FSTDT.com

[spinningtutu]

*nods* maybe I had too much fun with that last post...

in any case, I *do* appreciate your post(s) about Paul & I entirely agree/admit that moral relativism/subjectivity has never been (and never will be) acceptable, not in any dispensation.

for the sake of clarification, I use 'Lamb' and 'Goat' differently, but I know what you are saying about Jesus and you are right on that one.
btw, it's nice to run into you again on CF.

 

[SallyNow]

Well, the only question I have right now is still the one about why you took what I said as an "attack" against moderate or liberal Christians. If you're concerned about a debate erupting if you answer here, you could PM me. Or, if you'd like to keep it public, we could start a thread in WWMC and copy and paste part of this thread there.

But if you'd prefer to drop the matter, that's too.

I'll try to explain with the contents of this thread, but if it seems like I'm coming too close to debating, feel free to start a new thread in WWMC

In general, I have always said that those who attack Paul yet claim they're Christians, are shooting themselves in the foot as to their actual faith.

For example, this is pretty much saying that liberals are wrong and don't have "actual faith".

Paul's done the most for us spiritually speaking in liberating us as God's people in the new Grace covenant as Christ's bride, yet they attack him becuz he lists the moral sins that are still forbidden... it's nothing but bias imo.

Or that liberal Christians are biased, therefore implying that they can not be objective about their faith, that they are always subjective.

You bring up a good point about Paul - to the legalistic Jews, he was very 'liberal' in bringing grace and mercy over letter of law which they were used to.
I agree with that. I think today liberal has been taken over to mean anything nontraditional or unorthodox...

While Paul brought radical teachings, he was still very traditional and conservative in morality and even custom. It wasn't a license to go live in sin & have salvation too like it's been turned into today.

One more thing I'd add, Paul also has the support and backing of the other disciples who did walk with Jesus.
If you read 2 Peter 2:15-16, Peter called Paul his brother and confirmed his epistles as from God. So unless Peter is a liar & heretic... I think Paul's credibility stands. (Paul had to defend his credentials to the Corinthians too; even then wolves were in the church trying to undermine his authority in the church, and no wonder; he was one powerful ambassador
for Christ).

And this seems to assume that anyone who wants to delve further in the issues with Paulian writings are calling Peter a liar and heretic. That's just not correct.

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus.

Having fun with tearing apart another' s beliefs just because they do not fit exactly with your own seems like it's attacking the faith from the ground-up.

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

This blasts away at those who do reoconsile the two issues. It seems to be dismissing liberal Christians.

And of course, there's the good old standby that a liberal Christian is a lukewarm Christian.

Basically, yes. FSTDT has some really rude posters. There are a lot quotes on there that are actually trolls and poes. But not everyone who posts on FSTDT is an atheist or agnostic, and not every quote is one from a Poe.

I know I'm rambling, but I hope my point is coming across.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I'll try to explain with the contents of this thread, but if it seems like I'm coming too close to debating, feel free to start a new thread in WWMC


Originally Posted by Nadiine

In general, I have always said that those who attack Paul yet claim they're Christians, are shooting themselves in the foot as to their actual faith.

​

For example, this is pretty much saying that liberals are wrong and don't have "actual faith".

Hmm. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as saying, "If you attack Paul, you're attacking the guy who most clearly and explicitly taught 'salvation by grace through faith, not works.'" Without Paul, it's hard to keep Christianity from becoming legalism.

Paul's done the most for us spiritually speaking in liberating us as God's people in the new Grace covenant as Christ's bride, yet they attack him becuz he lists the moral sins that are still forbidden... it's nothing but bias imo.


Or that liberal Christians are biased, therefore implying that they can not be objective about their faith, that they are always subjective.

I understand your objection, but I have to say that my experience with liberal Christians elsewhere is in line with that. They are often pretty up front about denigrating Paul in toto, just because he is, in their perception, a sexist and homophobe.

Originally Posted by Nadiine

You bring up a good point about Paul - to the legalistic Jews, he was very 'liberal' in bringing grace and mercy over letter of law which they were used to.
I agree with that. I think today liberal has been taken over to mean anything nontraditional or unorthodox...

