book that decides it? If anyone of those, then why and what's the rational that one thing or another does control what can be flexible and changed in the religion and what can't?

[currentchristian]

The Bible in like our wonderful U.S. Constitution: Open to many interpretations. That's a strength, from my perspective. The Bible should be a living, breathing, evolving document, as our Constitution is.

Okay. That's cool. But how does that goes with the fundamentalists views or the literalists? If it's a living and changing document can "Hell" or "Salvation" all of a sudden be excluded from the dogma through new revelations and interpretations?

 

It's open to interpretation, as I see it. Those called "fundamentalist" or "literalist" won't go for this. As we know, they often say, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."

 

There are Constitutional "fundamentalists," too -- the strict constructionists who rant against those who "legislate from the bench," and "make law, instead of interpreting it."

 

I stand my ground, however, that revelation is progressive and the Bible should be allowed to live and breathe, just as our law evolves and changes. Thank God!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Okay. That's cool. But how does that goes with the fundamentalists views or the literalists? If it's a living and changing document can "Hell" or "Salvation" all of a sudden be excluded from the dogma through new revelations and interpretations?

 

Yes, exactly. Why is it that people do away with the "hell" portion and keep the other? Where is the universal damnation doctrine? At the very least why isn't the canon flexible?

 

By the way, welcome back, Hans.

 

mwc

 

In one sense, each person has a right to edit the scripture. Remember Elizabeth Cady Stanton's The Woman's Bible ? T. Jefferson literally took scissors to the Bible to cut out what he didn't like.

 

The canon is set. But why are we all beholden to the decisions made 1700 years ago? In my view, we are wise to respect the views of those who established the canon; we are wise to seek to understand their choices; and we are wise to cautiously disagree after much study and learning.

 

But we are allowed to disagree all we want. Remember Martin Luther called James "an epistle of straw."

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

CC,

 

You ever read John Shelby Spong?

 

And another question, lots of questions from me today, I edited my post a bit too late to get them to you, but what decides if a "revelation" of the Bible is correct or not?

[currentchristian]

CC,

 

You ever read John Shelby Spong?

 

And another question, lots of questions from me today, I edited my post a bit too late to get them to you, but what decides if a "revelation" of the Bible is correct or not?

 

HanSolo! I'm quite familiar with Bishop Spong, but have read only two of his books. One was Living in Sin? I don't remember what the other one was, but I know it wasn't Why Christianity Must Change or Die. Those who want to follow Spong's views are fine with me, but he goes to far for my taste, denying even a literal resurrection of Jesus, for example.

 

I think it's healthy that we have so many sects of Christianity. Each person can affiliate or not with one or another or none as their intellect/mind/conscience/spirit/whatever leads them.

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

The Bible in like our wonderful U.S. Constitution: Open to many interpretations. That's a strength, from my perspective. The Bible should be a living, breathing, evolving document, as our Constitution is.

 

You're right - it should be, but because it's mythology, not literal history or reality. Hence, it's open for interpretation. And that's definitely better than being literalistic about it.

 

But that's not the message of the Babble. When you read it, you're confronted with a story about someone who is portrayed as having actually existed, having interacted with real historical figures in real historical places, and having done deeds that actual, living people have seen. Also, the mission and message of this person is portrayed as being about a real, literal choice people have (between eternal pleasure or pain) that will affect a reality they will genuinely experience.

 

No matter the sect, any Xian denomination that teaches the traditional view of Xianity teaches what I've stated above. It was the one consistency I saw in all my sect-hopping of yore. And any plain reading of the Babble, without trying to run metaphorical circles around oneself, conveys this.

 

It's clear implication is as I've stated above, and taking that literally has been the ruin of many individuals and many civilizations. Certainly not conducive to pleasure or any sort of natrual happiness.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo! I'm quite familiar with Bishop Spong, but have read only two of his books. One was Living in Sin? I don't remember what the other one was, but I know it wasn't Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

I read the the "Why Christians..." and I also read another book I can't remember.

 

It was part of helping me free myself from the bondage of religion, not saying it was the cause, but it did help me see my (then) religion in a different light.

 

Those who want to follow Spong's views are fine with me, but he goes to far for my taste, denying even a literal resurrection of Jesus, for example.

You see, that's the problem with this "flexible-interpretation" view. Since you decided here that JSS doesn't have the "right" interpretation, while (I assume) you feel that you do. And without a guideline any opinion is valid, but with a guideline, who is to decide and what criteria makes the guideline the correct one?

