What's the deal with...? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2005, 09:36 PM   #31
Refugee
 
XHendrix24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,496
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I didnt know dave was directly referencing homosexuality
Oh, well I just assumed he was since the lines against homosexuality are really the only things Christians seem to "choose" from Leviticus.

Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I think using the bible to discourage gay marriage outside of the church is stupid.
If the church doesnt have to be involved in marrying them, and its just a civil ceremony then cant they just step out of it?
I completely agree there and I can't imagine how civil gay marriage isn't being recognized in the US yet. I was talking more along the moral lines. There should be absolutely no question in regard to the civil institution.
__________________

__________________
XHendrix24 is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:07 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
breaking news:
not all christians are hate filled
News travels slowly in some parts
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:09 AM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsgoblue
I'm a Christian and have no problem with homosexuals.
Same here.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:13 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I think using the bible to discourage gay marriage outside of the church is stupid.
If the church doesnt have to be involved in marrying them, and its just a civil ceremony then cant they just step out of it?
I agree. I just wanted to add that there are some Christian denominations that would perform gay marriages if they were legally allowed to, so the idea that it would only be a "civil union" or whatnot is not really accurate.

But, in every instance, no religion is ever forced to perform a marriage that they disapprove of--not even in the opposite-sex realm.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:13 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
But above all, a theme of the new testament in the bible is salvation, not through works but through grace.
Which means you will never be good enough on your own.
That was the original purpose of mosaic law. God didnt want to enstate it, the people wanted it.
It was to point out to the people the overwhelming impossiblility of ever being good enough to save themselves.
And to point them in the direction of God in turn
the abolishment of the old, temporary covenant doesnt allow christians to just to whatever they want because of not being under the law anymore.
It means we're free of having to live slave to sin.
Which actually means that we should be showing improvement in character, not decline.
And our works and actions wont make us any better in God's eyes, it wont get us that much closer to heaven. It is given to the christian when the accept Gods gift of grace.

I hope even one sentence of that made sense
Excellent post! We are definitely kindred spirits.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:16 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
But above all, a theme of the new testament in the bible is salvation, not through works but through grace.
Which means you will never be good enough on your own.
That was the original purpose of mosaic law. God didnt want to enstate it, the people wanted it.
It was to point out to the people the overwhelming impossiblility of ever being good enough to save themselves.
And to point them in the direction of God in turn
the abolishment of the old, temporary covenant doesnt allow christians to just to whatever they want because of not being under the law anymore.
It means we're free of having to live slave to sin.
Which actually means that we should be showing improvement in character, not decline.
And our works and actions wont make us any better in God's eyes, it wont get us that much closer to heaven. It is given to the christian when the accept Gods gift of grace.

I hope even one sentence of that made sense
It makes sense. That's a good summary of Pauline theology, and why Paul believed that Mosaic Law was fully obsolete. It was no longer about "law" in the literal sense, but about "love." That became "the Law."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:18 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
whoa

I actually said something worth reading in FYM


__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:13 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


It makes sense. That's a good summary of Pauline theology,
Melon
I love reading Paul. I read Romans 6 through 8 constantly.

U2bonogirl and melon,
Have you ever noticed that some people say "That's Paul, not Christ" when talking about theology, and try to take Paul out of true inspired scripture, as if he was some rogue heretic apostle? It seems to me that in the last couple of years, I see this more and more, and I don't understand why they do this.

Do you have any insight into the matter?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 11:48 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I love reading Paul. I read Romans 6 through 8 constantly.

U2bonogirl and melon,
Have you ever noticed that some people say "That's Paul, not Christ" when talking about theology, and try to take Paul out of true inspired scripture, as if he was some rogue heretic apostle? It seems to me that in the last couple of years, I see this more and more, and I don't understand why they do this.

Do you have any insight into the matter?
A lot of it depends on your POV in Christianity.

From one POV, Paul is seen as a "perverter" of Christianity, because he lead the Gentile Christian, "Church of Antioch," which was in opposition to Peter and James' Jewish Christian, "Church of Jerusalem." Since the latter two are apostles, while Paul had no direct connection to Jesus, some see Paul as...you guessed it..."a rogue heretic apostle."

On the other hand, all of this happened a very long time ago, and by the time Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, "Gentile Christianity" was all that was left. As such, the "Christianity" we have all known for centuries is thanks to Paul.

Why I like him is because he had his brash and hysterical moments, along with moments of great clarity and thought. And Paul proves that you didn't have to know Jesus personally and physically to be able to have great faith.