While Paul brought radical teachings, he was still very traditional and conservative in morality and even custom. It wasn't a license to go live in sin & have salvation too like it's been turned into today.

One more thing I'd add, Paul also has the support and backing of the other disciples who did walk with Jesus.
If you read 2 Peter 2:15-16, Peter called Paul his brother and confirmed his epistles as from God. So unless Peter is a liar & heretic... I think Paul's credibility stands. (Paul had to defend his credentials to the Corinthians too; even then wolves were in the church trying to undermine his authority in the church, and no wonder; he was one powerful ambassador
for Christ).

​

And this seems to assume that anyone who wants to delve further in the issues with Paulian writings are calling Peter a liar and heretic. That's just not correct.

No, it works like this: Luke regarded Paul as a genuine Apostle. Peter placed Paul's letters on the same level as their sacred Hebrew Scriptures. So if you're going to denigrate Paul and his writings, then logically you should also hold Luke and Peter and their writings in similar low regard.

"Delv(ing) into" Paul's writings is different from just dismissing him as an angry nut.

Let me make a brief digression: Fundies have a reputation for being hyper-literalists. But in other venues, I've observed it is often the liberals who insist on reading Paul with a hyper-literalist, and 20th-21st Century Western-Culture, bias. For example, they would rather see Paul as a self-aggrandizing egomaniac than accept that his "boasting" in some passage was just a rhetorical device of that era.

I was really astonished when I first encountered the vehement anti-Paul sentiments.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

One of the favorite ploys of the anti-fundies I've encountered, including -- maybe even especially -- the ones who are professing Christians, is to claim that fundies are really "Paulians," because Jesus was all lovey-dovey nicey-nice, but Paul was an arrogant bigoted bluenosed homophobe misogynist. It's always fun to point them to the violent acts and outrageously hard and unloving sayings of Jesus.
​

Having fun with tearing apart another' s beliefs just because they do not fit exactly with your own seems like it's attacking the faith from the ground-up.

Here you need to understand that I'm not just talking about "liberals," but about people -- some of them professing believers, some not -- who are actively "anti-fundy." When they attack my beliefs, I will attack theirs, and I will enjoy it.

I would say that one really cannot even *be* a Christian without believing a fair amount of "dogma" that is counter-intuitive or (in the perception of the "natural" mind) insane.

This blasts away at those who do reoconsile the two issues. It seems to be dismissing liberal Christians.

Here I have in mind some of the basic essentials of the faith, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Scripture presents God as "one" and "three." That is certainly counter-intuitive! Scripture teaches that the Word (Jesus) "was" God, "became" flesh; and yet *while* flesh, Jesus taught that God is Spirit, and *also* taught that He Himself was "I AM."

In this case, I'm not just poking at "liberals." Lots of "orthodox" theologians sort of put up a front of "reconciling" these things, but all they really do is invent fancy terminology. "Uhh... this doesn't make any sense. I've got it! We'll call it 'hypostatic union.' As long as we can give it a name, it's ok!"

And of course, there's the good old standby that a liberal Christian is a lukewarm Christian.

No, I know better than that. I've met some who really tick me off in some ways, but they can be very dedicated, knowledgeable and skilled apologists for Christianity in general.

Basically, yes. FSTDT has some really rude posters. There are a lot quotes on there that are actually trolls and poes. But not everyone who posts on FSTDT is an atheist or agnostic, and not every quote is one from a Poe.

I know I'm rambling, but I hope my point is coming across.

Uhh... "Poe"?

Anyway -- My interactions have not been at FSTDT. I just discovered that place. I've sparred with the anti-fundies at CARM, AARM (a defunct site for CARM refugees), and "Talk Beliefs."

Thank you for replying.

I hope in explaining my side I didn't come across as "attacking."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I hope in explaining my side I didn't come across as "attacking."

I don't think you did. I think you and SallyNow have both explained yourselves well and reasonably, and I agree with both of you, for the most part. Good job!




However, there remains one thing I'd like to take issue with: I think you unfairly overgeneralized in implying that many or most liberal Christians denigrate Paul, and dismiss him as a sexist and a homophobe. Sure, some do, but it's not the official liberal position or anything. Many liberal Christians understand the importance of Paul, as Nadiine and you and I do.

