This certainly puts a different perspective on those that use the Bible to oppose martial arts, or marriage equality for that matter. They may not be following their faith and the word of God, but they are just using religion as an excuse to deny such rights. Good luck getting Duck Dynasty folks and their followers to admit this may be the case, right? Thanks for the perspective as I hadn't considered it that way before.
The Bible, Faith & Martial Arts
- Thread starter Dirty Dog
- Start date
This certainly puts a different perspective on those that use the Bible to oppose martial arts, or marriage equality for that matter. They may not be following their faith and the word of God, but they are just using religion as an excuse to deny such rights. Good luck getting Duck Dynasty folks and their followers to admit this may be the case, right? Thanks for the perspective as I hadn't considered it that way before.
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #62
There is nothing rude in my post. If you think there is, I would encourage you to hit that big old RTM button in the lower left corner of your screen. Pointing out that your faith is based on faith (as it should be) and not facts (as it cannot be) is not rude.
Inserting your comments inside the quoted text makes it a real pain in the *** to reply. Maybe you could break up the post if you want to reply to individual points?
Some of this is from me, some from oftheherd:
Originally Posted by Dirty Dog
Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.
Or read what has been written about the reasons some were not allowed in the canon. If they did not support the deity of God or Jesus, or did not support the teachings of God, they were left out.
That's what I said. They didn't support the position of the editors. See the Gospels of Mary, which asserts the equality of women, for one sterling example.
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find me saying that. But the claims in the gnostic gospels are every bit as supportable as those included in the Christian bible. That is to say... not at all.
My bad. I find it difficult to type falsehoods; the statement should be "bats are birds", which is what is claimed in the bible.
And I can't help but notice that you only addressed the statement that was mistyped...
As for Jesus being a vampire or zombie... well, those are both well known to rise from the dead, and have every bit as much objective support as the story of Jesus.
So... if the bible has no errors (which is just plain silly, given that bats are not birds...) how do you account for the differences between various versions? How did you decide that your preferred version is the Real Actual And Correct one?
Do you believe (in direct contradiction to the text you claim is infallible) that women are not the equal of men? Do you think women should be allowed to wear jewelry? Braid their hair? When you have appendicitis, do you go to the hospital, or to a church? Do you have any tattoos? Do you believe that communion bread is actually the flesh of Jesus rather than merely a symbol? Or are you (as the vast majority are) practicing cafeteria-Christianity, where you just pick the parts you agree with, and ignore the rest?
None of the various bibles have been trashed. What's been "trashed" is the silly notion that there is objective proof of the stories in those books.
The Christian bible is actually very clear in insisting that women NOT equal to men. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Christian.
Applicable quotes can be found in Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy and plenty of other places.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
why your a MOD it would go nowhere and knowing some on this forum Id get another infraction for disrespect to the staff.
that wasnt what I was referring to. Taking shots calling Jesus a vampire and Zombie is rude and out of line.
Ive just decided to move on from this however so good day
I do find it amusing that if someone talked about TKD the way you post bout Christianity they would be banned for style bashing but its perfectly fine to bash religion
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #64
Take a survey. Ask people to name something that rises from the dead...
I don't have any problem with Christianity. I have a problem with people who claim factual support for anything when no such factual support exists.
I respond the same way to people who insist that 12 coffee enemas a day will make you live to the age of 900, or other such silliness.
Place your faith in Jesus, Mohammad, Budha or the Great Pumpkin. But don't claim your faith to be based on fact unless you have solid proof.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I have no problem having a grown up discussion about religion I wont however have the discussion with someone that compares Jesus to zombies and the Great Pumpkin and Compares Christianity to coffee enemas. So Grow up and we can talk if not I dont really care
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #66
Read it again. I compare claiming to have FACTS when you do not to another case of claiming to have FACTS when you don't.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Its your opinion that there are no facts you choose to believe or not to believe them.
So is he a Zombie or vamp or both?
Man who died for seventy minutes brought back to life after heart attack when doctors shock him 16 times | Mail Online
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Lol ok
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I just saw this. You do realize men and woman are not equal. We are different. Different size shape strength feelings emotions body make up body chemistry ect. We are not and never have been equal. But the bible tells me to absolutely love adore cherish and treat my wife like the queen of queens.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
No and I can't see what you posted from my phone. My old phone would show video clips this new one doesn't which sucks I'll look again when I get home
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #73
To quote Miracle Max, he was only "mostly dead". There's a fairly significant lapse between the stopping of the heart and death of the brain. And good CPR can extend this, potentially indefinitely. I've had people with no cardiac activity wake up during the resuscitation thanks to really good CPR.
