Anthony
Refugee
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
is this a fucking joke??? (not you Bebe, just the ensuing debacle that has occured in this thread)
What do you mean?
Ant.
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
is this a fucking joke??? (not you Bebe, just the ensuing debacle that has occured in this thread)
#3 is part of my issue with St. Paul. His writings are almost bi-polar. On one hand, he speaks of inclusionism and love, and the next, he speaks of vengeance, the required subordinance of women, the support of slavery, etc. As such, I believe that St. Paul must be taken cautiously and it takes great care to discern "truth" out of his writings and separate that from his own human prejudices and failings.
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
He said "you are a diamond, do not tarnish the diamond... unique with intricate detail"
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Pardon me for not carrying on, but I have no idea what that glib little comment means.
If you don't mind, please expound.
[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 01-22-2002).]
Achtung, I agree completely, as usual.Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
In defense of the guy at school:
Yes, there are hypocrits who act pious but really aren't. But just because P implies Q, it doesn't mean Q implies P. Just because hypocrits act pious, it doesn't mean that everyone who appears to be pious are all hypocrits.
(And it isn't ALWAYS the case that pious people are also arrogant. One can be pious in a good way. One has to judge these things on a case-by-case basis.)
Honestly, if there are genuinely pious people (Mother Teresa comes to mind), they too would appear pious. There's no sense suggesting that everyone who appears to be pious is deceitful.
In other words - and this is more a note against some replies and not Bebe's original post - one shouldn't let one's biases against Christians cloud one's judgment. You can't judge a book by its cover.
Yes, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15) But at the same time, "the tree is known by his fruit." (Matthew 12:33) If the person doesn't appear to be hypocritical, he might actually be on the level.
Now, on the question of the morality of smoking...
It appears, due to the current state of scientific knowledge, that smoking is probably harmful to the body. At the very least, it isn't beneficial in any known way.
If you knowingly put yourself in a great risk of physical harm for no good reason, I can see one of two things occuring: Either you believe you won't get harmed, which can be interpreted as tempting God (see Matthew 4:5-7). Or you simply don't care that you may bring yourself harm, which I think qualifies as damaging God's temple (see 1 Corinthians 6:19).
It then becomes a question of whether a long-term smoking habit is "too risky." It certainly isn't flinging oneself of a rooftop, but it does seem more risky than eating meat (which is occasionally contaminated by salmonella, etc.). The fact is that the risk of eating meat can be balanced by the nutritional benefits of protein, etc.; that smoking is not beneficial doesn't help its case.
As an aside, I think the fact that humans have a natural taste for meat and sugar indicates to me that we were born with a certain physical need for the nutritional benefits of both - at least in small doses. That one has to get used to smoking is a very bad sign, in my opinion.
Ultimately, I believe a certain level of self-indulgence (some dirty jokes, violent video games, and empty calories) is either acceptable or simply bad at the level of nit-picking. I believe God would prefer us to focus on loving Him and others.
Whether tobacco falls into that area of quasi-acceptable indulgences is, I think, ultimately something to be worked out between you and God. Outsiders can't tell you what to do, either way.
But if I may...
As one who is for greater personal freedom, I certainly think adults should be allowed to smoke, and private enterprises (restaurants and bars especially) should be allowed to set their own rules on smoking.
That said, I think people should be free to smoke but should also choose not to, mostly for reasons that are outside the scope of morality. It's the simpler case of common sense, not necessarily a moral mandate. It's an expensive habit that, in the BEST case, has no effect on a person. In the worst case, it leads to serious health problems. It strikes me as a bad decision.
And, personally, my mom smokes. When confronted with the risks, she replies that God will "take her" when He wants to. That strikes me as a SERIOUS violation of Matthew 4:7 and its reference, Deuteronomy 6:16: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
In her case, even if the smoking itself is morally ambivalent, her attitude about her habit worries me greatly.
True!Originally posted by scatteroflight:
I actually believe that smoking is wrong, because not only are you harming yourself and the gift of life given to you, but more than likely you are also harming others because of the effects of second-hand smoke.
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I don't think Paul is any more "bipolar" than Christ himself, who said the following:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
(Note that both quotes are in the same Gospel.)
To prune out the more difficult ideas is to do a disservice to the Bible as a whole, and to suggest that Paul is an oddly bipolar man is to ignore Christ's nature (not to mention Moses and David).
Originally posted by paxetaurora:
Melon!!! I never knew anyone else felt that way about Paul's letters. Thanks so much for giving voice to those reservations about everyone's favorite convert. Although all Scripture is (allegedly) divinely inspired, I would think that divine inspiration is slightly more coherent than some of what Paul has written.
And did you happen to read Matthew 10:35-36? "For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household.'" How very Jesus-like. It reeks either of ideological contamination or a quote taken greatly out of context. Prospect #1 is more likely
Read Matthew 10:5: "Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus, 'Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town.'" Hmm...if Jesus hated Samaritans, then why was there a parable about the good Samaritan in another gospel?
I severely doubt that Jesus stated the above words.
These three--Paul, Moses, and David--are men, not God. When a man or a woman speaks to us, do we simply agree with everything he/she states or just throw it all away? No. We look at what people say to us and we analyze what is given before us. And we have to face the fact that Jesus Himself didn't write the gospels. Even the most faithful modern biographies are riddled with personal bias, and these gospels are written 40 years after the fact.
Roman Catholicism, my denomination, states that the Bible is "divinely inspired," not "divinely written." The difference is that, with divine inspiration, the books of the Bible were written with God in mind; that they were written because the writers believed it to be God's will.
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
He said "you are a diamond, do not tarnish the diamond... unique with intricate detail"