At the same time, I do think he was something of a sexist and a homophobe, but without dismissing him for it (and I don't especially blame him for it since it was the common attitude of his time and culture). Far from dismissing him, I think he was the most important NT writer, and the most important NT character besides Jesus. But sometimes in his epistles, Paul was speaking for himself, and sometimes he was speaking for God. One reason for studying Paul carefully and prayerfully is to discern which.

 

[LightHorseman]

Paul is this girl's HERO - can't wait to meet that man & share some cheesecake while I'm surrounded by a zoo of animals.
lol (BLISS) =)~

Isn't the doctrine that animals have no soul (From, I believe, Augustine Hipponen) built pretty much on Paul's teachings? Seems odd that you expect him to sit with you in a zoo.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

However, there remains one thing I'd like to take issue with: I think you unfairly overgeneralized in implying that many or most liberal Christians denigrate Paul, and dismiss him as a sexist and a homophobe. Sure, some do, but it's not the official liberal position or anything. Many liberal Christians understand the importance of Paul, as Nadiine and you and I do.

I didn't really think I was doing that. I had in mind mainly the actively "anti-fundy" liberals; however, it has been the case that most of the liberals I've encountered fit that particular category.

At the same time, I do think he was something of a sexist and a homophobe, but without dismissing him for it (and I don't especially blame him for it since it was the common attitude of his time and culture). Far from dismissing him, I think he was the most important NT writer, and the most important NT character besides Jesus. But sometimes in his epistles, Paul was speaking for himself, and sometimes He was speaking for God. One reason for studying Paul carefully and prayerfully is to discern which.

Homophobe -- by current "PC" standards, probably so. On that issue, there is also the matter of whether it was "his" view, or whether he was speaking for God.

Sexist -- I don't think so. He explicitly affirmed equality of "male and female," and he went out of his way to acknowledge his female coworkers. I think the 1 Tim. 2 passage suffers from mistranslation, as well as from ignorance of the likely cultural context of an Artemis cult. I think the 1 Cor. 11 comments suffer from possible mistranslation. I think the 1 Cor. 14 verses are situational, dealing with uneducated women pressing their "equality" too far by trying to participate in interactive services beyond their ability. To me, the closest thing to a truly "sexist" passage is the "house code table" in Col. 3:18-4:1, and even it was relatively "woman-friendly" by the standards of the time. The more extensive table in Ephesians is even more "egalitarian" than the one in Colossians, and since both churches were sort of on a "circuit" in Asia Minor, the Colossian church would probably have had access to that letter. I think the language was crafted to affirm gender equality, while at the same time not unnecessarily alarming people who were concerned about radical goddess-worship cults.

Umm, anyway... Had a little problem with Prov. 10:19 again.

 

[LightHorseman]

I think the 1 Cor. 11 comments suffer from possible mistranslation.

Amazing

 

[NorrinRadd]

Amazing

Why thank you. *bows humbly*

 

[LightHorseman]

Why thank you. *bows humbly*

Just so long as you arent one of the people who claims that THAT passage is mistranslated, but all the ones you agree with aren't.

I tell ya, the "Bible is inerrant", and "my understanding of the Bible through my English translation is EXACTLY what the authors meant without possibility that I may have been swayed by prior influence or subjectivity", crowd, really get to me

 

[Nadiine]

Hmm. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as saying, "If you attack Paul, you're attacking the guy who most clearly and explicitly taught 'salvation by grace through faith, not works.'" Without Paul, it's hard to keep Christianity from becoming legalism.

That is how I take it as well. There's just more aspects or observations that can be drawn from it imo. =) But definitely yes. Removing Paul actually causes them more faith contradictions than accepting his teachings.

No, it works like this: Luke regarded Paul as a genuine Apostle. Peter placed Paul's letters on the same level as their sacred Hebrew Scriptures. So if you're going to denigrate Paul and his writings, then logically you should also hold Luke and Peter and their writings in similar low regard

Oh I agree, I didn't take the time to give the whole linkage of who met with him & embraced him.
Peter is just one of the more prominant who openly embraced Paul as an apostle of God - Peter directly walked with Jesus; Luke did not altho he did write one of the gospels.
All 12 actually embraced him when they met in the account of Acts. But yes, once you remove Paul, you end up having a chain link of people that need to be discredited and called false/liars.

