Indulge me and tackle the divorce and remarriage one. You’re picking particular challenges I’ve made ,making a few statements etc,which always includes I don’t understand or don’t know. I want to see a good explanation of how this one is ok. After all the one’s you have addressed won’t put you in hell ,necessarily,according to the scrioture. This one however will. Confusion
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I sincerely believe that many “Christians” do not want to live what the new testament teaches. Some hardly know what it teaches. Also,when presented with scripture,that contradicts the ideas they hold,rather than open their mind and try to trully understand,they have a knee jerk reaction. They immediately begin to argue their case. As I have said prior,I don’t feel you can pick and choose the things you want from the Bible and call yourself a Christian.
This is the reason most Christians will not accept gays,scripture teaches against it. They will however accept divorce and remarriage,which is clearly taught against also. A ,“Christian” just may be able to learn something from an athiest after all. Especially one who isn’t a tree hugging,gun hating,abortion preaching,politically correct pussy,or Christian hating asshole. Confusion[/quote]
Your posts about the Sabbath reveal that you are unaware of the debate within Christianity about this and the different interpretations. You insist Christians are required to keep the Sabbath. Whether this is true or not, you clearly are not familiar with either side of the argument. Of course, if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath then they would also be required to keep the “Sabbath year”. And if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath, then why not the rest of Mosaic law?
So what did Jesus say? He said God provided the Sabbath for the benefit of man, not the other way around. (Mark 2:27).
And the Council of Jerusalem ruled that Gentiles are not required to observe the Sabbath, get circumcised, observe the dietary laws etc. *
Yet despite this, there are some Christian denominations who disagree and point to the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath himself(Luke 4:16) as did his disciples. But they did not abstain from work on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).
So, it’s not as simple as you are claiming. It depends on your interpretation. This is true of many of the things you are claiming.
- Council of Jerusalem:
Colossians 2:16
Romans 14:5-6
Acts 15:28-29
You have merely chosen the least common interpretation and you are insisting that’s the only interpretation.
[/quote]
SexMachine,I will call you out directly on the post you made to Severiano,where you told him to fuck off. How is your understanding of this scripture?
But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Is that what you’re doing?
[quote] confusion wrote:
I am perfectly aware of the debate within Christianity.
[/quote]
Then why are you taking the least common interpretation and insisting it’s the correct and only one?
Really? Like who?
I haven’t made any argument about the Sabbath one way or another. My only argument is with your insistence that the least common interpretation is the correct and only one. And I mentioned Acts 15:28-29 in relation to the decisions made at the Jerusalem Council about Christians and the law.
Mark 2:27 says exactly what I said it says. Jesus said the Sabbath is for the benefit of man not God. There is no missing context. And it’s entirely relevant to the subject.
And the passage in Mark is not talking about it being ok not to keep the sabbath,as you also know,so why quote that out of context also? Isn’t this the very thing you are accusing me of?
Mark 2:27 says exactly what I said it says. Jesus said the Sabbath is for the benefit of man not God. There is no missing context. And it’s entirely relevant to the subject.
This is obviously talking about things coming up in life that affect keeping the sabbath. It is not endorsing not keeping the sabbath. Here is the rest of the text:
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath…
[quote]confusion wrote:
SexMachine,I will call you out directly on the post you made to Severiano,where you told him to fuck off.
[/quote]
Absolutely I did. He accused me of some kind of unspecified dishonesty. When I asked what he was talking about he refused to explain and called me a liar and said I knew what he was talking about. I think I’ve been very patient with him but that was the last straw. I have him another opportunity to explain what he was talking about but he refused and again called me a liar and said I knew what he was talking about. This was not a mistake or a misunderstanding. If it was, he would’ve told me what he was talking about and identified the post he was talking about. He didn’t. He just refused and insisted that I was lying. I stand by what I said 100%
It’s not talking about “curse words” it’s talking about a “curse” - wishing someone ill will. It’s the opposite of a “blessing”. How does this relate to me?
