On the immoral

[drich0150]

More accurately is was against Paul's view of God's goals.

Was Paul's views against God's goals?
No. He simply took the words of Christ that were being used to justify all manor of activity and through the authority of the Spirit, accurately and rightly divided the word so that everyone knew what was expected from them as a follower of Christ.

For example one "church" or group of believers were selling off all that they had and giving it to the poor. They were expecting the return of Christ at literally at any time.. So when Jesus didn't return in a week or so, they sat around and began to rely on the church to feed their families.. Paul told them that a man who does not provide for His family was worse than an unbeliever.

There was a misunderstanding between the face value understanding of Jesus's work and words and the true meaning of Christianity. Paul's work in the new testament fills these gaps for the most part.

So can Christians eat shellfish or not?

Paul tells us that there is no unclean food. So technically yes. But if a weaker brother were to stumble spiritually because you ate shellfish, then you are not to eat it..

It's not the food, but the limitations of another's faith that would restricts our ability to enjoy the freedoms that Christianity affords.

(Romans 14)

Because everyone is a sinner there should be some MAJOR things that don't go concurrent with the traditional view. Slavery and selling of children into marriage come to mind but there are others.

Christianity is not a religion of popularly held convictions. Slavery was excepted. Granted slavery then did not look as it did in early America. Slavery was intended to be a work mans contract. (since actual coinage or dependable currency was very limited) A contract with benefits for both parties and one that had to be renewed every few years.. Now the Romans did not have or hold the same views either. So a Roman's slave was not protected by the laws a Judaism or Christianity.

Arranged marriages were the norm as well, and the age of the people involved were relative to the average life expectancy. On the surface these things may seem wrong, but when you take into account the times or take the time to understand in this case what slavery actually was, rather than taking your current understanding of it, things appear differently.

 

[DarkProphet]

That is a stereotype, totally.

You are locked in a delusion "Us vs Them" box. It happens to a lot of people. Especially in religion or politics. See one person claiming to represent an entire group, and it continues to prove the theory... of hate.

See, people can rail about how "all Christians are hateful", or "all Muslims", or "all Democrats are evil", or "all Republicans", or whatever their thing is. And what does that do for them? It creates for them a climate of fear and hate. Many do this while claiming it is their enemies who are like them... for instance, Hitler claimed the Jews had a cabal to take over the world. What did he do? Try and take over the world.

How can I say this? Super easy and obvious and a point I constantly bring up here to the very few stragglers who are locked into this sort of delusion, that is among those who have some vast stereotype against ALL Christians -- the majority, the vast majority, of the Free World IS Christian.

Is 75% of the population who call themselves "Christian" hateful like you say? No way.


I would hate to live in such a world where one sees everyone around them full of hate... thinking one is the only intelligent, sensitive, tolerant, loving person. That would be horrendous.


Especially as you consider yourself an outsider to "all these Christians".


Now, you can respond back trying to prove my own evil. Maybe my off the cuff comments about homosexuality have proven it to you? Whatever. Judge me as you will. It truly does not effect me. Why would it? Why would I care if some person out there in the wild abandon of six billion people thinks I am evil incarnate?

LOL...

But, what about you and your deeply dark view of the vast majority of people around you?

Are you really this way?

Personally, I don't hate you at all. I am sure someone burned you somewhere, claiming to be Christian. It is only normal to continue to feed such things.

People don't want to see beyond their "enemies" and love them, because love hurts.

Yet, they are unhappy in their own lives when they live this way.

I didn't say they were "evil" or "hateful" I said less then loving, there is a difference. For example, a family doesn't have to throw their child out on the street when he comes out to them for the child to be hurt. They just have to stop loving him. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it wouldn't happen as often if it wasn't for your beliefs.

 

[DarkProphet]

Was Paul's views against God's goals?
No. He simply took the words of Christ that were being used to justify all manor of activity and through the authority of the Spirit, accurately and rightly divided the word so that everyone knew what was expected from them as a follower of Christ.

I tend to see people quote Paul far more then they quote Jesus. It's a shame because I tend to like Jesus' message more then Paul's.

For example one "church" or group of believers were selling off all that they had and giving it to the poor. They were expecting the return of Christ at literally at any time.. So when Jesus didn't return in a week or so, they sat around and began to rely on the church to feed their families.. Paul told them that a man who does not provide for His family was worse than an unbeliever.

Did Jesus not tell his disciples to leave their families to follow him? Did he not also say that he was there to break families apart?

There was a misunderstanding between the face value understanding of Jesus's work and words and the true meaning of Christianity. Paul's work in the new testament fills these gaps for the most part.

You think God would have a clearer message.

Paul tells us that there is no unclean food. So technically yes. But if a weaker brother were to stumble spiritually because you ate shellfish, then you are not to eat it..

It's not the food, but the limitations of another's faith that would restricts our ability to enjoy the freedoms that Christianity affords.

(Romans 14)

The word as translated is "abomination", this implies that God himself has a problem with shellfish not that it's unclean. What authority does Paul have to reverse one of God's rules?

Christianity is not a religion of popularly held convictions. Slavery was excepted. Granted slavery then did not look as it did in early America. Slavery was intended to be a work mans contract. (since actual coinage or dependable currency was very limited) A contract with benefits for both parties and one that had to be renewed every few years.. Now the Romans did not have or hold the same views either. So a Roman's slave was not protected by the laws a Judaism or Christianity.

