Christianity vs Paulianity

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Yeah, I can't really comment, not having seen it.  I remember my wife watched it a few years back.

 

Is/was she a christian? What did she have to say to you about it if anything? As I said, I'm particularly interested in women's views. 

Clearly this was not a favorite movie among men....

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Some branches/practices of Christianity (including but not limited to the FLDS) do look an awful lot like a fertility cult.

The book/series is about a lot more than that, it's simply one aspect of the dystopian future xtianity seems to have in mind. In particular, women are reduced to slaves, sexual if still fertile, and ruled as a country by the Dominionist(?) movement now in full progress

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, moxieflux66 said:

Is/was she a christian? What did she have to say to you about it if anything? As I said, I'm particularly interested in women's views. 

Clearly this was not a favorite movie among men....

 

No, she's not a Christian... but she didn't really say much about the show to me anyway.  I tend to spend time in the garage when some of 'her' shows come on 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

10 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

No, she's not a Christian... but she didn't really say much about the show to me anyway.  I tend to spend time in the garage when some of 'her' shows come on 

Thus, one of the problems I have getting a response to the thread...from men either. Not a word. It would behoove you, as a christian to see/read the first episode/book. THEN come back with whether or not you would like to see this situation come about. 

And I will be waiting patiently to see if this is the kind of world you'd like to see....as a christian

 

[RankStranger]

Just now, moxieflux66 said:

Thus, one of the problems I have getting a response to the thread...from men either. Not a word. It would behoove you, as a christian to see/read the first episode/book. THEN come back with whether or not you would like to see this situation come about. 

And I will be waiting patiently to see if this is the kind of world you'd like to see....as a christian

 

 

Not my sort of show, but thanks for the recommendation.

 

For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin.  And yet I would support codifying Roe V. Wade into law.  Government shouldn't be inserted into peoples' crotches.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

For what it's worth, I think abortion may well be a sin.  And yet I would support codifying Roe V. Wade into law.  Government shouldn't be inserted into peoples' crotches.

Would you like to start a thread about this in the Lion's Den? 

[RankStranger]

Just now, moxieflux66 said:

Would you like to start a thread about this in the Lion's Den? 

 

I think this is more your issue than mine.  I don't consider myself a feminist, but I do tend to agree with them that men shouldn't be making decisions about ladies' lady-parts.

 

If you want to start a thread on it, I can contribute.  But I don't think you and I will have much to argue about.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

59 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Have you ever been to a progressive Christian church?  Have you spent any time there to learn what they preach about, how they treat others, and why they believe the way they do?

No and I'm not planning to because I'm not foolish enough to think they "have it right" as opposed to any of the other 30,000 denominations interpretations of the bible. The Very little I know about them is that they concentrate on the good happy parts of the bible and leave out the nasty bits. It is the only way to justify their teachings. Just ignore what they don't like. 

 

But for this reason, it is why I asked you to tell me why you think they are closer to Jesus in practice. So please enlighten me to the progressive church's superior practices. 

 

It seems I struck a nerve with you. The problem is that it isn't me striking the nerve. It is the biblical teachings, scripture, and ideology that strikes the nerve. I have said nothing I haven't supported with scripture and that is unnerving for any Christian. This is supposedly the book that God gave you to live by. You don't like..... NO you hate Christian fundamentalism but, in the end, what are they doing? Trying to live by the whole book. Thats all. They believe it all as the inerrant word of the almighty. And who can blame them? It is all laid out in the word. 

 

1 Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

Every bit of it is meant to be used according to the bible. It isn't that I share their beliefs. Not any longer. It is just even now I know that is what was meant to be taught. The very early church would have been more akin to a Holiness sect. Believing that they could be Holy and live the life of Christ. Many were martyred as faithful servants to their God. That is an intense dedication to a faith. Between the emotional hooks, the feelings of being unworthy, the feeling of gratitude for the forgiveness of sin, and the fear of Hell as the alternative to remaining obedient. What other choice did they have but to suffer and die like Christ did. I don't think i have to quote scripture to point out the dying for Christ was an applauded act of faith. 