[quote]
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Is that what you’re doing?[/quote]
What do you think? Is that what I’m doing? What about Paul in Galatians 1:9? He seems to be actually issuing a “curse” as opposed to just swearing as I did. How do you reconcile the prohibition against “cursing” someone with Paul’s curse in Galatians? Perhaps you are making assumptions about me and what I believe. Have I ever stated anywhere anything that would lead you to believe that I am of a particular denomination or hold to any particular specific belief system? Look at what I say, not what you assume I believe.
[quote]confusion wrote:
And the passage in Mark is not talking about it being ok not to keep the sabbath,as you also know,so why quote that out of context also? Isn’t this the very thing you are accusing me of?
Mark 2:27 says exactly what I said it says. Jesus said the Sabbath is for the benefit of man not God. There is no missing context. And it’s entirely relevant to the subject.
This is obviously talking about things coming up in life that affect keeping the sabbath. It is not endorsing not keeping the sabbath. Here is the rest of the text:
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath…
[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I stated precisely, word for word what it says and didn’t proffer my own opinion as to the interpretation. I pointed out that different people interpret it in different ways. And I asked you why you are taking the least common interpretation of Sabbartarians, and insisting that it’s the correct and only interpretation.
Again, I have not proffered my opinion about the correct interpretation of any of this.
SexMachine,all good. Obviously our debating styles our different. I am cool with that. I am not attacking you,I only assume you follow the scriptures,that’s all. Remember when some people recognized peter,he denied knowing christ and started to curse and to swear in order to show he wasn’t a disciple? Regarding your conflict with Severiano,I agree that he was calling you a liar and a few other things,without of course offering any proof. I also don’t blame you for getting angry,nor felt you were out of line telling him to fuck off,except I thought the bible teaches not to do that. Anyhoo,I will drop it now. I feel like I am being the athiest evengelist of christian values. Hmmm
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
And the passage in Mark is not talking about it being ok not to keep the sabbath,as you also know,so why quote that out of context also? Isn’t this the very thing you are accusing me of?
Mark 2:27 says exactly what I said it says. Jesus said the Sabbath is for the benefit of man not God. There is no missing context. And it’s entirely relevant to the subject.
This is obviously talking about things coming up in life that affect keeping the sabbath. It is not endorsing not keeping the sabbath. Here is the rest of the text:
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath…
[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I stated precisely, word for word what it says and didn’t proffer my own opinion as to the interpretation. I pointed out that different people interpret it in different ways. And I asked you why you are taking the least common interpretation of Sabbartarians, and insisting that it’s the correct and only interpretation.
Again, I have not proffered my opinion about the correct interpretation of any of this.[/quote]
Ah got ya. I misunderstood. Confusion
[quote]confusion wrote:
SexMachine,all good. Obviously our debating styles our different. I am cool with that. I am not attacking you,I only assume you follow the scriptures,that’s all. Remember when some people recognized peter,he denied knowing christ and started to curse and to swear in order to show he wasn’t a disciple? Regarding your conflict with Severiano,I agree that he was calling you a liar and a few other things,without of course offering any proof. I also don’t blame you for getting angry,nor felt you were out of line telling him to fuck off,except I thought the bible teaches not to do that. Anyhoo,I will drop it now. I feel like I am being the athiest evengelist of christian values. Hmmm[/quote]
Okay. And yes, we’ve probably been talking at cross purposes. Most if not all the guys here would say that the Jerusalem Council and certain NT verses clearly reject the strict observance of Mosaic law practiced by the Pharisees. However, the early Christians observed Sunday as a rest day to celebrate the resurrection.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well, I went back to page 37, but you asked several questions, so I am not sure which one you want an answer to. I will try if you can repeat it.[/quote]
I believe his question was about Christians not keeping the ten commandments, particularly the third (or fourth, depending how you count them): resting on the Sabbath and keeping it holy.
He wants to know why Christians observe Sunday, the first day of the week, as a holy day, rather than Saturday, which is the seventh.