But the controversy will always remain, because, whether we like it or not, there was two quite distinct sects at the origin of Christianity. And since we know the theology of the losing sect was quite different, there will always be a big "what if"?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 01:02 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Good insight, melon. Thanks. There are indeed a couple of time in scripture when it makes it appear as if Paul kinda peeved with James and the church at Israel. I also think it has a little to do with the whole "grace/works" issue.

I used to have a big problem with the Book of James, because of its focus on works. But then I started to see it through different lenses, and I think it's not as works-oriented as it appears; I don't think it's saying that works pave the way to Heaven, but it could easily be seen that way.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 08:06 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:55 AM
By being so chatty, Paul lends himself to abuse sometimes. His words are easily skewered against women once in a while--not being the submissive type myself. He is sometimes contradictory in that he often rails against "rules", then offers new ones. I was always of the belief that if you followed the message of Christ only, you were in safe territory for the most part and much less in danger of perversion of the message. (For example, after I left my church, I was still privy to all its goings on because my family were still members. When a vacancy came up on the board, they finally had to choose the most blatant of church adulterers for the position because women should not be in positions of leadership over men and I said uh-huh. That's the type of person I want in moral authority over me.) I often find Paul used as a weapon and it is people's use of Paul that partly drove me away from the church.

I consider him a brilliant mind and an excellent writer, but just a man, who speaks with no more authority than I do or you do. But to head off your argument, 80's, I don't call myself a Christian so have no need to trouble myself with my inconsistencies. The level of my belief fluctuates, but I tend to deal with the world now and let the rest take care of itself.

I don't expect the rewards of belief. And if there is punishment for unbelief, it is fair that I would reap that.

All that being said, I find the faith/works debate interesting. From an apostate point of view, I may agree that works do not bring salvation; however, faith without works seems to be an empty, selfish faith. That being said, I think many Christians do great works.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 09:34 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Good insight, melon. Thanks. There are indeed a couple of time in scripture when it makes it appear as if Paul kinda peeved with James and the church at Israel. I also think it has a little to do with the whole "grace/works" issue.

I used to have a big problem with the Book of James, because of its focus on works. But then I started to see it through different lenses, and I think it's not as works-oriented as it appears; I don't think it's saying that works pave the way to Heaven, but it could easily be seen that way.
Well, the Book of James, actually, would be works-oriented, because it is one of the few Jewish Christian books within the NT. Add Peter's epistles and the Gospel of Matthew and you have the Jewish Christian contributions to the NT. The only thing complicated about Matthew is that, when scholars looked at the source text, it was clearly revised by Gentile Christians to make it fit with their theology. That's why there's kind of a jumble of where Jesus says He didn't come to eliminate the law and the prophets (Jewish Christian) and, later on, Jesus saying that "love one another" was "the law and the prophets" (Gentile Christian).

But I would say that it generally goes right back to my original view that how one interprets the NT will wholly depend on their POV. I think it is perfectly acceptable to believe that it is grace-only for salvation. After all, Paul makes his case very clear. And, likewise, I think it is supportable to believe that it is faith and good works for salvation, because the Jewish Christian texts make that case fairly well. So it is, ultimately, a matter of where one's philosophy lies.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 09:39 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
By being so chatty, Paul lends himself to abuse sometimes. His words are easily skewered against women once in a while--not being the submissive type myself. He is sometimes contradictory in that he often rails against "rules", then offers new ones. I was always of the belief that if you followed the message of Christ only, you were in safe territory for the most part and much less in danger of perversion of the message. (For example, after I left my church, I was still privy to all its goings on because my family were still members. When a vacancy came up on the board, they finally had to choose the most blatant of church adulterers for the position because women should not be in positions of leadership over men and I said uh-huh. That's the type of person I want in moral authority over me.) I often find Paul used as a weapon and it is people's use of Paul that partly drove me away from the church.

I consider him a brilliant mind and an excellent writer, but just a man, who speaks with no more authority than I do or you do. But to head off your argument, 80's, I don't call myself a Christian so have no need to trouble myself with my inconsistencies. The level of my belief fluctuates, but I tend to deal with the world now and let the rest take care of itself.
Paul is certainly a product of passion, and you can sense the entire way that he was highly passionate about his beliefs. But Paul is human like the rest of us. He has his prejudices. And a lot of his very personal writings show that he was apt to change his mind. One of the amusing idiosyncrasies in his epistles is how he goes back and forth on the issue of eating idolatrous meat. Obviously, it's a concept that is wholly meaningless for us today, so I guess we can forgive that.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I view Paul like I'd view a modern preacher: I know what to take away from him that is of value, and I know what to deem to be his personal rants. After all, I think we've long determined that women teaching over men is completely harmless, for one.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:03 PM   #44
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Why are there glaring inconsistencies in Christianity?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 10:07 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 12:55 AM
melon, I expect, has the answer
__________________

__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com