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

I agree that Jesus would not have explicitly condoned homosexuality.  But neither did He explicitly condemn them.  For me the question isn't whether or not homosexuality is a sin - clearly it is.  The question to me is whether or not homosexuality should be singled out and treated as being worse than all the other sins... while many MANY common sins within the Church are straight up ignored.

 

On the point of Homosexuality being worse than other sins I agree. I don't think that it is any worse than others according to the scripture. All sin will send a person to Hell. But apparently it is this particular sin God finds abhorrent. And this has lead Christians to put more emphasis on this sin over others. Even to the point that Christians in America blame homosexuals for everything wrong with the world. I never did understand how someone being gay could cause so much trouble. That wasn't something I taught. But there were and still are those that do. 

 

However I feel you are mistaken that Jesus never explicitly says it in the gospels. We've already covered how he supported the law, which did explicitly say it. And then there is this little tidbit. 

 

Luke 17

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

 

Anyone knowing the stories of Noah and Lot know that these are the only two times that God destroys whole civilizations because of sin. With Noah he destroys the world because of man's sin. With Lot he destroys sodom and Gommorah because of the Sin and apparent homosexual acts committed there. 

 

This is pretty plane to me that Jesus was not against God's actions on either occasion. But supported them whole heartedly saying all that was going to be going on when he returned. And nowhere does he say that it isn't sin. So, while I like the more liberal progressive stance of those churches as a human being. I think they fool themselves by thinking God is supportive of them. Biblical teachings are toxic and not profitable for humanities wellbeing or progress. 

 

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

If I become interested in the input of X-Christians regarding my personal belief in Jesus Christ... I'll start a thread on that subject 

 

Then why even post a topic here as a Christian Rank? You can't discuss a damn thing on this Forum about the bible without it eventually drawing attention to what you believe. That isn't a discussion at all. What do you want us to just talk about it amongst ourselves so you can live your little FAKE Christian existence? Fooling yourself into believing in something you know deep down that you can't UNKNOW that it doesn't exist? Wasn't True? And is pointless to worship?

 

Regards,

Dark Bishop

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I think this is more your issue than mine.  I don't consider myself a feminist, but I do tend to agree with them that men shouldn't be making decisions about ladies' lady-parts.

 

If you want to start a thread on it, I can contribute.  But I don't think you and I will have much to argue about.

 

 

Since this is way off topic I request your permission, as a christian, to tell us your views on what you said and why. That's all. They differ from 'other' christians' viewpoints and I'd like you to explain your unique viewpoint as a christian. I have the topic waiting for your approval. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I think this is more your issue than mine.  I don't consider myself a feminist, but I do tend to agree with them that men shouldn't be making decisions about ladies' lady-parts.

 

If you want to start a thread on it, I can contribute.  But I don't think you and I will have much to argue about.

 

 

And yes, I also had to learn the hard way that those are the things the Lion's Den is for, so I'm thinking that's where we should talk. This is indeed 'safe space' for the recovering, not a place to proselytize your personal beliefs

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Ok, as I told Egarcito, I DO have a social budget, so I"m going to quote you on a new thread. 

[Casualfanboy16]

8 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

On the point of Homosexuality being worse than other sins I agree. I don't think that it is any worse than others according to the scripture. All sin will send a person to Hell. But apparently it is this particular sin God finds abhorrent. And this has lead Christians to put more emphasis on this sin over others. Even to the point that Christians in America blame homosexuals for everything wrong with the world. I never did understand how someone being gay could cause so much trouble. That wasn't something I taught. But there were and still are those that do. 

Yeah, I know right?? That's crazy. Anyway, time to go kiss men and cause violent natural disasters and destroy the economy

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Since this is way off topic I request your permission, as a christian, to tell us your views on what you said and why. That's all. They differ from 'other' christians' viewpoints and I'd like you to explain your unique viewpoint as a christian. I have the topic waiting for your approval. 

 

9 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Ok, as I told Egarcito, I DO have a social budget, so I"m going to quote you on a new thread. 

Good luck with that endeavor.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

3 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

Good luck with that endeavor.

Oh yea of little faith.....

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Unfortunately for ya'll I'm back from vacation, full of piss and vinegar and ready for the Den. 

