27 Oct 09
Originally posted by stokeryes, why don't we?
the reason forward in faith set up was because of women priests, the reason for leaving is women bishops, and the lambert council who voted against a compromise.
the reason why they against the audination of women is becuse of pauls teachings, so if we say ignore pauls teachings on this why dont we ignore other teachings.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by stokerso if we say ignore pauls teachings on this why dont we ignore other teachings
the reason forward in faith set up was because of women priests, the reason for leaving is women bishops, and the lambert council who voted against a compromise.
the reason why they against the audination of women is becuse of pauls teachings, so if we say ignore pauls teachings on this why dont we ignore other teachings.
Why not?
27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobdo not live up to your name.. even you can understand the reason.
[b]so if we say ignore pauls teachings on this why dont we ignore other teachings
Why not?[/b]
but just incase you carnt,,, we ignore a saints teachings or decide they are not with our thoughts, then the rest becomes useles, and we might as well rewrite the whole scripute to fit in with our beliefs.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by stokerI applaud your integrity to uphold the inspired word of God! most refreshing than these other nambie pambie weak and wimpy christians!
the reason forward in faith set up was because of women priests, the reason for leaving is women bishops, and the lambert council who voted against a compromise.
the reason why they against the audination of women is becuse of pauls teachings, so if we say ignore pauls teachings on this why dont we ignore other teachings.
27 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by stokerListen mate, first things first. If you wanna come out swinging like a tough guy i suggest two things.
do not live up to your name.. even you can understand the reason.
but just incase you carnt,,, we ignore a saints teachings or decide they are not with our thoughts, then the rest becomes useles, and we might as well rewrite the whole scripute to fit in with our beliefs.
1) Spell correctly
2) Make sure your sentences make grammatical sense. I can't answer your points if i don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Some of us in the world are evolved beings, who see the Bible as nothing more than a 'historical mythical superhero tale'. I appreciate your quaint traditions and superstitions but that is all it is to me. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
we might as well rewrite the whole scripute to fit in with our beliefs.
Why not, this is the 21st century not 100AD.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh my spelling is bad,
Listen mate, first things first. If you wanna come out swinging like a tough guy i suggest two things.
1) Spell correctly
2) Make sure your sentences make grammatical sense. I can't answer your points if i don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Some of us in the world are evolved beings, who see the Bible as nothing more than a 'historic ...[text shortened]... e scripute to fit in with our beliefs.
Why not, this is the 21st century not 100AD.[/b]
2 gramma i did better at maths at school.
but what hurt the most is you dont know what the hell im talking about.
your belief is some mythical super hero, not mine they are based on my understandings, some things are not cast in stone but have grown with a church, they are moveable, but the bible is for all generations as it is written.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by stokerwhat ARE your talking about?
oh my spelling is bad,
2 gramma i did better at maths at school.
but what hurt the most is you dont know what the hell im talking about.
your belief is some mythical super hero, not mine they are based on my understandings, some things are not cast in stone but have grown with a church, they are moveable, but the bible is for all generations as it is written.
that paul is infallible? that he only wrote what came directly from god? that he really did hear jesus on that road when he converted?
paul was mysoginistic. yes it's true. and that was a good thing.(in that time). there were reasons women stayed at home and men got to do all that they did( go to war, pillage, kill, woo women, have an education and get killed gruesomely).
now however times have changed and the reasons the women should stay home are no longer present. and paul just happened to forget to mention an expiration date on his teachings. what can we do now?
do you forbid your woman to speak? do you forbid your woman to dress in fancy clothes and jewelry? if not then you already are breaking some of his teachings, why not others?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by stokerMost Christians interpret the scriptures that fit their beliefs to reinforce their beliefs, at the exclusion of others. There isn't a practical difference, you know.
... and we might as well rewrite the whole scripute to fit in with our beliefs.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by Badwaterwell thats rich considering what you have stated in your other post concerning the unchristian???? teachings of Paul, elevating one teaching above another, to support a belief that Paul was, not uninspired, but ahem, wrote incongruously! Yet here is a man who is prepared to put his personal beliefs aside, uphold the integrity of 'all scripture', regardless of his personal opinions and its asserted that he is interpreting scripture to support his belief system, tell me how that is?
Most Christians interpret the scriptures that fit their beliefs to reinforce their beliefs, at the exclusion of others. There isn't a practical difference, you know.
27 Oct 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelits more disturbing that you people are interpreting an interpretation and them giving credence to the interpreted interpretation to support your own interpretation! was not Buddha against delusional thinking?
...And the fact that it needs to be pointed out to them is a bit disturbing.