You may provide your own answer, but it has always been my impression that Saturday was the holy day for Christians up until Emperor Constantine, a sun worshipper before his conversion to Christianity, made the prevalent holy day in the Eastern Empire at the time (“Sun Day”) into the Christian holy day.
[/quote]
Constantine made it official but Christians were observing the ‘Lord’s Day’ or Sunday, the first day of the week as a day for rest and prayer since Apostolic times. There are several reasons for this. One, and probably most importantly, it was the day of the Resurrection, hence was considered the ‘Lord’s Day’ and the most important day of the week for rest and prayer. Also, there was a deliberate attempt not to entangle the Christian tradition, with Jewish. Also, there was a deliberate attempt to take pagan traditions and transfer them in to Christian one. Presumably, so as to not change the culture and traditions of peoples, but to convert the nature of thee traditions from pagan to Christian.
We didn’t dispose with the 10 commandments, we changed the which day was the Sabbath for those and other reasons. Christians are not beholden to Mosaic law specifically. We adhere to the heart of the law rather than the letter of it.
Hence, we do observe the Sabbath but the Christian Sabbath is Sunday, not Saturday.
Does this answer the question? [/quote]
Yes. Well answered. I will contend the claim that sunday was the day of worship/rest in apostolic times. It MAY have been,but we don’t know for sure. Your idea comes from here :Revelation 1:10King James Version (KJV)
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
John says he was in the spirit. He maybe did that every day. We don’t know.
I don’t believe there is another reference to worshipping on the lords day.
Lets remember that the sabbath CANNOT be changed to sunday. It is clearly established and outlined,and can’t be changed to sunday. I will add a counter to my question for your edification:Colossians 2:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
We don’t really know what exactly that means either,but the wording looks good.lol
So,was it ok for Christians to change the day of rest for the reasons given? Personally,I think if god rested on the sabbath,it would be best to follow his example. I think a lot of Christians don’t think about this much.Confusion[/quote]
We are Christian’s not Jews, we are a different faith tradition from Judaism. Yes, we were born out of Judaism, but we are not Jews and not beholden to Jewish law and tradition. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and hence the old law was fulfilled. It is fitting to move the Sabbath to Sunday as it is the Lord’s Day, the day he was brought to new life and hence, prayer and rest on Sunday is appropriate as it is a regeneration of the body and spirit in communion with the Son of God.
What gives with the obsession of when the Sabbath is celebrated?
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
So,most christians defile the Sabbath. Most christian preacher teach tithing 10% of your earnings to the church. This is taught no where in the new testament,for the gentile christians. Is it ok to give 10% to the church? Of course! is it ok to teach that god commands it for new testament christians,no,because it is a lie. Confusion[/quote]
This is a non sequitur. Christians do not ‘defile’ the Sabbath, we celebrate it on Sunday rather than Saturday.
The idea of tithing came from Genesis as well as mentioned as part of Mosaic Law. Tithing is a recommendation based on the action of Abraham and his tithing to Melchizedek. And while some Christian ministers take the idea of tithing way to far. As a Christian, it is important to tithe, but it’s not a requirement to give it all to the Church. Tithing is part of the Christian mission, to provide for the poor the help people in the various ways in which people need help as well as support for the Church.
Christians, even modern Judaism is not beholden to Mosaic Law as it was the constitution for a people and a country at a particular time and place in history. The Torah is part of our history, it’s important to know, but is not applicable in many instances. For instance, the rules for the Tent of Meeting and law regarding the Arc, are no longer applicable. There is no Arc, or Tent of Meeting hence laws regarding it are not applicable. [/quote]
I am with you. How do you define tithe? This is a leading question Pat,because if you say it is important to tithe 10% according to the the old days because it is a good thing,why not keep the sabbath too. My point is that tithing is nowhere even mentioned in the new testament which is for gentile christians. Confusion
[/quote]
Tithing isn’t required, by the church. It’s recommended, but not required. The 10% is a round number, there is no ‘rule’ where you have to tithe exactly 10%. You can tithe 10% less or more or nothing at all.
