Now you see, this is homophobic, and it makes Christianity look bad, and I feel ashamed by association.

[Dinner]

Just to show you what clueless dirt bags many Evangelicals are here is an example of where Atheists attempted to volunteer to work at a soup kitchen to help feed the poor but the religious dip**** running the place refused claiming that atheists are secret agents of Satan. Really? They're turning away willing volunteers because they don't like their religious affiliation (or lack there of)?

[-Jrabbit]

South Carolina. Not exactly a surprise.

[Berzerker]

luke was paul's buddy, not a disciple of Jesus

but did he say paul spoke for Jesus?

[Imran Siddiqui]

luke was paul's buddy, not a disciple of Jesus

but did he say paul spoke for Jesus?

So if you don't affirm a synoptic Gospel writer as truthful, then what do you assert as truthful about Jesus?

Heck, Matthew, Mark, and John were all likely influenced by Paul as well.

[molly bloom]

A job is better than no job at all. Liberals can help or they can hinder.

No it isn't. If your working conditions are so unsafe as to imperil your life, this does not make your job better than no job at all. People are killed at work in factory fires and on construction sites regularly because employers choose to look at profits rather than workers' safety.


You're tragically stupid.

Liberals can help or they can hinder.

So can employers. Except of course laws have had to be enacted to prevent employers from hindering the creation of a safe workplace.

[Berzerker]

So if you don't affirm a synoptic Gospel writer as truthful, then what do you assert as truthful about Jesus?

Heck, Matthew, Mark, and John were all likely influenced by Paul as well.

Paul's conversion wasn't witnessed by Luke or anyone else so all we have is his word. WRT the NT, I'm more inclined to accept those (shared) aspects of the gospels that follow an identifiable pattern of behavior. For example, if Jesus said love your neighbors and do unto others, etc, and followed that up with death to infidels I'd be suspicious. If I smell Paul's biases popping up I'd rather hold my nose than let him contaminate Jesus' teachings. And thats not even getting into the problem of context, some teachings may have applied to the priesthood and not everyone.

[Uncle Sparky]

Why aren't you referring to Luke, Paul, Jesus, Matthew, Mark and John by their true hobbit names? ...and what about Yoko? Did she really break up the group?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Paul's conversion wasn't witnessed by Luke or anyone else so all we have is his word. WRT the NT, I'm more inclined to accept those (shared) aspects of the gospels that follow an identifiable pattern of behavior. For example, if Jesus said love your neighbors and do unto others, etc, and followed that up with death to infidels I'd be suspicious. If I smell Paul's biases popping up I'd rather hold my nose than let him contaminate Jesus' teachings. And thats not even getting into the problem of context, some teachings may have applied to the priesthood and not everyone.

Paul, as in the first author we have about the teachings of Jesus? Without Paul, there is likely no way we know about Jesus - at the very least any Christianity would have been more a Jewish sect. Luke does indicate that Paul fought James and Peter on this, esp on circumcision.

As for Paul's conversion, why else would someone dramatically and drastically change course? That doesn't happen to people without something major happening.

[MRT144]

Paul was a ****stick. Thus endeth the lesson.

[Berzerker]

Paul, as in the first author we have about the teachings of Jesus? Without Paul, there is likely no way we know about Jesus - at the very least any Christianity would have been more a Jewish sect. Luke does indicate that Paul fought James and Peter on this, esp on circumcision.

As for Paul's conversion, why else would someone dramatically and drastically change course? That doesn't happen to people without something major happening.

Yes, we depend on Paul for much of what we call Christianity. I dont think his bias infected everything attributed to Jesus but he did have his own agenda as you point out with circumcision and he was chased out of the early Church. So who should we believe, Paul or James and Peter? I'd believe Paul on that score given Jesus' emphasis on the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter, but Paul appears a bit antagonistic towards women so I cant trust him just because he's Paul. As for his conversion - he felt guilty. He was... That doesn't mean Jesus made him his spokesman.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, we depend on Paul for much of what we call Christianity. I dont think his bias infected everything attributed to Jesus but he did have his own agenda as you point out with circumcision and he was chased out of the early Church. So who should we believe, Paul or James and Peter? I'd believe Paul on that score given Jesus' emphasis on the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter, but Paul appears a bit antagonistic towards women so I cant trust him just because he's Paul. As for his conversion - he felt guilty. He was... That doesn't mean Jesus made him his spokesman.

I think Paul speaks more for Jesus than any other disciple - Jesus didn't want his message to be just a sect of Judaism and didn't want to put more legal rules on people who convert. And Paul appears antagonistic towards women?!! By entrusting the Epistle to the Romans to a woman? By espousing things that would have been very forward and progressive in 50 A.D.?

As for "feeling guilty"? How many people do you know who engage in Holy war who feel so guilty that they repent and become who they persecuted without some major religious experience? What, you think a ton of Al Queda are about to become Christians? Your arguments make absolutely no sense.

[Berzerker]

what did Paul say about women preaching in church?

didn't he tell them to keep quiet?

and wrt sex, they were to abstain?

what was Paul's religion before Christianity? He wasn't a religious fanatic, he became one

[Imran Siddiqui]

Context is key.

Romans 16:1

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a][b] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

It is Phoebe who is carrying the letter from Paul. So when the Romans have questions, who are they going to be asking? If you answered Phoebe, you win! So would she be teaching in the church? Yep.

1 Timothy is a letter written to a specific individual, likely dealing with a specific issue:

http://www.eddiehyatt.com/article21.html

(btw, Hyatt is a Pentecostal and therefore on the right wing of Christianity)

And where in the world are you think Paul is telling Christians to abstain?! Are you thinking of when Paul echos Jesus's words, where He says lets those be eunuchs for God who can be eunuchs and those who can't to marry (in Matthew, IIRC)? Because in the same passage he talks about husbands giving themselves to their wives and wives giving themselves to their husbands. Paul is saying any circumstance you find yourself is fine - you can stay in that circumstance and aren't required to enter into a new one to please God.

And Paul was a zealot Jew before he was a Christian. All that we know of him indicates he was a religious fanatic.

https://bible.org/seriespage/sex-and-spiritual-christian-1-cor-71-7

[ZEE]

IMRAN SUKDIQUI.

[Ben Kenobi]

maybe only 10% of people aren't total *******s.

Stunning juxtaposition with the ass-atar.