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

No and I'm not planning to because I'm not foolish enough to think they "have it right" as opposed to any of the other 30,000 denominations interpretations of the bible. The Very little I know about them is that they concentrate on the good happy parts of the bible and leave out the nasty bits. It is the only way to justify their teachings. Just ignore what they don't like. 

 

 

I don't recall claiming that progressive Christians "have it right", to the exclusion of thousands of other denominations.  I have yet to find any denomination that I think 'has it right'.  I have doubts that I'll find such a thing anywhere.

 

But thanks for clarifying that your notions regarding progressive Christians are based on fundamentalism and bigotry, with no real word experience at all.

 

The bolded could be copy/pasted from just about any fundamentalist sermon.  Seems odd to me for an X-Christian, but you do you 

 

Remember, you're not talking to a fundamentalist here.  Pretty sure I'm talking to one though 

 

 

 

Quote

But for this reason, it is why I asked you to tell me why you think they are closer to Jesus in practice. So please enlighten me to the progressive church's superior practices. 

 

Maybe you've assumed that this is my reasoning (projection?).  And fair enough- per Matthew 25 31-40... most of your fundamentalist brethren are clearly goats.  

 

But that's not to say that I believe the UMC, nor any progressive denomination, nor any denomination that I can name... "has it right".  That's not how I see this at all.

 

 

 

Quote

It seems I struck a nerve with you. The problem is that it isn't me striking the nerve. It is the biblical teachings, scripture, and ideology that strikes the nerve. I have said nothing I haven't supported with scripture and that is unnerving for any Christian. This is supposedly the book that God gave you to live by. You don't like..... NO you hate Christian fundamentalism but, in the end, what are they doing? Trying to live by the whole book. Thats all. They believe it all as the inerrant word of the almighty. And who can blame them? It is all laid out in the word. 

 

1 Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

Every bit of it is meant to be used according to the bible. It isn't that I share their beliefs. Not any longer. It is just even now I know that is what was meant to be taught. The very early church would have been more akin to a Holiness sect. Believing that they could be Holy and live the life of Christ. Many were martyred as faithful servants to their God. That is an intense dedication to a faith. Between the emotional hooks, the feelings of being unworthy, the feeling of gratitude for the forgiveness of sin, and the fear of Hell as the alternative to remaining obedient. What other choice did they have but to suffer and die like Christ did. I don't think i have to quote scripture to point out the dying for Christ was an applauded act of faith. 

 

Again with the sermons.  I bet you were a real joy at the pulpit.

 

I understand that within a lot of evangelical churches, the idea is that (1) The Bible is true and whole in every line, jot, and tittle and (2) To be a Real Christian(TM) one must adhere to be plain text of the bible as closely as possible, and live as the Original Christians(TM) lived.

 

I don't believe either of those things, and I don't worship a book.  Apparently you think I should... and I frankly don't care.  People think all kinds of dumb things.

 

 

 

Quote

On the point of Homosexuality being worse than other sins I agree. I don't think that it is any worse than others according to the scripture. All sin will send a person to Hell. But apparently it is this particular sin God finds abhorrent. And this has lead Christians to put more emphasis on this sin over others. Even to the point that Christians in America blame homosexuals for everything wrong with the world. I never did understand how someone being gay could cause so much trouble. That wasn't something I taught. But there were and still are those that do. 

 

However I feel you are mistaken that Jesus never explicitly says it in the gospels. We've already covered how he supported the law, which did explicitly say it. And then there is this little tidbit. 

 

Luke 17

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

 

Anyone knowing the stories of Noah and Lot know that these are the only two times that God destroys whole civilizations because of sin. With Noah he destroys the world because of man's sin. With Lot he destroys sodom and Gommorah because of the Sin and apparent homosexual acts committed there. 

 

On the subject of Sodom & Gomorrah, some have argued that those cities made a practice of forcibly sodomizing any outsiders who came to the city... that Lot's story was an example of that, and that's why the cities were destroyed.  Not sure I believe that, or if the bible's authors would have even made a distinction between consensual vs non-consensual sodomy.  But that's what some believe.

 

Others have made the argument that this is a cultural revulsion.  Not unlike the Jews' cultural revulsion to their neighbors' practice of cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk, hence that particular kosher rule.