And tithing is mentioned in the New Testament, for instance:
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Luke 11:42 ESV)”
But this also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the scriptures. It’s not merely a book of rules or commandments though they are present, but there is a lot more to it than that.
You seem solely focused on whether or not we follow the letter of the law, and hence base your judgement that Christians don’t walk the talk because of such things.
This is a very superficial reading and understanding scriptures. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules. The purpose of the scriptures overall is to facilitate a relationship with the Almighty. Part of that is adherence to commandments, but it’s far from being a religious legal document.
It seems to me that you have made a rather arbitrary judgement on what Christianity should look like and applying perceived actions as not being in line. Again, that’s not the way this whole faith thing works. It’s reciprocal relationship.
[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself
Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]
Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.
This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
So,most christians defile the Sabbath. Most christian preacher teach tithing 10% of your earnings to the church. This is taught no where in the new testament,for the gentile christians. Is it ok to give 10% to the church? Of course! is it ok to teach that god commands it for new testament christians,no,because it is a lie. Confusion[/quote]
This is a non sequitur. Christians do not ‘defile’ the Sabbath, we celebrate it on Sunday rather than Saturday.
The idea of tithing came from Genesis as well as mentioned as part of Mosaic Law. Tithing is a recommendation based on the action of Abraham and his tithing to Melchizedek. And while some Christian ministers take the idea of tithing way to far. As a Christian, it is important to tithe, but it’s not a requirement to give it all to the Church. Tithing is part of the Christian mission, to provide for the poor the help people in the various ways in which people need help as well as support for the Church.
Christians, even modern Judaism is not beholden to Mosaic Law as it was the constitution for a people and a country at a particular time and place in history. The Torah is part of our history, it’s important to know, but is not applicable in many instances. For instance, the rules for the Tent of Meeting and law regarding the Arc, are no longer applicable. There is no Arc, or Tent of Meeting hence laws regarding it are not applicable. [/quote]
I am with you. How do you define tithe? This is a leading question Pat,because if you say it is important to tithe 10% according to the the old days because it is a good thing,why not keep the sabbath too. My point is that tithing is nowhere even mentioned in the new testament which is for gentile christians. Confusion
[/quote]
Tithing isn’t required, by the church. It’s recommended, but not required. The 10% is a round number, there is no ‘rule’ where you have to tithe exactly 10%. You can tithe 10% less or more or nothing at all.
And tithing is mentioned in the New Testament, for instance:
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
(Luke 11:42 ESV)”
But this also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the scriptures. It’s not merely a book of rules or commandments though they are present, but there is a lot more to it than that.
You seem solely focused on whether or not we follow the letter of the law, and hence base your judgement that Christians don’t walk the talk because of such things.
This is a very superficial reading and understanding scriptures. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules. The purpose of the scriptures overall is to facilitate a relationship with the Almighty. Part of that is adherence to commandments, but it’s far from being a religious legal document.
It seems to me that you have made a rather arbitrary judgement on what Christianity should look like and applying perceived actions as not being in line. Again, that’s not the way this whole faith thing works. It’s reciprocal relationship.[/quote]
Pat,I actually respect and agree with most of what you’re saying here. You and I both know however,that specific rules are pretty much taught in most christian churches. Example,baptists don’t dance and many churches teach smoking and drinking are sinful. So,if we are talking about being free in christ,yes,that’s awesome. But,churches don’t let it go there and accept that. They pick and choose things from the old testament,ignore some things from the new testament and teach.it as gods way. You know what I am saying here. I am pointing out some things I don’t think a lot of christians think much about,or just ignore. Are my assumptions incorrect in your opinion? Confusion
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I sincerely believe that many “Christians” do not want to live what the new testament teaches. Some hardly know what it teaches. Also,when presented with scripture,that contradicts the ideas they hold,rather than open their mind and try to trully understand,they have a knee jerk reaction. They immediately begin to argue their case. As I have said prior,I don’t feel you can pick and choose the things you want from the Bible and call yourself a Christian.
