Search results

That's a touching story ... but I thought the original post was whether it's against God's law. I see no reason to think so.

You're response has nothing to do with the op or with my post. I brought up a point and you just dismissed it. So, yeah. I do think its "caviler".

I don't see why you're being so caviler about this. It's an issue that affects a lot of people.

There are a group called the Universalists who have an interesting take. "For in all Adam die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." "Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people."...

Law of men ... not of God.

I had a pretty lengthy thread about inappropriate contentiea here: Does inappropriate contenteia (usually translated as sexual immorality or fornication) go too far or not far enough The crux is, the word's definition is not well understood as the New Testament authors used it. Anyone who claims to 'know' the real definition is...

I haven't watched the video since it's 25 minutes. But I don't see anything in the bible that forbids drug use.

I found this: 1 Timothy 2:12 in Context: Phrase by Phrase | Marg Mowczko One point that person makes is "It could be that Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12 was related to a specific, limited, local situation. The instruction may even have been limited to a particular woman in the Ephesian...

This topic gets more complicated when Jesus' parables are taken into account. In many of the parables, it seems that the people have been saved according to their works. I've always had a hard time reconciling that with Paul.

I'm stepping in here late, and I don't feel like reading the previous posts. What exactly is it you're saying?

What it was I was born Lutheran. I brought up a traditional Lutheran idea and he felt insulted. My idea was purely from where I brought up, and I had questions. But, apparently, Catholics feel like they are being attacked. He literally told me I was "Anti-Catholic"... Whatever that means. I...

I have to be careful here. I once made mad a Catholic when I didn't know he was Catholic. You are quoting a council that lived 250 years after Christ. And they weren't perfect. I think they just included this book because it was the popular thing to do.

I actually had a whole thread on 'inappropriate contenteia'. My point was ... it isn't useless and it hurts people.

You're assuming what I'm talking about is stupid. I have every faith in God. I just don't question his power.

It was apocrypha, written by someone who didn't even know Jesus. Why should I believe it?

I can do more research if you want. But here is the wiki: The author names himself as "John" in the text, but his precise identity remains a point of academic debate. Second-century Christian writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Melito (the bishop of Sardis), Clement of Alexandria, and the...

When the church fathers decided what should be the canon, there was a lot of debate about Revelations. Not very many of them thought it was actually by John the apostle. They just put it in there because it was popular.

Because it wasn't written by the apostle. The credibility the original makers of the New Testament wanted was that it was written from a first-hand account. They may have thought that at the time, but it has become evident that it wasn't.

I really don't want to get into this ... But basically this is the Universalist perspective. I'm not a Universalist, but I do appreciate their position. Their main argument is that the word we use for 'eternal' didn't come from the original Greek texts. It came from Latin. And there is tons of...

The Greeks freaking hated the infinite. They actually invented Calculus, then instantly rejected it because it dealt with the infinite. So, no. They didn't actually let themselves use a word like 'eternal'.