 

And the fact remains that the Old Testament is an oral history, written by bronze-age goat-herders.  Who knows what previous versions lost to time actually said?

 

The beauty of not being a fundamentalist- and understanding that there's a long and not-so-magical history to the Bible- is that I can embrace ambiguity.  It's the only honest approach available to me.

 

I know ambiguity won't work with your fundamentalist beliefs.  But I don't have that problem.

 

 

 

Quote

This is pretty plane to me that Jesus was not against God's actions on either occasion. But supported them whole heartedly saying all that was going to be going on when he returned. And nowhere does he say that it isn't sin. So, while I like the more liberal progressive stance of those churches as a human being. I think they fool themselves by thinking God is supportive of them. Biblical teachings are toxic and not profitable for humanities wellbeing or progress. 

 

Personally I draw the line at 'gay affirming' churches.  If they're straight-up preaching that it's ok to be gay, then IMO they've lost the plot and I'm not interested.  Whatever the truth is, God clearly isn't supportive of being gay.

 

The church I've been going to, I don't think they've mentioned the gay issue directly even once.  They just refer obliquely to everyone being welcome, and to how Jesus commands us very clearly to love all humans, and particularly the pariahs of society.  They're not wrong on that point.

 

I wouldn't necessarily expect gay people to be happy with this approach... dancing around the issue and never affirming nor denying the legitimacy of homosexuality.  While I agree with the UMC churches that there's no reason they need to focus particularly on the sin of homosexuality... I do think they have a duty to acknowledge that it is in fact a sin.  And I haven't seen that acknowledgement.

 

Maybe they just don't think it's necessary when there are millions of fundamentalists already desperately condemning all things gay?

 

 

Quote

Then why even post a topic here as a Christian Rank? You can't discuss a damn thing on this Forum about the bible without it eventually drawing attention to what you believe. That isn't a discussion at all. What do you want us to just talk about it amongst ourselves so you can live your little FAKE Christian existence? Fooling yourself into believing in something you know deep down that you can't UNKNOW that it doesn't exist? Wasn't True? And is pointless to worship?

 

Regards,

Dark Bishop

 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here DB.  I have my opinions.  When people ask me about my opinions, I tend to discuss them... to the extent that I'm interested. 

 

Everybody but Walter seems happy enough to have a discussion.  I'm not preaching at you... hell you're preaching at ME 

 

Ya'll can have whatever discussions you like.  I'm sorry that my beliefs don't measure up to your own fundamentalist notions of what Christianity is or should be.

 

I really didn't expect to continue arguing with fundamentalists on this site... as a Christian.  But here we are 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

I really didn't expect to continue arguing with fundamentalists on this site... as a Christian.  But here we are 

I didn't really expect to argue with ExChristians that like to play Christian on this site. 

 

But here we are  

 

DB

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Christianity v. Paulianity was a part of my deconversion process.   Unlike @RankStranger, I have not had an experience that swung the needle towards Christ, but as I continued to investigate I found that even the Gospels were unclear as to very important matters (such as the requirements for salvation).  As DB pointed out, the Gospels make it very clear that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but instead help clarify where the Pharisees were in error.

 

It was Paul, who never met Jesus during his ministry, that has given us the bulk of our understanding of Christianity.  Without Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and the subsequent softening of the rules, Christianity would one among many Judaic sects.  So I agree with Rank that Paul should be safely ignored where his "teachings" are at odds with Christ's words - to the extent that is knowable.

 

During my studies I found a bit of humor that god himself (through Jesus) said “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) and yet Paul, in Galations 2, makes it clear that Peter is no one special.  Peter's "gospel of circumcision" has died out in favor of Paul's "gospel of uncircumcision" along with Peter's focus on keeping the Law (as Jesus made clear) in favor of Paul's salvation by Grace alone.  I guess Jesus wasn't clear or plainspoken enough for his closest followers to get the right message.  He had to find someone shortly after his death/resurrection to correct the record.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

For me, the overarching thought on all of this is that it is simply meaningless and without merit.  I'm just clever enough to have figured out that there is no way the bible is the inspired word of any god, and certainly not the god it describes.  As such, it is a work of complete fiction that happens to have a few less-than-false parts to it.  Coming to the conclusion that jesus is god and Paul ain't has no more merit than realizing that Harry Potter was the ultimate wizard and Ron Weasley was just his trusty sidekick.  Sure, congratulations on picking out your favorite character from a work of fiction; but it's not like you've stumbled upon some earth-shattering revelation that is going to end world hunger or achieve world peace.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Unfortunately for ya'll I'm back from vacation, full of piss and vinegar and ready for the Den. 