"Delv(ing) into" Paul's writings is different from just dismissing him as an angry nut.

Let me make a brief digression: Fundies have a reputation for being hyper-literalists. But in other venues, I've observed it is often the liberals who insist on reading Paul with a hyper-literalist, and 20th-21st Century Western-Culture, bias. For example, they would rather see Paul as a self-aggrandizing egomaniac than accept that his "boasting" in some passage was just a rhetorical device of that era.

Good observation, agreed. Again, all that ends up happening is they rip him to shreds becuz of his moral clarity on sin... yet fully rely on him for their beliefs on Jesus bringing the new grace covenant that focuses on love & mercy not law & condemnation.... I will always call it shooting themselves in the foot with Paul.

They were attacking Paul in the book of Corinthians where Paul had to defend his credentials even back then.
Nothing's new under the sun - he's a POWERFUL witness of God; he has to be torn apart or else it forces them to admit what is true which counters the way they want to live.

 

[Nadiine]

Isn't the doctrine that animals have no soul (From, I believe, Augustine Hipponen) built pretty much on Paul's teachings? Seems odd that you expect him to sit with you in a zoo.

Well I can't help what other 'doctrines' others write or who they base them on. Heck, look at all the crap that get's said and done in JESUS' name!!


Paul himself was not anti animal - or said anything of the kind. Even IF he did, once he's fully restored by God in the new kingdom, he certainly wouldn't be holding to any negativity regarding them becuz he'd be fully enlightened and released from his corrupted nature prior.

 

[Nadiine]

Anyway -- My interactions have not been at FSTDT. I just discovered that place. I've sparred with the anti-fundies at CARM, AARM (a defunct site for CARM refugees), and "Talk Beliefs."

Thank you for replying.

I hope in explaining my side I didn't come across as "attacking."

if you get time can you briefly pm me about that carm/aarm thingy?

The main thing that comes across as attacking is when you use the bible to correct in saying something is sinful/God doesn't allow it/it's wrong... even when you say it kindly & gently (from my experience around here the past 2 yrs).

 

[Nadiine]

However, there remains one thing I'd like to take issue with: I think you unfairly overgeneralized in implying that many or most liberal Christians denigrate Paul, and dismiss him as a sexist and a homophobe. Sure, some do, but it's not the official liberal position or anything. Many liberal Christians understand the importance of Paul, as Nadiine and you and I do.

At the same time, I do think he was something of a sexist and a homophobe, but without dismissing him for it (and I don't especially blame him for it since it was the common attitude of his time and culture). Far from dismissing him, I think he was the most important NT writer, and the most important NT character besides Jesus. But sometimes in his epistles, Paul was speaking for himself, and sometimes He was speaking for God. One reason for studying Paul carefully and prayerfully is to discern which.

The few times that Paul spoke from himself and not the Lord, he told us that directly. If he was doing that intermitantly all thru his epistles, he wouldn't have made the 1 clarification and not bothered to continue clarifying who he was speaking for later.
So I don't think we can just assume he's sprinkling in his own beliefs all throughout and it's our job to decide which are his & which are God's.
(if that's the case, then we would truly have a hard time even buying into the fact that He was God's apostle when we can say "this was his opinion, maybe not God's... so I'll dismiss these moral commands).

I don't think he was a homophobe whatsoever - it was known as an abomination, he was a former pharisee... and he was just as hard on that as he was other sexual sins in the church and kicked out those in open sin until they repented.

What's happened is this imo, WE have gotten soft on sin - We've bought into the lies that unless we use cotton candy and don't relay the harsher truth's of scripture, we're da debil.

Paul isn't the homophobe, we're too casual about it becuz we're desensitized in an immoral culture. Paul is setting the standard - and holding the line becuz perfection is God's standard. Granted, we know it cannot be attained by us - but the point is, he HAS to relay the perfect standard for what it is. He should be harsh on it; and so should we.
At the same time, he lovingly witnessed that there is forgiveness for all our sins IF we'll come to repent and turn to Christ.

