16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhouseactually in the case of Paul, he gave up a position of prominence to become a Christian, his father was after all, a citizen of Rome, he was after all, taught at the feet of Gamaliel, he did after all have the equivalent of a university education etc etc etc.
I use the term politicians in reference to the Billy Grahams, Jim Jones, Jesus, Paul, especially Paul, as power mongers, maybe not Jesus, but Paul manipulated the word of Jesus to suit his rise to religious political power. It is those who duped an entire culture into believing all the garbage Paul came up with which was specifically designed to be a religi ...[text shortened]... d have had if it were not for being so thoroughly duped and billions of others in the same boat.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what, he saw something better starting a new religion, new for rome and not based on jesus, only bastardizing what jesus was about. Reminds me of L Ron Hubbard. Another nut case. The fact remains you and billions of other christians have been taken to the bank and deposits removed and your lives are forever tainted with paulism, which is about as far removed from the teachings of jesus as L Ron Hubbard.
actually in the case of Paul, he gave up a position of prominence to become a Christian, his father was after all, a citizen of Rome, he was after all, taught at the feet of Gamaliel, he did after all have the equivalent of a university education etc etc etc.
16 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse=====================================
I use the term politicians in reference to the Billy Grahams, Jim Jones, Jesus, Paul, especially Paul, as power mongers, maybe not Jesus, but Paul manipulated the word of Jesus to suit his rise to religious political power. It is those who duped an entire culture into believing all the garbage Paul came up with which was specifically designed to be a religi ...[text shortened]... d have had if it were not for being so thoroughly duped and billions of others in the same boat.
I use the term politicians in reference to the Billy Grahams, Jim Jones, Jesus, Paul, especially Paul, as power mongers, maybe not Jesus, but Paul manipulated the word of Jesus to suit his rise to religious political power.
==========================================
Could you provide us with a strong example of the Apostle Paul munipulating the words of Jesus to suit the rise of religious and political power ?
I think you are full of a lot of ignorant hot air.
I need first the "words of Jesus". Then I need to see Paul's munipulation of such words. Then I can examine his intended outcome for the usage of such words.
Give me your strongest example or two first. Don't save your strongest example for latter after you give me less effective examples.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by jaywillFor starters, I can refer you to this list of quotes by a lot of people about Paul:
[b]=====================================
I use the term politicians in reference to the Billy Grahams, Jim Jones, Jesus, Paul, especially Paul, as power mongers, maybe not Jesus, but Paul manipulated the word of Jesus to suit his rise to religious political power.
==========================================
Could you provide us with a stron ...[text shortened]... rst. Don't save your strongest example for latter after you give me less effective examples.[/b]
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/paul.php
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhousei see, so he faced beatings, stoning, fighting with wild beasts, treacherous brothers, dangers from his own people, imprisonment, hunger, shipwreck etc etc because it was a beach party, plueeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!
So what, he saw something better starting a new religion, new for rome and not based on jesus, only bastardizing what jesus was about. Reminds me of L Ron Hubbard. Another nut case. The fact remains you and billions of other christians have been taken to the bank and deposits removed and your lives are forever tainted with paulism, which is about as far removed from the teachings of jesus as L Ron Hubbard.
16 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” Paul stated in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentiles.”
i see, so he faced beatings, stoning, fighting with wild beasts, treacherous brothers, dangers from his own people, imprisonment, hunger, shipwreck etc etc because it was a beach party, plueeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!
Right there he changed the words of Jesus. Jesus plainly teaches his religion is for Jews only.
Paul, seeing a good thing, changes that all around so he could have a much wider audience, and coincidently a much bigger paycheck.
Other Paulisms:
Of all of Paul's teachings, those that stir the most controversy today relate to homosexuality and the role of women in the church. Writing to his co-worker Timothy, Paul declares that a woman may not "teach or have authority over a man; she is to keep silent" in the church. And in a notorious passage in the letter to the Ephesians, he exhorts women to "submit yourselves unto your own husbands."
