The narrow path

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing, one of those Jesus warned us about in Matthew 7:15.

You are merely repeating Judaizer propaganda. What's up with that? Are you secretly a Yahwist or what?

If you know how the New Testament was put together you would know that 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, & Colosians are pseudepigrapha, and 1 Corinthians has suspicious additions, notably with regards to women. So you can't blame Paul for women subjugation.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Which means his burden and yoke were love, right? His path was love as well.

To try not to let the world around me corrupt me, because that is what Jesus taught. If you let the world (area/region) around you corrupt you, you have not followed Jesus' message fully.

You are no worse than me, we are equal.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yes but as I've said, love isn't easy... It sounds easy but there are many challenges adhering to such a path...

and I have not always followed it...

Agreed, it seems to get easier the more you do it and the older you get, but it still takes work to love like Christ.

IF that is the case then I am only a child...

reply to post by sacgamer25


No you didn't, you said this:

I imagine that as long as no one is verifiably healing people by touching them and praying on them, that no one has obtained this equality that you claim exists.

Is the bible not verifiable? Do you not believe that Peter and Paul healed those people by touching them? Because you imply that if it is verifiable then you would agree that equality exists. You didn't say it, you implied it.

reply to post by pthena


What is your argument here? Are you defending it or denying it? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins?

If so, then how can you deny the possibility of them being added in if you believe Paul's letters have been added to?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

You're explanation doesn't make any sense. What other way is there to explain how to love than to just say it?

"Love your neighbor as yourself" I guess Jesus didn't explain it good enough here? After all, he doesn't say how to love, he just says to do it. You can treat others as yourself and still not "love" them, so that doesn't really explain how to love either.

Paul says nothing about what you just said, at all. He says that women should be silent in church, and that is it. He even says that them speaking in church is a "disgrace". How nice of him.

You are creating your own context to fit your presuppositions.

Do you not have anything to say about Ephesians 6:5? It seems to me that he condoned slavery bcause he was telling slaves how to act. Jesus would never condone slavery, but Paul did.

The whole bible was written by the Holy Spirit. If Paul says he agrees with Christ than any concept from the Old or New Testament you would have to believe that he believed also. Jesus said men and women are equal. He actually said that Adam was both man and woman before the father took Eve/Woman out of Adam/Man. He said that when we die will be like the Angels in Heaven, both male and female, without the need for marriage. Just like God and Jesus should be considered both male and female.

Jesus said "turn the other check", Paul was stoned twice lashed a few times and he never retaliated against his brothers. Jesus did teach us how to love. The premise for love is to turn the other cheek to sin, even if your retaliation is in defense. If you truly loved your brother you would never strike him.

In essence Paul doesn't have to agree. He believed Christ so he believed that man and women were equal parts of one whole. And in understanding this he was explaining his views on the roles of men and women.

The rest is modern Psychology. I don't really need the bible to know that women are more in touch with love than men. I don't need the bible when I can ask women myself.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So since women love unconditionally, that means they should not be allowed to teach about it? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, those who love unconditionally SHOULD be allowed to teach. Maybe that's why Paul forbid them from doing it?

In my experience, church is NOT the place to "debate" god, but a place to be silent while the preacher preaches. Your thinking is backwards in that respect, among others. Try to debate god in church and you will most likely be shunned and kicked out of the church for disruption.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yes but this is not the church that Paul was speaking about. He was talking about everyone getting together at someone's house to eat the Lord's Supper and openly talk about and debate spiritually. Actually expecting that multiple people would talk and that at times a revelation from the spirit would come to someone and encourage them to speak.

You can't blame Paul for the preacher and the pulpit. You simply won't find that version of church in his writing.

Except he excluded women from talking in his version of church. You keep dancing around the issue instead of facing it. The fact is Jesus would have NEVER banned a woman from talking anywhere, but Paul did. He made his own law in that instance, meaning he could have created other laws as well.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

No you didn't, you said this:

I imagine that as long as no one is verifiably healing people by touching them and praying on them, that no one has obtained this equality that you claim exists.

Is the bible not verifiable? Do you not believe that Peter and Paul healed those people by touching them? Because you imply that if it is verifiable then you would agree that equality exists. You didn't say it, you implied it.

So reading it is good enough for you? I mean Thomas after everything he saw still needed to touch the flesh to believe. To believe these men who walked with Christ or like Paul were visited by him healed the sick 2000 years ago is a lot easier to believe than I can do it now.

Maybe I'm wrong but if Jesus came up to me in the flesh and healed someone in front of me. Then he leaned over and whispered now you do it. I think I could then, but even that is said with a fraction of doubt.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So since women love unconditionally, that means they should not be allowed to teach about it? That doesn't make any sense at all. If anything, those who love unconditionally SHOULD be allowed to teach. Maybe that's why Paul forbid them from doing it?

In my experience, church is NOT the place to "debate" god, but a place to be silent while the preacher preaches. Your thinking is backwards in that respect, among others. Try to debate god in church and you will most likely be shunned and kicked out of the church for disruption.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yes but this is not the church that Paul was speaking about. He was talking about everyone getting together at someone's house to eat the Lord's Supper and openly talk about and debate spiritually. Actually expecting that multiple people would talk and that at times a revelation from the spirit would come to someone and encourage them to speak.

