Jesus Loves You

[Zeena]

Not in the way you seem to suggest. I accept our elected representatives as such, and I consider our constitution and the rule of law as communal institutions aimed at providing stability to our society. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with authoritarianism or hierarchies. The only reason our elected representatives have any power is because we have given it to them - and, given the right circumstances, we could take it back.

Could take it back if they acted immorally, surely? Or would it be taken back merely for sake of weilding power?

As a citizen in a democractic nation, I perceive power to be held by the few for the sake of the many. And should they refuse the sake of the many, for the sake of the few, there are proper avenues with which to oust them as the prevailing power, or rule.

To set up an alternate authority in place who will be for the many.

I'm not saying that revolution is a bad thing, you see?
BUT that we are to submit to the authoities that be, within reason, for the sake of society, out of love for said society.

Now, tell me this is not a heirachy?

There hasn't really been much of a distinction between the two since I was ten years old. Remember, the GDR ceased to be twenty years ago.
But I've grown up in what used to be the "West".

I'm glad your country is working dilligently to disolve those differences. I wish the whole world would do so. But, until (and even) then, we are to be productive citizens, doing our very best to uphold society. For this makes for peace.

 

[b&wpac4]

So then, there is no reformation available to criminals of today?

With this train of thought, all criminals should just be murdered where they stand, seeing as they are incapable of change.

I am glad to be Canadian, where we do not put to death criminals, but offer chance for reform.

Conformation to societal standards is viewed as a good thing within a democracy [within reason, of course].

Please explain where you got this from my post?

 

[razeontherock]

I think her point is that Saul underwent substantial change on becoming Paul.

 

[b&wpac4]

I think her point is that Saul underwent substantial change on becoming Paul.

That's fine. I still don't believe the story as presented.

 

[Zeena]

I think her point is that Saul underwent substantial change on becoming Paul.

That's correct..

1 Tim 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

He repented, to the Glory of God.

 

[Zeena]

That's fine. I still don't believe the story as presented.

Your pressumption was that you did, in this post;

Actually, I question a person that claims to be a Pharisee, and he's such a Pharisee that he.... goes and works for the Sadducees so he can persecute people, which is completely against the religious beliefs of both groups.

 

[b&wpac4]

Your pressumption was that you did, in this post;

What are you talking about?

 

[Zeena]

What are you talking about?

Your assumption that Paul was, in fact, a real, living, person.

As stated in your post.

 

[b&wpac4]

Your assumption that Paul was, in fact, a real, living, person.

As stated in your post.

Of course Paul was a real person. I don't believe he was telling the truth about his activities prior to the road to Damascus. That doesn't make him less human.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your assumption that Paul was, in fact, a real, living, person.

As stated in your post.

Of course Paul was a real person. I don't believe he was telling the truth about his activities prior to the road to Damascus. That doesn't make him less human.

Paul sure knew how to raise a ruckus. The ole "divide and conquer" strategy

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Acts 23:6 and Paul having known that the one part are Sadducees and the other Pharisees, cried out in the sanhedrim, "men, brethren, I am a Pharisee--son of a Pharisee--concerning hope and resurrection of dead ones I am judged.'

 

[Zeena]

*snip*
I don't believe he was telling the truth about his activities prior to the road to Damascus.

But you admitted as much in your post.

I can only respond to what you say, not what you do not..

 

[b&wpac4]

But you admitted as much in your post.

I can only respond to what you say, not what you do not..

No, I said I question someone who says that. Meaning I do not believe them.

 

[Zeena]

No, I said I question someone who says that. Meaning I do not believe them.

You question a person, or the fact of his relation of his experience?

Actually, I question a person that claims to be a Pharisee, and he's such a Pharisee that he.... goes and works for the Sadducees so he can persecute people, which is completely against the religious beliefs of both groups.

Emphasis added.

Next time, please double check your post before you click 'submit'.

 

[b&wpac4]

You question a person, or the fact of his relation of his experience?

Emphasis added.

Next time, please double check your post before you click 'submit'.

Basic English:

I question a person who claims ....

It is the claims that I am questioning them based on.

 

[Zeena]

Basic English:

I question a person who claims ....

It is the claims that I am questioning them based on.

Do you always refute historical fact on a whim?

What makes for historical fact in your eyes?

 

[b&wpac4]

Do you always refute historical fact on a whim?

What makes for historical fact in your eyes?

That someone claims something does not make it historical fact. It becomes even more dubious when those claims are from a source that is biased.

 

[Zeena]

That someone claims something does not make it historical fact.

But it does shed light into it's authors insights, at the very least.

So, not only are you suggesting that the historical facts as presented are blatently false, but, being so, Saint Paul is found a liar in your eyes?

What about Saint Peter, did he also lie to us?

2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Funny if he would say that he did not follow cleverely devised fables, only to devise one himself! He musta been the most cleverest of em all!

Funny also that millions upon millions have believed on his testimony, only to have you come here and single-handedly debunk them based upon NOTHING!

Hebrews 10:28-29
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Awkward that they would DIE a MARTYRS death for thier lies, doncha think?
I hope you're willing to do the same for your beliefs!

It becomes even more dubious when those claims are from a source that is biased.

Says you. And you are entitled to believe as you may.

I will rather refer to the historical facts as presented in the Gospels.

 

[razeontherock]

What are you talking about?

Actually you did state you believe at least part of the story as presented, that Saul of Tarsus persecuted the Church. You also stated that wasn't something either the Pharisees nor the Saducees would do. I'd be interested if you have more insight into Gamaliel's take on that, other than the tiny snippet we get in the NT.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of course Paul was a real person. I don't believe he was telling the truth about his activities prior to the road to Damascus. That doesn't make him less human.

Keep in mind that it is not even Paul who gives this very extensive (and contradictory) account of his life prior to the conversion experience: it's the author of Acts of the Apostles.
Paul as described in Acts is quite different from the Paul who authored most of the canonized epistles ascribed to him.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here you're mocking someone who had the reading comprehension of a HS graduate in 2nd grade, while you simultaneously miss the whole point

James was speaking against religiosity, from personal experience, about things that could only be known via a personal relationship. Read it and weep.

And again, that's not what the text we quoted here says. It condemns those who only give the appearance of religiosity, yet fail to live up to the standards that one might expect from someone who's truly convinced.
The passage then goes on to establish what true religiosity ought to look like, citing charity as a clear indicator.

In short, it's a condemnation of those who are only interested in appearances and propriety.