Greatest Sect of Christianity

[MOBIUS]

Now we have a problem today with women having their tits uncovered in church.

You know, if I could be reasonably sure of seeing women with uncovered tits in church, I think I'd actually start visiting...

[Elok]

Isn't there an epistle where Paul says "don't scorn others for not following the precise practices you do in form of worship"? "Let not the one who fasts scorn the one who does not fast," or something like that. That would seem relevant.

[Felch]

Kidicious is why I'm going to stick with the Catholic Church.

[Kidlicious]

Isn't there an epistle where Paul says "don't scorn others for not following the precise practices you do in form of worship"? "Let not the one who fasts scorn the one who does not fast," or something like that. That would seem relevant.

Well yes, it says not to judge those who don't have strength to obey the law. I'm not saying that women are bad for displaying physical beauty. I'm saying that it's not wrong to correct them.

Imran, this is you, "BAM BAM BAM, I JUST SCHOOLED YOU!"

I don't have time to fully explain all of your errors, but one is that you don't know what legalism really is. It's not just saying that God's commands should be followed. It has to do with not understanding the Law. That's you, you don't understand the law. I'm giving you reasoning, and youre justignoring it and following up with Bam.

[loinburger]

Kid, what books do you read on the subject of Biblical interpretation other than the Bible?

If the answer is anything approaching "zero" then maybe you shouldn't arrogantly discard over a thousand years of scholarship on the subject?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, this is you, "BAM BAM BAM, I JUST SCHOOLED YOU!"

Well, its because I did, using reference materials explaining the social context of the time the letter was written as well as the literary context of the paragraph it was found in. You were left with "No, its not!"

what legalism really is

You mean trying to adhere to the "letter" rather than by the spirit, resulting in people who are cold hearted, justified by "that's what it says", to their brothers and sisters?

[Jon Miller]

Likely Kid has this from a very Christian pastor of his, who did a few hours (at most) of thinking on the subject.

I think his pastor is good (if it is like the churches I went to), and maybe even such churches are the best type to go to. But you shouldn't devalue 1000 years of thinking because of a couple thoughts, no matter how Christian the thinker is. You can disagree with the 1000 years of thinking, I do actually (I think that Saturday is the Sabbath, and that we should keep it), but you can't disagree with it with 'you are interpreting, I am just reading' when really both are interpreting (all scripture reading is interpreting, even of the 10 commandments ( the only bits translated from God's direct instructions? ), see the difference between my thinking and the 'traditional' thinking).

JM

[Jon Miller]

You mean trying to adhere to the "letter" rather than by the spirit, resulting in people who are cold hearted, justified by "that's what it says", to their brothers and sisters?

I actually disagree with you about legalism.

Yes, Kid is using a 'literal' (really interpreted, like everything else) reading to argue for what could be legalism. But it doesn't make his interpretation legalism. The 'literal' interpretation is that Mary was a virgin, but that is not legalism.

Legalism is saying "for me to be saved, I must follow the law".

It is an easy trap to fall into, because the following is not legalism "I am saved, so I follow the law".

JM

[Kidlicious]

Kid, what books do you read on the subject of Biblical interpretation other than the Bible?

If the answer is anything approaching "zero" then maybe you shouldn't arrogantly discard over a thousand years of scholarship on the subject?

The commentary Imran used doesn't address the real point. You're really just being an idiot again.

[loinburger]

The commentary Imran used doesn't address the real point. You're really just being an idiot again.

So I take it the number of books you've read on this is exactly "one" (assuming that you've actually read the Bible from cover to cover)?

It's unfortunately that you're so arrogant that you reflexively deride/insult anybody who questions your new-found wisdom. You're not omniscient, Kid, and until you realize that you'll never be able to expand your knowledge or grow in your faith.

[Kidlicious]

I've got a few minutes.

I wasn't talking about a church that goes full nude. I was talking about partial nudity (cleavage and side boob). But since you bring it up both are liberals, just to a different degree. It's interesting that you would say that someone isn't a christian because they are more liberal than you.

Where do I chery pick? If you think I do than you should say where. We aren't talking about whoever you call the conservatives. We're talking about chery picking (ultraliberalism). Are you saying I'm liberal or what?

[Elok]

I recently read a blog by an Orthodox priest addressing the question "Is the Bible true?" In it, the priest referred to Jesus as "the Truth," while the Bible served as record of the Truth. My favorite from the comments: "Uh-oh, somebody's not going to like you putting Jesus above the Bible like that!"

[loinburger]

"If Jesus returned to Earth and his teachings contradicted parts of the Bible, what would you do?" "I'd know him for the Anti-Christ!"

[Jon Miller]

I've got a few minutes.

I wasn't talking about a church that goes full nude. I was talking about partial nudity (cleavage and side boob). But since you bring it up both are liberals, just to a different degree. It's interesting that you would say that someone isn't a christian because they are more liberal than you.

Where do I chery pick? If you think I do than you should say where. We aren't talking about whoever you call the conservatives. We're talking about chery picking (ultraliberalism). Are you saying I'm liberal or what?

You cherry pick by picking out one verse and not reading it in the context of the other verses (to use the case in this specific thread).

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I actually disagree with you about legalism.

Yes, Kid is using a 'literal' (really interpreted, like everything else) reading to argue for what could be legalism. But it doesn't make his interpretation legalism. The 'literal' interpretation is that Mary was a virgin, but that is not legalism.

Legalism is saying "for me to be saved, I must follow the law".

It is an easy trap to fall into, because the following is not legalism "I am saved, so I follow the law".

JM

I am more referring to his take on sinfulness. The concept of: if you don't follow this interpretation, you are sinning.

And let's be clear, Judaism wasn't a works based religion. Its concept of salvation was belonging to the chosen people. If you didn't follow the law, bad things would happen to you (though the Book of Job takes another view on that), but that didn't taken away your chosenness.