This is the reason most Christians will not accept gays,scripture teaches against it. They will however accept divorce and remarriage,which is clearly taught against also. A ,“Christian” just may be able to learn something from an athiest after all. Especially one who isn’t a tree hugging,gun hating,abortion preaching,politically correct pussy,or Christian hating asshole. Confusion[/quote]
Your posts about the Sabbath reveal that you are unaware of the debate within Christianity about this and the different interpretations. You insist Christians are required to keep the Sabbath. Whether this is true or not, you clearly are not familiar with either side of the argument. Of course, if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath then they would also be required to keep the “Sabbath year”. And if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath, then why not the rest of Mosaic law?
So what did Jesus say? He said God provided the Sabbath for the benefit of man, not the other way around. (Mark 2:27).
And the Council of Jerusalem ruled that Gentiles are not required to observe the Sabbath, get circumcised, observe the dietary laws etc. *
Yet despite this, there are some Christian denominations who disagree and point to the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath himself(Luke 4:16) as did his disciples. But they did not abstain from work on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).
So, it’s not as simple as you are claiming. It depends on your interpretation. This is true of many of the things you are claiming.
- Council of Jerusalem:
Colossians 2:16
Romans 14:5-6
Acts 15:28-29
You have merely chosen the least common interpretation and you are insisting that’s the only interpretation.
[/quote]
SexMachine,I will call you out directly on the post you made to Severiano,where you told him to fuck off. How is your understanding of this scripture?
But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Is that what you’re doing?[/quote]
Some people need to be told to ‘fuck off’. I don’t know if it’s the case with SM’s interaction with Severiano, but given SM is generally a reasonable person and gentle disposition, I don’t doubt there was some ‘deserves’ in the case.
You’re taking a position of strict legalism. So far that is your biggest problem with how you interpret scripture. It’s a flawed view and you are not in a position to judge whether people are being ‘Christian’ or not because Christianity is not your forte and you don’t understand it.
Have you read the actual whole Bible?
Are you picking these verses and subsequent criticisms from some Atheist propaganda website?
You sound a lot like this:
http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself
Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]
Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.
This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[/quote]
In essence,we can’t take the words of the bible at face value…we have to filter it thru our own reasoning…which leads to…pretty much anything. Which in practice is the very situational morality SM and a few others were arguing against in anither thread I get what you’re saying Pat, I get a good vibe off you also. I just feel this is what has happened to the christian church,not you necessarily. And is pretty much my whole point in bringing up the topic.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself
Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]
Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.
This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[/quote]
In essence,we can’t take the words of the bible at face value…we have to filter it thru our own reasoning…which leads to…pretty much anything. Which in practice is the very situational morality SM and a few others were arguing against in anither thread I get what you’re saying Pat, I get a good vibe off you also. I just feel this is what has happened to the christian church,not you necessarily. And is pretty much my whole point in bringing up the topic.
[/quote]
I’ve also pointed out what you are saying here about the vast number of different interpretations resulting from the Reformation and earlier schisms dating back to the earliest days of Christianity.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I sincerely believe that many “Christians” do not want to live what the new testament teaches. Some hardly know what it teaches. Also,when presented with scripture,that contradicts the ideas they hold,rather than open their mind and try to trully understand,they have a knee jerk reaction. They immediately begin to argue their case. As I have said prior,I don’t feel you can pick and choose the things you want from the Bible and call yourself a Christian.
This is the reason most Christians will not accept gays,scripture teaches against it. They will however accept divorce and remarriage,which is clearly taught against also. A ,“Christian” just may be able to learn something from an athiest after all. Especially one who isn’t a tree hugging,gun hating,abortion preaching,politically correct pussy,or Christian hating asshole. Confusion[/quote]
Your posts about the Sabbath reveal that you are unaware of the debate within Christianity about this and the different interpretations. You insist Christians are required to keep the Sabbath. Whether this is true or not, you clearly are not familiar with either side of the argument. Of course, if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath then they would also be required to keep the “Sabbath year”. And if Gentiles are required to keep the Sabbath, then why not the rest of Mosaic law?