That's how see it with Paul. If Paul was on CF today, he'd pummelled by nonChristians AND self professing Christians - we aren't near as harsh as the NT writers regarding doctrinal issues (ie. church discipline, rebuke, etc) - if anyone spoke like the NT writers they'de be hunted down here (and most likely suspended).

 

[NorrinRadd]

Just so long as you arent one of the people who claims that THAT passage is mistranslated, but all the ones you agree with aren't.

I tell ya, the "Bible is inerrant", and "my understanding of the Bible through my English translation is EXACTLY what the authors meant without possibility that I may have been swayed by prior influence or subjectivity", crowd, really get to me

Well, I do have some tendency to pick the translation I believe is "best" in various different places. But I believe I'm in good company, because the authors of the NT quoted from various different versions of the OT Scriptures.

In 1 Cor. 11, I like the ISV; it doesn't really matter a whole lot, however, because the issue is culturally constrained in any case.

In 1 Tim. 2, I don't offhand know of any that render "authentein" correctly; and unfortunately in that case the translation *does* have more impact.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

The few times that Paul spoke from himself and not the Lord, he told us that directly. If he was doing that intermitantly all thru his epistles, he wouldn't have made the 1 clarification and not bothered to continue clarifying who he was speaking for later.
So I don't think we can just assume he's sprinkling in his own beliefs all throughout and it's our job to decide which are his & which are God's.
(if that's the case, then we would truly have a hard time even buying into the fact that He was God's apostle when we can say "this was his opinion, maybe not God's... so I'll dismiss these moral commands).

Yes, I was bearing in mind the times when he explicitly said so. But I think there may have been some times he didn't. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:12 he says "I do not permit", not "God does not permit" or "the church must not permit". And then he goes on to give some reasoning in support of his position, but it sounds like human reasoning to me. I could be wrong, but I'll have to study it carefully before I'll say so.

 

[desmalia]

Or that liberal Christians are biased, therefore implying that they can not be objective about their faith, that they are always subjective.

As he has clarified already, I don't think he was talking about all libs. We all have biases that can take us off course and that is something to constantly be aware of for ourselves. However in my experience, most liberals that I've talked with do believe in fairly large degrees of subjectivity, which allows for much of the Gospel message to be thrown out if so desired. Not all, but many.

I understand your objection, but I have to say that my experience with liberal Christians elsewhere is in line with that. They are often pretty up front about denigrating Paul in toto, just because he is, in their perception, a sexist and homophobe.

I have encountered this quite often as well. Not all, but many.

Here you need to understand that I'm not just talking about "liberals," but about people -- some of them professing believers, some not -- who are actively "anti-fundy." When they attack my beliefs, I will attack theirs, and I will enjoy it.

That is where you and I differ, brother. I don't enjoy the process at all. It turns my stomach. Standing up for the truth and showing the obvious holes in the lies is good and important. But attacking someone's beliefs? Not something I can say I enjoy, really.

At the same time, I do think he was something of a sexist and a homophobe, but without dismissing him for it (and I don't especially blame him for it since it was the common attitude of his time and culture). Far from dismissing him, I think he was the most important NT writer, and the most important NT character besides Jesus. But sometimes in his epistles, Paul was speaking for himself, and sometimes he was speaking for God. One reason for studying Paul carefully and prayerfully is to discern which.

Paul most likely was a sexist and a homophobe when he was still a pharisee. Almost guaranteed. But as a new man, acutely aware of his sinful nature and all that he had done against Christ, I really, seriously doubt he was still that way as a believer. But even if there was some remnant of that attitude still struggling within him, there is absolutely NO way God would allow that to become Scripture. What is spoken in Scripture about women and about homosexual behavior is from God. Period.

We have to be careful about using these "well he was a sinner, so he was wrong in this area" as an excuse to slight a passage. When commands are spoken or doctrine is clarified in Scripture, it is not polluted. Yes, we can see examples of godly men and women failing and sinning (look at David for example), so we cannot say that we should also do the same. But that is not the same as doctrine and commands. On one hand we cannot say "Paul was homophobic, so we can ignore what he says about gays", and on the other say "Well, David lusted, committed adultery, murder, etc., so it must be OK for believers to do that too." See how that reasoning is exactly backwards?