His views on homosexuality are equally provocative. Writing to Christians in Rome, he denounced those who he said had forsaken God's ways. Because of their wickedness, Paul wrote:
"God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural. . . . Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhouseInstead of you sending me off to argue with "a lot of people" why don't you present your case in your own words.
For starters, I can refer you to this list of quotes by a lot of people about Paul:
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/paul.php
Then you can take responsibility and credit for it. And I don't have to leave you and go off and debate someone else.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhouseJesus plainly teaches his religion is for Jews only
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” Paul stated in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentiles.”
Right th ...[text shortened]... meless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
actually no,
(John 4:19-21) . . .“Sir, I perceive you are a prophet. Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain; but you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship.” Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. . .
As for women having authority, it is noteworthy that not one of Christ's chosen apostles was a lady. The act of homosexuality is consistently condemned in scripture, its hardly a Pauline invention, making your statements ,rather unfounded.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYet, the first Jesus met after his resurrection was a woman. And he didn't tell her to go fetch some of the male apostles to give the news, he asked her to go tell them of the miracle herself. The first christian evangelist was a woman!
As for women having authority, it is noteworthy that not one of Christ's chosen apostles was a lady.
16 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWith the human race split about 50/50 men and women, why is it even though Jesus told a woman to go and tell, what is the percent of women in religious power now? It seems clear Jesus was not sexist. So the christian religion developed sexism because of Paul. Otherwise there should be a 50/50 mix of women in the top ranks of religions today. That is not true in just about every religion on Earth. Tell me Jesus wanted that.
Yet, the first Jesus met after his resurrection was a woman. And he didn't tell her to go fetch some of the male apostles to give the news, he asked her to go tell them of the miracle herself. The first christian evangelist was a woman!
16 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseso the first person met by Jesus was a lady and she had the privilege of being the first to see him resurrected, what of it? the Bible is full of women who had very great privileges, one thinks of Sarah the wife of Abraham, Rahab the prostitute who was an ancestress of the Christ himself, Deborah the prophetess, Ruth and Naomi, Ester who spoke to the Persian king on the pain of death to save her people, the Christian women of the gospels, Magdalene, Mary the mother of the Christ, Lydia known for her hospitality, Dorcas known for her kindness etc etc all great and wonderful ladies.
With the human race split about 50/50 men and women, why is it even though Jesus told a woman to go and tell, what is the percent of women in religious power now? It seems clear Jesus was not sexist. So the christian religion developed sexism because of Paul. Otherwise there should be a 50/50 mix of women in the top ranks of religions today. That is not true in just about every religion on Earth. Tell me Jesus wanted that.
That Paul assigns specific duties to men for the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the Christian congregation, after the manner of Christ, who himself chose exclusively male members to be apostles, hardly diminishes the value of women members nor the contributions that they have to make, indeed, many that i know are only too happy for the responsibility to be assigned to qualified men, indeed, i have met not a few ladies who bemoan the fact that their husbands don't take more responsibility in looking after the interests of the family.
Jesus assigned the responsibility to men, qualified men, not weak and wimpy men, but men who could shoulder responsibility in the family and in the congregation, indeed, perhaps the fact escaped your notice that Paul himself made the point, that if a man is unable to look after his household, then he is not qualified to look after the congregation.
Christ's words to Peter,
(John 21:15-17) . . .When, now, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.” Again he said to him, a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Shepherd my little sheep.” He said to him the third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he said to him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you know all things; you are aware that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.
no i may ask what qualifies you people to say how the congregation of God may or may not be taken care of, and who should shoulder the responsibility?
17 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is pretty simple really. If only men are in the top positions what happens when womens' rights come up? It's not a great stretch to see men giving pronouncements that just coincidently ends up keeping women pregnant and barefoot. For instance, in Saudi, women are not even allowed drivers licenses. In the US, women were not even allowed to vote till recently.
so the first person met by Jesus was a lady and she had the privilege of being the first to see him resurrected, what of it? the Bible is full of women who had very great privileges, one thinks of Sarah the wife of Abraham, Rahab the prostitute who was an ancestress of the Christ himself, Deborah the prophetess, Ruth and Naomi, Ester who spoke to th ...[text shortened]... ngregation of God may or may not be taken care of, and who should shoulder the responsibility?