Go for it!! These supposed Christians are ready lmao!!

 

DB

 

BTW- I posted a thread on that subject you wanted me to expound upon. I tagged you in it. 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

35 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Go for it!! These supposed Christians are ready lmao!!

 

DB

 

BTW- I posted a thread on that subject you wanted me to expound upon. I tagged you in it. 

Hey, thanks man! I started reading it and it sounds way good.

 

Kind of seems like the xtians keep getting scared off when I come around......

I was afraid I was asking questions that were too hard...am I? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, moxieflux66 said:

Kind of seems like the xtians keep getting scared off when I come around......

I was afraid I was asking questions that were too hard...am I? 

Nah the Christians that are here now aren't really Christians anyway so it's all good. 

Ed and Rank are just confused ExChristians. 

 

DB

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

I see. Well, let's blow this joint and get to your new thread shall we? 

[RankStranger]

17 hours ago, Krowb said:

Christianity v. Paulianity was a part of my deconversion process.   Unlike @RankStranger, I have not had an experience that swung the needle towards Christ, but as I continued to investigate I found that even the Gospels were unclear as to very important matters (such as the requirements for salvation).  As DB pointed out, the Gospels make it very clear that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but instead help clarify where the Pharisees were in error.

 

It was Paul, who never met Jesus during his ministry, that has given us the bulk of our understanding of Christianity.  Without Paul's ministry to the Gentiles and the subsequent softening of the rules, Christianity would one among many Judaic sects.  So I agree with Rank that Paul should be safely ignored where his "teachings" are at odds with Christ's words - to the extent that is knowable.

 

During my studies I found a bit of humor that god himself (through Jesus) said “And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) and yet Paul, in Galations 2, makes it clear that Peter is no one special.  Peter's "gospel of circumcision" has died out in favor of Paul's "gospel of uncircumcision" along with Peter's focus on keeping the Law (as Jesus made clear) in favor of Paul's salvation by Grace alone.  I guess Jesus wasn't clear or plainspoken enough for his closest followers to get the right message.  He had to find someone shortly after his death/resurrection to correct the record.

 

 

 

Having spent three decades as an atheist, and lots of time on this site, I'm pretty familiar with the apparent contradictions and other problems with the Bible.

 

Personally I don't think there is any one true interpretation of the Bible (though many claim exactly that).  I don't think that's possible, which is why there are thousands of different species of Christian.

 

I think you can tell a lot about the character of any particular Christian by noting which parts of the Bible they choose to focus on, and which parts they ignore.  When they focus on Paul's teachings to promote a message that contradicts Jesus's teachings (this is common IMO)... well, I ain't impressed.

 

I see Paul's writings as history and commentary that should be taken into consideration.  But Paul wasn't God.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

I see Paul's writings as history and commentary that should be taken into consideration.  But Paul wasn't God.

 

 

But we don't have any writings from Jesus.  We only have what people said he said.  And some of what people said he said was not in the earliest writings.  And he wasn't declared part of a godhead until 325.  And by that time the catholic church had a vested interest in making him part of a god head.  They burned writings they didn't like and later killed people who didn't agree with them.  And if god wanted a clear message about who Jesus was, and what he said and did, why did he have 4 different writers write different stories?  And if Jesus and the apostles were all on gods group texting of instructions, why the arguing and different messages from them??  That just doesn't seem logical to me.

 

And since the bible supposedly came from god, why would it make any difference who wrote the different writings contained therein, and who said what??  Do each of us get to cherrypick which letters are from god?? 

 

Everythig in the bible was written by himans, and humans chose the contents, and humans declared those contents were the holy word of God.  So where and how did it become the WORD OF GOD??