The few times that Paul spoke from himself and not the Lord, he told us that directly. If he was doing that intermitantly all thru his epistles, he wouldn't have made the 1 clarification and not bothered to continue clarifying who he was speaking for later.

And beyond that, he's never really speaking for himself at all. He was just clarifying when he was sharing direct revelation as opposed to what Christ (most often referred to as the Lord) said when he walked the earth. He had to clarify the difference. Otherwise someone would say "hey, I was with Christ through all of his earthly ministry, and He never said that!". I used to believe that the "Not the Lord, but I" statements were to be taken less seriously than other Scripture, but upon further study, I realize how incorrect that was. If Scripture is truly inerrant, then every word is there for a divine reason, not to "allow for human errancy on rare occasion".

I don't think he was a homophobe whatsoever - it was known as an abomination, he was a former pharisee... and he was just as hard on that as he was other sexual sins in the church and kicked out those in open sin until they repented.

What's happened is this imo, WE have gotten soft on sin - We've bought into the lies that unless we use cotton candy and don't relay the harsher truth's of scripture, we're da debil.

Paul isn't the homophobe, we're too casual about it becuz we're desensitized in an immoral culture. Paul is setting the standard - and holding the line becuz perfection is God's standard. Granted, we know it cannot be attained by us - but the point is, he HAS to relay the perfect standard for what it is. He should be harsh on it; and so should we.
At the same time, he lovingly witnessed that there is forgiveness for all our sins IF we'll come to repent and turn to Christ.

That's how see it with Paul. If Paul was on CF today, he'd pummelled by nonChristians AND self professing Christians - we aren't near as harsh as the NT writers regarding doctrinal issues (ie. church discipline, rebuke, etc) - if anyone spoke like the NT writers they'de be hunted down here (and most likely suspended).

That's true when talking about homosexual acts and the roles of men and women. I see no fear or judgment at all in any of those passages. Just God's truth. He created us man and women, with specific roles, both sexually and socially. None are lesser. None are worth less. Each simply have differing roles all for His glory. That's where our focus most often fails, and everything goes off track. As soon as it's all about us, how we feel, what we feel our rights are, what we want, INSTEAD of what glorifies Him, there is nothing but opportunity to wander very far off the path. Suddenly the truth is exchanged for a lie, just as it was in the garden when Satan convinced Eve she had "rights" to stand up for.

 

[Nadiine]

Yes, I was bearing in mind the times when he explicitly said so. But I think there may have been some times he didn't. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:12 he says "I do not permit", not "God does not permit" or "the church must not permit". And then he goes on to give some reasoning in support of his position, but it sounds like human reasoning to me. I could be wrong, but I'll have to study it carefully before I'll say so.

I have to agree with Desmalia on this type of point - any epistles from Paul, even if he's speaking on his own view, is still annointed by God as truth becuz Paul was directly taught in the wilderness for 3 yrs by God.
That's alot more than we can say for our opinions when we offer them around here.

Paul would simply be going off his teachings given to him by God directly - and he continually said that he had a clear conscience in his teachings & admonitions concerning his apostleship.

As canonized scripture, we can either count on it as truth, or we start down the slippery slopes of "I can discredit this becuz ________". Pretty soon we have the bible cherry picked & customized to suit ourselves wherever we decide it's justfiable.

So.. even still, it couldn't be dismissed as any excuse (not that you are advocating that either).

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

That is where you and I differ, brother. I don't enjoy the process at all. It turns my stomach. Standing up for the truth and showing the obvious holes in the lies is good and important. But attacking someone's beliefs? Not something I can say I enjoy, really. ...

I guess you lack the obnoxiousness gene. Sorry.

 

[desmalia]

I guess you lack the obnoxiousness gene. Sorry.

Yes, I suppose so.
But I think the sarcastic gene probably makes up for it.

 

[Nadiine]

Yes, I suppose so.
But I think the sarcastic gene probably makes up for it.

ooooh sarcasm!!
lol