Are you saying someone did really really effective CPR on Jesus for 3 days and then defibrillated him?
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #74
But that isn't what it says. It says she's supposed to be subservient to you, which I find highly offensive.
Personally, I have known many outstanding women teachers, as well as bosses. And I'm not about to tell my wife to keep quiet.
And I am certainly not the "head" of our marriage. It's a partnership.
My wife can wear whatever jewelry she likes, and do whatever she likes with her hair.
If you claim that the Christian bible is perfect and 100% literal truth, then you must also think your wife should be submissive to you. Because it says so, right there. Yes, it says you need to treat your wife well. But it sure doesn't say men are expected to be submissive.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I'm not saying anything. You made the claim people cannot come back from the dead. Well not just him but many have.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Funny where you decide to start and stop your bible verses.
The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of GodĀs grace, youĀre equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers donĀt run aground.
1 Peter 3:7
The Message (MSG)
The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of GodĀs grace, youĀre equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers donĀt run aground.
1 Peter 3:7
The Message (MSG)
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #77
Gosh, for something that is the 100% literal true word of god, there sure are some big variations...
1 Peter 3:7 (
New International Version)
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
King James Version
[SUP] [/SUP]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
How can there possibly be multiple versions of the Truth?
And of course, I think most people will understand the difference between "honor her" and "be submissive to him".
The bible can be the 100% literal truth, or it can be a text written in the context of the culture of the day, and subject to interpretation and revision. It can't be both at the same time.
And how about that whole "Bats are birds" thing, too?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Bats to birds? What about it? God created the animals man came up with scientific classifications.
See you need to actually know what your reading in the Bible to understand what's going on.
We forget sometimes that the epistles are just that: letters.
In our rush to find proof texts to support our various positions, we tend to skip past the initial greetings that designate the recipients of the message— “to the church of God in Corinth,” “to the churches in Galatia,” “to God’s holy people in Ephesus,” “to Timothy,” “to Titus”—or those odd little details that remind us that we are essentially listening in on someone else’s conversation--“I have made a fool of myself,” “I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else,” “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus in Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” (You don’t see that last one on many desk calendars.)
I’ve never once heard a sermon preached on the passage in which Paul tells Titus “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12–13), and yet, if these words are truly the inerrant and unchanging words of God intended as universal commands for all people in all places at all times, then the Christian community needs to do a better job of mobilizing against the Cretan people, perhaps constructing some “God Hates Cretans” signs!Hyperbole aside, it’s important to keep in mind that while the epistles are certainly written for us, they were not written to us.With the letters of Peter, Paul, James, John, and the other apostles, we are given the priceless gift of seeing how early followers of Jesus applied his teachings to their unique circumstances. While these letters are packed with important theological observations—“If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come,” “Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel,” “Have this attitude in you which was also in Christ Jesus”—they also include lengthy discussion concerning how first-century house churches should operate, how unprecedented influxes of poor widows should be handled, how women should cover their heads when they pray and prophecy, how slaves should behave toward their masters, whether Christian converts should be circumcised, whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols, how to endure persecution, how not to offend the surrounding culture, and how to follow Christ with conviction while avoiding unwanted attention from the suspicious Roman officials.
In other words, these letters have contexts. They are addressing very practical problems.
The epistles were never meant to be interpreted and applied as universal law. Rather, they provide us with an instructive and inspired glimpse into how Jesus’ teachings were lived out by realpeople, in real communities, facing real challenges. It is not the details found in the letters that we should seek to imitate, but rather the attitudes.
Later she goes on to say
I suspect that Paul didn’t want the church, so full of unmarried women, to be seen as just another Greco-Roman cult. He also didn’t want pagans unfamiliar with the teachings of Christ and the Jewish culture interrupting services with questions or bossing around other converts. Is it any wonder, then, that he expected some women in Corinth to prophesy, but challenged others to “remain silent,” or that he advised the women at Ephesus not to seize authority over men but to “learn in quietness and full submission”? (Remember, the guys would have been seriously outnumbered!)