So what did Jesus say? He said God provided the Sabbath for the benefit of man, not the other way around. (Mark 2:27).
And the Council of Jerusalem ruled that Gentiles are not required to observe the Sabbath, get circumcised, observe the dietary laws etc. *
Yet despite this, there are some Christian denominations who disagree and point to the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath himself(Luke 4:16) as did his disciples. But they did not abstain from work on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).
So, it’s not as simple as you are claiming. It depends on your interpretation. This is true of many of the things you are claiming.
- Council of Jerusalem:
Colossians 2:16
Romans 14:5-6
Acts 15:28-29
You have merely chosen the least common interpretation and you are insisting that’s the only interpretation.
[/quote]
SexMachine,I will call you out directly on the post you made to Severiano,where you told him to fuck off. How is your understanding of this scripture?
But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Is that what you’re doing?[/quote]
Some people need to be told to ‘fuck off’. I don’t know if it’s the case with SM’s interaction with Severiano, but given SM is generally a reasonable person and gentle disposition, I don’t doubt there was some ‘deserves’ in the case.
You’re taking a position of strict legalism. So far that is your biggest problem with how you interpret scripture. It’s a flawed view and you are not in a position to judge whether people are being ‘Christian’ or not because Christianity is not your forte and you don’t understand it.
Have you read the actual whole Bible?
Are you picking these verses and subsequent criticisms from some Atheist propaganda website?
You sound a lot like this:
http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm[/quote]
I’ve actually not looked at that website. I’ve not read every word of the old testament because that’s more for the jews. I have read the NT several times. Every word. ,these are some ideas I’ve had.along the way. My basis for claiming knowledge of christians in general comes from many christains I have talked to and what is taught in several churches ive attended. I think you will find this a diverse selection:Catholic,1st baptist,southern baptist,united church of christ,assemblies of god,church of god,church of christ(they don’t play pianos,organs or any instruments when singing),new mennonite,a few services while visiting the hutterite brethren for a week,non denominational fundamentalist christian,and a number of charismatic and “spirit filled” churches. I might have missed some. FWIW. Confusion
Edit: I forgot church of the Nazarene
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself
Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]
Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.
This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[/quote]
In essence,we can’t take the words of the bible at face value…we have to filter it thru our own reasoning…which leads to…pretty much anything. Which in practice is the very situational morality SM and a few others were arguing against in anither thread I get what you’re saying Pat, I get a good vibe off you also. I just feel this is what has happened to the christian church,not you necessarily. And is pretty much my whole point in bringing up the topic.
[/quote]
That’s why it’s important to consider traditional interpretation when reading the Bible.
[quote]pabergin wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself
Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery
And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]
Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.
This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[/quote]
In essence,we can’t take the words of the bible at face value…we have to filter it thru our own reasoning…which leads to…pretty much anything. Which in practice is the very situational morality SM and a few others were arguing against in anither thread I get what you’re saying Pat, I get a good vibe off you also. I just feel this is what has happened to the christian church,not you necessarily. And is pretty much my whole point in bringing up the topic.
[/quote]
That’s why it’s important to consider traditional interpretation when reading the Bible. [/quote]
Can you explain that a bit?
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]pabergin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures[/quote]
Fun fact:
Both of the words for “soul” in the Hebrew Bible, nepesh and ruach (which correspond to the words psyche and pneuma in the Greek New Testament), both mean “breath”.
So yes, if we are to take the Bible literally, unless you breathe, you don’t have a soul.[/quote]
C’mon man, you can’t conclude that. You can state the fun facts but can’t come up with that fun conclusion.[/quote]
Since God is pure spirit, and his breath refers to the holy spirit, we aren’t exactly talking about respiration.[/quote]
No,where do you get that idea?[/quote]
the holy spirit is represented in a number of ways, one of them is the breath of God. A hymn just popped into mind called "o breathe on me o breath of God. "
Is that what you’re questioning?