You can't blame Paul for the preacher and the pulpit. You simply won't find that version of church in his writing.

Except he excluded women from talking in his version of church. You keep dancing around the issue instead of facing it. The fact is Jesus would have NEVER banned a woman from talking anywhere, but Paul did. He made his own law in that instance, meaning he could have created other laws as well.

Go debate a women on how to love. Then come back and tell me that women and men should even think about debating how to love. We are very different, but this is ok.

We love differently, there is nothing wrong with this.

reply to post by sacgamer25


You're an expert dodger aren't you? I see you ignored my question about Ephesians 6:5.... again.

What are your thoughts on Ephesians 6:5? I'll even quote it for you.

Ephesians 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

If Paul did not consent to slavery then he would have never told them to obey their "masters".

Would Jesus have told those lowly slaves to obey their masters? I don't think so.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I don't believe ANYONE healed anybody by just touching them. Obviously just reading it is good enough for you, otherwise you would need to proof to believe it instead of thinking it is "100% true".

You're running both of us in circles here, but mainly yourself.

reply to post by sacgamer25


My opinion on love would be the same as a woman's opinion because LOVE IS LOVE, no matter how you look at it.

Since you are a man, tell me how to love. What is love since men are able to explain it better than women? If you can't explain it any better than by just saying it, then your argument is baseless.

Do you not love unconditionally? If you don't then you do not know what love is. If you do, then you love in the same exact way that YOU said women do.

reply to post by Akragon


Then they will probably kill themselves? I don't know what you mean, sorry.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Which means his burden and yoke were love, right? His path was love as well.

To try not to let the world around me corrupt me, because that is what Jesus taught. If you let the world (area/region) around you corrupt you, you have not followed Jesus' message fully.

You are no worse than me, we are equal.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Yes but as I've said, love isn't easy... It sounds easy but there are many challenges adhering to such a path...

and I have not always followed it...

Agreed, it seems to get easier the more you do it and the older you get, but it still takes work to love like Christ.

IF that is the case then I am only a child...

If that's the case, then according to Jesus the Kingdom belongs to you.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Are you defending it or denying it? Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead and died for our sins?

I am defending the right of individuals to believe it. I also defend the right of those who have been brainwashed into believing in a sin sacrifice to recover without the use of deprogramming.

I personally knew people who had been deprogrammed by none other than Ted Patrick, the inventor of deprogramming

Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group.[1][2] Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion.[3] The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved.
Deprogramming is commissioned by relatives, often parents of adult offspring, who object to someone's membership in an organization or group. It was started in the 1970s in the United States by Ted Patrick.
Deprogramming

Reverse brainwashing is nothing but brainwashing in reverse. I've seen people's whole reason for living blown away, leaving them as almost zombies. It takes a long time to recover any joy in life.

I prefer a long (as long as it takes) gentle recovery from the initial indoctrination any day.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Then they will probably kill themselves? I don't know what you mean, sorry.

How can one love his neighbour as himself if said person does not love himself?

If that's the case, then according to Jesus the Kingdom belongs to you.

Perhaps... in which case my angel faces God... which would lead me to assume that all of our "angels" face God... as each of us is an "image" of God...

Parts of the whole...

reply to post by pthena

I also defend the right of those who have been brainwashed into believing in a sin sacrifice to recover without the use of deprogramming.

No one answered my question on an earlier page...

This sin sacrifice of old times... How does the slaughter of an animal justify sin?

I can't wrap my brain around the concept...

reply to post by Akragon


Well, then that quote does not apply to them I guess. Not really much more to say I don't think.

Yes, we are pieces of the whole, even those who do not know it or deny it. The image of god is your image and my image and everyone's image. The light of the world is in everyone because our image is that light.

reply to post by pthena


I'm not trying to "deprogram" him. When we first started the debate, I thought he was close and I tried nudging him in the right direction, but as the debate has gone on I see that he is no closer to the truth than any other run-of-the-mill Christian.

I'm not knocking him, just stating my opinion. I'm trying to get him to notice the flaws in his argument, but it seems he is blind to them because of the programming.

I agree with you on defending peoples rights to their beliefs, but I don't think a bit of debate hurts anyone. Do you?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Well, then that quote does not apply to them I guess. Not really much more to say I don't think.

Yes, we are pieces of the whole, even those who do not know it or deny it. The image of god is your image and my image and everyone's image. The light of the world is in everyone because our image is that light.

Many chose to hide that light, not let it shine...

The parable of the wicked servant

Like I've been saying for pages now... Love is not easy, though it might be to those who understand it...

Those that do not love themselves have trouble loving others... but even loving ones self has its own challenges... How does one love others if said person is consumed by the love for himself?

reply to post by Akragon

How does the slaughter of an animal justify sin?

I can't wrap my brain around the concept...

These aren't the old days. I didn't live in that particular society in the old days.

When I was a Christian, I used to just repeat verses by rote, thinking that I was saying the right thing. (the psychological trick of telling yourself, "well I don't understand it, but somebody who knows more than me wrote it, so it's got to be the right thing to do to repeat it)

Eventually, I came to realize that the people who wrote it weren't any smarter than I am. And since I had no rational way of explaining it to my self, I just gave it up. Seemed the honest thing to do.