 

I realized a while back that Christianity has been and is always changing. It is good and bad, but it sure is one of the reasons why that religion still is alive. Without the changes to fit into current culture it would soon be written of as a fringe cult (a la Phelps).

 

The problem with this constant change is that no one can with certainty say that their view is the correct one, since 5 or 10 years from now your view can be considered heretic.

 

I think it's healthy that we have so many sects of Christianity. Each person can affiliate or not with one or another or none as their intellect/mind/conscience/spirit/whatever leads them.

So how do you reconcile this with the words of Jesus to the disciples when he said that the world would know you are from God when you are united?

(I don't have the exact quote or verse right now, but I could look it up for you.)

[Mythra]

This one? (from John 16)

 

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

COMPLETE UNITY!!

 

Bwahahaha!

[Ouroboros]

Maybe the "tri-unity" idea is spreading over to the "unity" of theology as well, but it becomes n-unity, poly-unity or plura-unity or whatever one would call it?

 

-edit-

 

Ah, plurality is the word, just couldn't find it in my scattered brain.

 

So, should the Bible then be fixed through this new revelation? Is this part of the dynamic document algorithm that we have concluded Christianity uses for its interpretations? So the verse should now say something like:

 

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be of different opinions, Father, not as you are in me and I am in you. May they also not be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be divided, not as we are one: 23 I will not be in them but you in me. May they be brought to complete confusion and conflict to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

 

Sumtin' like that.

[QuinnTheEskimo]

You continue to fight your case even after we examine the verse in detail. So I felt I should check the Matthew Henry's Commentary on the subject.

 

"V. He urges them to refrain where they will give offence, while yet he allows it lawful to eat what was set before them as common food, though it had been offered in sacrifice. "Another man's conscience is no measure to our conduct. What he thinks unlawful is not thereby made unlawful to me, but may be a matter of liberty still; and as long as I own God as a giver of my food, and render him thanks for it, it is very unjust to reproach me for using it.""

 

Basically, you can eat any food, just stay away from anything that would offend your neighbor. I believe if you re-examine the verse you will see that this is exactly what Paul is saying.

 

Anywho, this is not even about what foods you can and cannot eat. The whole passage is about doing things to the glory of God, and showing love to your neighbors in all.

I'm not familiar with this commentary but I made myself familiar with it since you introduced it here. So why did you skip this section:

 

IV. Yet, even at such an entertainment, he adds, if any should say it was a thing that had been offered to idols, they should refrain: Eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience’ sake.

Which, again, states that if the food set before the person is known to be sacrificial food then that person is NOT to eat that food otherwise they can eat it.

 

Even your own chosen commentator agrees with me on this issue.

 

I'm not sure why you you have a need to make this passage say something that it doesn't. I'm not entirely sure what your motivation is but both Paul, and your commentator, agree with me on this. Also, I'll also touch again on what I said in another post. This has nothing to do with any comments in the gospels.

 

In case you feel like dragging this out I went over to Crosswalk.com and her's a couple more commentaries from the study guides (just the top two from the list) on this passage:

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament

 

To follow out this rule, these are his instructions: Whatsoever was sold in the market they should eat without question of conscience. If any man said, "This was sacrificed to idols," it was a proof that he had conscience of an idol. They should then not eat of it, because of his conscience. For as to him who was free, his liberty could not be judged by the conscience of the other; for, as to doctrine, and where there was knowledge, the apostle recognises it as a truth that the idol was nothing.

 

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

this is offered in sacrifice unto idols;

...

now when any at the feast, either believer or unbeliever, should thus point at any particular dish, and affirm this of it; then the apostle's advice is, eat not for his sake that showed it:

who, if a weak believer, will be grieved and wounded; and if an infidel, will be hardened in his impiety, and be furnished with an opportunity of reproaching the Christians, as variable, insincere, and unfaithful in their religion.

 

 

I could have kept going down the list of commentaries (they had maybe a dozen or so) but I didn't see the point since I think my point on this one issue is, hopefully, made by now.

 

mwc

 

Every single one of these points says that you should not eat it because when somebody points out that it is sacrificial food, that means that person has something against it. As to not offend him by eating food that goes against this man, you should refrain. Every single one of those says it. You are completely blind, and I think you just woln't admit it at this point. This is complete and total stubborness.