A contract where the slaves family was held hostage and where they were beaten.

Arranged marriages were the norm as well, and the age of the people involved were relative to the average life expectancy. On the surface these things may seem wrong, but when you take into account the times or take the time to understand in this case what slavery actually was, rather than taking your current understanding of it, things appear differently.

So you are saying that morality has changed? But doesnt' morality come from God and isn't God is unchanging?

 

[freeport]

I didn't say they were "evil" or "hateful" I said less then loving, there is a difference. For example, a family doesn't have to throw their child out on the street when he comes out to them for the child to be hurt. They just have to stop loving him. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it wouldn't happen as often if it wasn't for your beliefs.

*sigh* Okay, afraid to use direct terms... ugggh. My wife does this with the word "judging" because she was raised by a cult, the JWs.

Okay, we are good for doing this! Seriously. Why do people insist on mincing words and semantics. Evil is doing bad. Eat some rotten meat: evil. Eat filet mignon: good. Eat meat aged, but not rotten: really good.

No, you did not use the word... but the same meaning is there.

You are condemning this behavior.

You should be! Christians should show love to Muslims, homosexuals, atheists and the like. I sure do.


Honesty, purity of heart: big things. It cuts through all the... "nonsense". That way, people who actually care about being better people can be.


A child who is unloved is not spanked. He or she is ignored.


A child who does what is hateful to the parents, but is unloved, is still ignored.

A child who is hated is persecuted.


A child who is loved... but does wrong... is spanked.


Yes, "good", "evil" -- it is OK to use these words.


Again, the vast majority of people in America are Christian. 75%.


Does 75% of America hate homosexuals, muslims, atheists? I think we rather bend over backwards to show them otherwise. Yet, what credit do we get for that.

People like to make all inclusive statements: "I am ALWAYS feeling bad", or "EVERY Christian is this way" or "Nothing EVER works right for me". But are these statements true or false?

Wait. Even better. Good or evil?


It is sad when people are so numb to judgment they can't even say they can judge between good and evil, the weighty and the more weighty.


No offense.


I am a blunt individual.


Sometimes.

 

[drich0150]

Did Jesus not tell his disciples to leave their families to follow him? Did he not also say that he was there to break families apart?

This is exactly why we needed Paul.

What Jesus said was specifically for the twelve in order for them to become Apostles. (Father's of the Church) They were trail blazers and had it a little harder than we do. We all don't have to necessarily follow that path. That said, there will be some our families will have us choose them or Christ, but as Paul says, that does not negate your responsibility to them.. Especially if all in your house hold believe as you do.

I tend to see people quote Paul far more then they quote Jesus. It's a shame because I tend to like Jesus' message more then Paul's.

Your example above is why more Christians quote Paul. (Because there can be little doubt to his interpretation of God's word.)

Jesus's words are often open to the interpretations of a persons heart. If you don't have a Heart for God then there is enough slack in what Jesus said that you can hang yourself with your own version of righteousness. (By design)

When we First seek God We should seek out the word of Christ. Because alot of what is said can be rightly interpreted by someone "young" in the Spirit. As we mature we need the guidelines of the rest of scripture in order to help us recapture the innocents and Humility that we had in the beginning of our journey. Once/if we have discovered our place, and found security in our humility and service, then when we return to the depths of knowledge and wisdom in the simple teachings of Jesus they will be found boundless.

Paul writings are a necessary evolution to the spiritual Journey of all Christians.

You think God would have a clearer message.

You mean maybe like he did with the Jews? Where everything was completely spelled out.. I don't know if your aware, but to God what the people did with His law was a disaster. Over time They began to worship the Law rather than God. By the time Jesus arrived the Jews twisted the law in to a form of self worship in the name of God. The same thing happened to Christianity during the dark ages.. and we still trying to recover.

The way it is now only those who seek God with all of their Mind, Heart, Spirit and strength will find Him.

God isn't something one does to avoid Hell, so there won't be any check lists that must be completed to get to Heaven. Heaven is the Place where those who Love God with all of their being can spend eternity with Him.

The word as translated is "abomination", this implies that God himself has a problem with shellfish not that it's unclean. What authority does Paul have to reverse one of God's rules?

It wasn't Paul the holy Spirit used to Change this OT Law, it was Peter. In Acts 10:9-17

A contract where the slaves family was held hostage and where they were beaten

.
There were rules to owning slaves/servants.. If you wish I can find them for you.

The system of Slavery that God envisions is not the one from Spartacus nor 18th century America, but as an extended family. That's why the Whole of Christianity is call to be slaves.

So you are saying that morality has changed? But doesn't' morality come from God and isn't God is unchanging?

Something like that.

 

[Harry3142]

There seems to be some confusion as to how we Christians are to conduct ourselves. I have quoted this passage before, but it is needed here so that both the Christians and the nonChristians can understand what we accept and what we reject:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit. you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

I call this 'The Christians Code of Conduct'. In whatever society we are a part of, this is how we are to behave. If nonChristians do not approve, which has happened before, their disapproval is to have no bearing on our actions.