So 2000 years goes by repressing women in so many different ways, women naturally get convinced, I'm GLAD those men have that responsibility' as you say. The problem with that is this: There are myriad problems in the world. I think you would have to agree with that statement. But we are using only 50% of our available brainpower. The way men have been repressing women for thousands of years only reinforces that ban on women's brains. Take a look at the way women have been systematically excluded from the upper ranks of science, look how many women have gotten Nobel prizes and so forth.
I think it all stems from the basic repression of women from day one in all the major organized religions of the world including ones at first thought to be not gender biased like Bahai's, even there sexism raises its ugly head.
It's time religions of the world took this issue firmly in hand and start letting women in the upper ranks of all its disciplines, then maybe society and science will follow. Till the religious community allows women in the top ranks, society in general will NEVER allow women to be for instance, president of the US, although there have been occasional women country leaders, but not many.
Untill women can be at the top ranks of religion and society, such religions cannot ever be thought of as coming from some god but merely a reflection of the deep seated desire of men to control women.
I can only imagine, for instance, Jesus' reaction to this appalling situation with respect to women in his supposedly own religion if he were to come back today and look at the sad state of affairs of the worlds religions, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, Jaynes, Bahai, whatever.
God never made a demand that a leader must possess a penis.
17 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhousei cannot speak for other religions, only in what was intended in a biblical context for there were never meant to be top positions.
It is pretty simple really. If only men are in the top positions what happens when womens' rights come up? It's not a great stretch to see men giving pronouncements that just coincidently ends up keeping women pregnant and barefoot. For instance, in Saudi, women are not even allowed drivers licenses. In the US, women were not even allowed to vote till recen ...[text shortened]... Jaynes, Bahai, whatever.
God never made a demand that a leader must possess a penis.
Time and again the apostles argued who was greatest among them and it took the Christ, on the eve of his death, to take the form of a slave and perform the menial task of washing the apostles feet in order for them to realise that those who were to be called great, must be the ones doing the serving.
17 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYet 50 years later we have Paulism with his built in sexism and homophobia. Yessir, a great start to what could have been an enlightened religion. Instead we get this: Crusades, inquisitions, tearing complete cultures apart piece by piece, the sure knowledge christianity is THE one true religion and we will kill you if you deny that, abortion doctors killed, women enslaved for 2000 years. Yep, give me a piece of that, I want it all.....
i cannot speak for other religions, only in what was intended in a biblical context for there were never meant to be top positions.
Time and again the apostles argued who was greatest among them and it took the Christ, on the eve of his death, to take the form of a slave and perform the menial task of washing the apostles feet in order for them to realise that those who were to be called great, must be the ones doing the serving.
17 Dec 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhousewow, bitter or what? narrow perspective, or what?
Yet 50 years later we have Paulism with his built in sexism and homophobia. Yessir, a great start to what could have been an enlightened religion. Instead we get this: Crusades, inquisitions, tearing complete cultures apart piece by piece, the sure knowledge christianity is THE one true religion and we will kill you if you deny that, abortion doctors killed, women enslaved for 2000 years. Yep, give me a piece of that, I want it all.....
actually the crusades were not for another thousand years, and have nothing to do with Christian teaching. Paul is neither sexiest nor homophobic, he merely reiterates the example set by Christ as has been shown to you, without refutation, and as clearly advocated in Scripture as has been shown to you, without refutation. These terms are prejudiced in themselves, for they lack an essential understanding of the workings of the Christian congregation and are simply ignorant of the personality of Paul revealed to us in scripture, that being one of a very loyal, hard-working, caring, self sacrificing individual, indeed, had you read any of the accounts for yourself rather than reiterating these quite old arguments, you would have come to that conclusion yourself.
As for abortion, its simply murder, no one has the right to take another human life on any pretext, which also includes the life of the abortion doctor, his reckoning is with God.