Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the introduction of concepts such as "salvation by grace", "original sin", "once saved always saved", the blood sacrifice of Jesus frees "believers" of the "penalty of sin", the entire Bible being the "inerrant word of God" and so on....

But Paul's teachings on women does give clear indication that his teachings do not hold up to the light of truth.

they are created for that age and social structure. it is also meant to appeal to a patriarchal roman empire.


i do not believe for one second we are expected to follow them to the letter. from my understanding, paul's and the other apostles' epistoles are exactly that: letters to certain communities of christians giving them advice on how to live their lives and deal wiith certain issues.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. If God had sent him to a nicer society than his 'chosen people', they would have let him live.

And if they let him live then no one would be saved.

Originally posted by RBHILL
And if they let him live then no one would be saved.

You're not following the conversation. I was responding to Zahlanzi's claim that Jesus' death was not significant and merely a result of how nasty society was.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they are created for that age and social structure. it is also meant to appeal to a patriarchal roman empire.


i do not believe for one second we are expected to follow them to the letter. from my understanding, paul's and the other apostles' epistoles are exactly that: letters to certain communities of christians giving them advice on how to live their lives and deal wiith certain issues.

So it would seem that you agree with the OP.

The way your first post was worded, it seemed like you thought it imcumbent of buckky to look at it from a different perspective - not that you thought that"Christianity", by and large, had lost its way because of "advice on how to live their lives and deal wiith certain issues" given by Paul and others and that buckky was right to question it.

Seems like you'd agree that the teachings of Paul and others should never have been used as a basis for the core tenets of "Christianity" as they have been.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So it would seem that you agree with the OP.

The way your first post was worded, it seemed like you thought it imcumbent of buckky to look at it from a different perspective - not that you thought that"Christianity", by and large, had lost its way because of "advice on how to live their lives and deal wiith certain issues" given by Paul and others and never have been used as a basis for the core tenets of "Christianity" as they have been.

i do not agree with the op, mostly. not with his "solutions" definitely. i believe that most christians make the death of jesus more important than it already is. to me, they behave almost like jesus was a blood sacrifice, and his blood had magical powers.

i think that would kinda piss jesus off. he lived a life. in his life he preached some good things, great things. he influenced people. his death was not "absolutely" necessary, merely a last lesson, kind of like him saying : "look, i suspected my actions would lead to the cross, yet i did them anyway because it was the right thing to do". like a famous comedian said, i don't believe jesus wants to look at another cross ever again, yet what do we have in the center of every church? him looking miserable on the cross.

instead of putting a jesus standing proud, teaching the crowd, we remind everyone, himself including, of the most sad moment of his life. yet another example of christians mourning their faith, instead of celebrating it.



this doesn't answer your post very well. i wanted to reiterate my opinion on the importance christians assign to jesus' death. will talk on paul after i get a night sleep.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do not agree with the op, mostly. not with his "solutions" definitely. i believe that most christians make the death of jesus more important than it already is. to me, they behave almost like jesus was a blood sacrifice, and his blood had magical powers.

i think that would kinda piss jesus off. he lived a life. in his life he preached some good thing rtance christians assign to jesus' death. will talk on paul after i get a night sleep.

Taking his second post into account, it seems that the purpose of the OP was to point out the absurdity of the concept of a "substitutionary death on the cross" aka "salvation by grace." This is what I was alluding to when I suggested that it seemed that you agreed with him.

I agree with much of what you've had to say here, though the following in particular doesn't seem right:
"yet another example of christians mourning their faith, instead of celebrating it."

From what I gather, most Christians don't mourn the death of Jesus because they are so pleased with the benefit they believe they derive from it.

The reality is that the vast majority of Christians have taken the Bible as their 'Lord' rather than the words of Jesus as He commanded.

Looking forward to your continuation...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Taking his second post into account, it seems that the purpose of the OP was to point out the absurdity of the concept of a "substitutionary death on the cross" aka "salvation by grace." This is what I was alluding to when I suggested that it seemed that you agreed with him.

I agree with much of what you've had to say here, though the following in part ...[text shortened]... than the words of Jesus as He commanded.

Looking forward to your continuation...

yeh, must have missed that post.



they mourn it because they get the worse from it. they pay attention to the minor details. they view it as the only means to escape an eternal hellish torment.


they should view faith as a means to enrich one's life. as companion of sorts through life.

faith is a comfy blankie, not shackles that bite into flesh.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh, must have missed that post.



they mourn it because they get the worse from it. they pay attention to the minor details. they view it as the only means to escape an eternal hellish torment.


they should view faith as a means to enrich one's life. as companion of sorts through life.

faith is a comfy blankie, not shackles that bite into flesh.

From what I gather, the majority of Christians do perceive their "eternal get out of jail free card" as a "comfy blanket". They are "comforted" by the belief that "Jesus paid the price" so that they not only "escape an eternal hellish torment" but are freed from "fear of death".

Earlier you said that you were going to "talk on Paul". What happened with that?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I gather, the majority of Christians do perceive their "eternal get out of jail free card" as a "comfy blanket". They are "comforted" by the belief that "Jesus paid the price" so that they not only "escape an eternal hellish torment" but are freed from "fear of death".

Earlier you said that you were going to "talk on Paul". What happened with that?

more of the same idea: advice given to a specific group of people, for specific problems at a specific time is not necessarily applicable to people 2000 years later.

people must use their conscience, their reason, and understand what the most important aspects of christianity, or any religion for that matter, or any moral system, and figure out if they wish to follow those aspects or if they don't apply to them.

most people do that already. the other people, the ones who believe they will go to hell if they don't profess belief in an obvious fabrication (eg young earth) will most likely never change. we simply need to make sure they will never fuk up things for us when they are in power, like putting intelligent design in biology classes. and ignore them otherwise.