[Mako]

Originally Posted by teddy564339

I don't see what makes you say that Paul is trying to tell people not to follow Christ. To me, Paul's doctrine does not contradict anything that Jesus taught. Paul did not ever physically interact with Jesus (not counting his Damascus Road encounter)...everything he learned/wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit (or if you don't believe that, learned from disciples like Peter). So Paul probably did not even hear everything that Jesus says in the 4 gospels. But like I've said...while their messages (and audiences) were different, I don't see how Paul is trying to get the Corinthians to abandon Christ and follow him instead.

I did not mean to imply that paul is asking to abandon christ, mearly injecting his own beliefs within the teachings, stretching the truth, and making curious statements that would make me question his integrity as a follower of christ.

Speaking of damascus

1 corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians is the only place in all of Paul's writing that I have ever found that he offers his own opinion. And he's honest about it...he says that he is not writing a message from God like all of his other writings, he is merely giving his own opinion. Yes, he uses the word judgment...but that doesn't mean he is judging people, calling them evil (which is the message that Jesus was getting across). He is just giving his opinion...if people don't follow it, he's not saying that they are sinning or are doing evil.

And is paul righteous in using his position of authority to push his own agenda?

In his opinion, he thinks it is best for the Corinthians to stay virgins. However, because he didn't get this commandment from God, he says that if they don't, they're not doing anything wrong. I don't see why it's a problem that Paul is doing this, or how it would contradict any of Jesus' teachings, or cause people to do follow him instead of Jesus.

Mostly the judging upon pauls part, and I still disagree with your view that disassociation only pertains to being friends with non-believers. Something that still seems pretty silly, a christian not allowed to befriend any non-believer.

There are many books of the New Testament, with many different audiences and messages. While they can be difficult to sort through, I don't think that makes the whole picture of them incomprehensible, nor do I think that they are at odds with one another. I truly do think that one can find harmony between them.

It's much too big a task at the moment for me to start going into every book and pointing out the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, unfulfilled prophecy, and down right silly notions.

I mean, people miss that jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that would identify him as the messiah. Now, I'm a strong believer in that which one learns oneself leaves a bigger impression then that which is told to you. So I will leave it up to those with an inquiring mind to investigate, and not waste effort upon those in which bury their heads in the sand.

I think a verse that goes very well with the one you mentioned is this one:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Basically, meaning that unless someone has been saved, the Bible will probably just look like a bunch of stupid writing.

There's also several verses where it preaches that anyone not christian is an anti-christ and is here to deceive you. Now christians see these verses as evidence that the bible is true. But I see it in more of tune to the tactics of cults to discredit dissenters, thus blocking them out, instead of investigating idea's and opening ones mind to new schools of thought.

An idea idea or belief should be able to survive based upon its own merits, and not need to be held above critique.

Anyway...if you respond to this post, my next response to you will be through a PM, because we have gotten very much off the original topic.

Yeah, but theres not really much more to go with the original topic :P I mean, there's no one particularly defending his law suit.

He's trying to change the bible. Trying to make it more politically correct. Claiming that what is printed ids the publisher's interpretation.

Correction, the publishers dumbed down the wording to specifically state homosexual instead of "abusers of themselves with mankind". It was a change of semantics since this still does mean homosexual, but it was a change of the publishers half none the less.

From now on, I won't even use the pronoun 'he'. I've seen a lot of weak men in my life. Child molesters, wife beaters, welfare scammers, but never have I seen a bigger pussy. This 'thing' is the most pitiful excuse for a human ever.

Yet all you know of him is that he sees the publishers choice to dumb down the wording of the bible, as the direct cause of people more directly going after him. It's quite narrow to pass judgement so fast when one knows so little about this man.

And the sad part is that this is typical behavior. People all acroos the world try to change books , radio and Tv show into what they want to see by being "offended". They don't want freedom for everyone, they want freedom for themselves.

And freedom from literature that was a direct cause of his discrimination is unreasonable? This is not as simple as a boob being flashed, or vulgar language being used. The messages taught within the bible is that it is wrong to be gay, and that they are not to be associated with. I don't support the method in which he is attempting to enact this change, but I do support the notion of not having to tolerate intolerance of things one can not help.

I may not believe in judge not lest ye be judged, but I believe in the spirit of the message with a modified method. Judge not which one does not know. Ignorance is an ugly thing, uglier when one makes conclusions based upon it.