“We are thus led to the conclusion that when Paul asks women to be silent . . . he is not talking about ordinary Christian women; rather, he has a specific group of women in mind,” writes Scot McKnight in The Blue Parakeet. “His concern is with some untrained, morally loose, young widows, who, because they are theologically unformed, are teaching unorthodox ideas.” It is reasonable, then, to assume that once these widows were trained, they could resume speaking.
The above blog was written by Rachel Evans who is in fact a woman
For the sake of the gospel, let women speak
Sorry it's kinda choppy working on a cell phone and not having much luck. Not liking this Galaxy S5
See you need to actually know what your reading in the Bible to understand what's going on.
We forget sometimes that the epistles are just that: letters.
In our rush to find proof texts to support our various positions, we tend to skip past the initial greetings that designate the recipients of the message— “to the church of God in Corinth,” “to the churches in Galatia,” “to God’s holy people in Ephesus,” “to Timothy,” “to Titus”—or those odd little details that remind us that we are essentially listening in on someone else’s conversation--“I have made a fool of myself,” “I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else,” “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus in Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” (You don’t see that last one on many desk calendars.)
I’ve never once heard a sermon preached on the passage in which Paul tells Titus “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12–13), and yet, if these words are truly the inerrant and unchanging words of God intended as universal commands for all people in all places at all times, then the Christian community needs to do a better job of mobilizing against the Cretan people, perhaps constructing some “God Hates Cretans” signs!Hyperbole aside, it’s important to keep in mind that while the epistles are certainly written for us, they were not written to us.With the letters of Peter, Paul, James, John, and the other apostles, we are given the priceless gift of seeing how early followers of Jesus applied his teachings to their unique circumstances. While these letters are packed with important theological observations—“If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come,” “Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel,” “Have this attitude in you which was also in Christ Jesus”—they also include lengthy discussion concerning how first-century house churches should operate, how unprecedented influxes of poor widows should be handled, how women should cover their heads when they pray and prophecy, how slaves should behave toward their masters, whether Christian converts should be circumcised, whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols, how to endure persecution, how not to offend the surrounding culture, and how to follow Christ with conviction while avoiding unwanted attention from the suspicious Roman officials.
In other words, these letters have contexts. They are addressing very practical problems.
The epistles were never meant to be interpreted and applied as universal law. Rather, they provide us with an instructive and inspired glimpse into how Jesus’ teachings were lived out by realpeople, in real communities, facing real challenges. It is not the details found in the letters that we should seek to imitate, but rather the attitudes.
Later she goes on to say
I suspect that Paul didn’t want the church, so full of unmarried women, to be seen as just another Greco-Roman cult. He also didn’t want pagans unfamiliar with the teachings of Christ and the Jewish culture interrupting services with questions or bossing around other converts. Is it any wonder, then, that he expected some women in Corinth to prophesy, but challenged others to “remain silent,” or that he advised the women at Ephesus not to seize authority over men but to “learn in quietness and full submission”? (Remember, the guys would have been seriously outnumbered!)
“We are thus led to the conclusion that when Paul asks women to be silent . . . he is not talking about ordinary Christian women; rather, he has a specific group of women in mind,” writes Scot McKnight in The Blue Parakeet. “His concern is with some untrained, morally loose, young widows, who, because they are theologically unformed, are teaching unorthodox ideas.” It is reasonable, then, to assume that once these widows were trained, they could resume speaking.
The above blog was written by Rachel Evans who is in fact a woman
For the sake of the gospel, let women speak
Sorry it's kinda choppy working on a cell phone and not having much luck. Not liking this Galaxy S5
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Which is why we study the meanings and research the translations not just mix and match ah ha gotta ya verses. If you actually study it you will see what is going on and what the context is.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Also for the record I've never once said the Bible was 100% accurate. I believe I said it was written by men recalling what they saw heard were told and witnessed. It's inspired by God who guided the authors but as I said a few pages ago the finer details could be lost to time and translation but the main points are correct. Just like if I were to write about my day I may leave out or get minor details wrong but the general story will be correct. Which is also why we study the bible and other texts and documents from the time. To learn the context and meaning. You keep making the claim that I said the Bible is 100% and I never said that. Nothing could ever give you 100% Accra te details other then I guess a video camera recording Jesus himself which we don't have. I do however know the general gist of the Bible to be correct.
Similar threads
