Posted on 11/13/2006 12:14:33 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet
The first half of your response makes my point for me. They weren't interpreting the bible, they were denying people the bible, everything was done in Latin and only royalty and the clergy knew Latin at the time. Yes they would have burned me at that time because they weren't following the bible. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Obviously, you've never been exposed to the idea of taking things in context because you have ripped one verse out of thousands from the old testament and based your entire belief system about Christianity on it. This verse is in the same section that forbids wearing clothes made from 2 different fibers. If I rip that verse out of context I'd never be able to buy any clothes!! Ripping verses out of contex; it's a foolish thing to do, and naive unless you are doing it on purpose with an honest understanding of the verse in context. In that case you're again fitting things into your emotional stereotype and ignoring the truth.
I don't know This is probably the most correct thing you have written so far, but I suspect you don't believe it. I am betting that this phrase would be more appropriate, "I don't want to know if it means I might be wrong". If you are unable or unwilling to make a determination about a person's actions then you are a simple fool. You must really believe anything anyone says about themselves regardless of how they act. So if a pedophile says he's a champion for children and thier well being I guess you'd believe him and trust your kids alone with him even as he's doing inappropriate things to them? I mean after all he said he's for kids' safety and he associates himself with organizations that serve childrens' interest. Or maybe you'd keep your kids away but continue to refer the the man as a legitimate childrens' advocate?
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Those who would have burned you had access to the Bible. You are applying the modern state of Christianity to an older one, and denying that the older Christians were even Christian because Christianity was in a different state back then.
Obviously, you've never been exposed to the idea of taking things in context because you have ripped one verse out of thousands from the old testament and based your entire belief system about Christianity on it.
No, I'm basing a reason that Christians killed witches on it. If that's too out of context for you, and knowing the Christian propensity for discarding all the old rules except the ones they like, how about the following:
"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27).Now that is in context alongside prohibitions against incest, bestiality and homosexuality.
You are still wrong, I'm afraid and starting to not make sense. The common people didn't have access to the bible for quite a while, partly because many were illiterate and also because the Catholic Church burned and imprisoned those who tried to translate. After the reformation, in enlightened Europe and The New World this practice wasn't as common besides a few high profile accounts, and even some of those had more to do with power struggles and ergot poisoning than religious persecution.
You are still taking the verses out of context. Verses in the Old Testament must always be taken in context of history and the New Testament. You are quoting The Law outside of the context of Grace and you are taking the old testament (you and everyone else, you're not very original in the verses you misquote) out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
To those ignorant of the bible, those who have read just bits and pieces or just a few verses it may seem as though Christians discarded a lot of rules in the Old Testament. I'll concede that. Unfortunately your ignorance does not equate an ability to see truth and common sense. Try actually reading the bible and then studying it, then maybe you won't continue to look like a goofball and misquote it. If you don't want to waste your time please, for your sake stop misquoting old testament verses, you're making a fool out of yourself
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those in power who read and studied the Bible executing heretics, including witches.
(you and everyone else, you're not very original in the verses you misquote)
The quote was exact, unless you want to complain that I used the wrong translation.
I now see you expand the context. Before, you said context within section, within the OT, now you bring it to the entire Bible when I show you the proper context. Are you now saying that incest, homosexuality and bestiality are okay according to the Bible? What part of the NT invalidates that "wizards" verse, but not the incest, homosexuality and bestiality verses preceding it?
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those in power who read and studied the Bible executing heretics, including witches.
Thank you for making my point. They read and studied the bible and then went out and did these horrible things, which you and I have mentioned. They obviously weren't following the bible and more importantly thier works in this world resembled those of the Pharisee's and the Devil more than Jesus. How can these people be Christians (little Christs a.k.a. Christ followers) in more than name only? This is the last time I'll clarify this for you, hopefully you'll pay attention. There is nothing in the world that defines a Christian as a member or associate of a church or denomination. The definition of a Christian is one who follows after Christ. There are millions of people sitting in church pews every day of the year who are not christians and there are many people who do not belong to a church that are christians.
I now see you expand the context. Before, you said context within section, within the OT, now you bring it to the entire Bible when I show you the proper context. Are you now saying that incest, homosexuality and bestiality are okay according to the Bible? What part of the NT invalidates that "wizards" verse, but not the incest, homosexuality and bestiality verses preceding it?
I didn't change my definition of context, you just don't have a clue as to what context means. I knew the context of the verse you ripped out of scripture to back your point. I then explained the context of that verse, but you ignored that.
In any document/speech/book/thesis et. al., you must take a "phrase" quoted in context, which includes the section, chapter, book and history/culture of the time. You should stop quoting things that you have no understanding of. Frankly,You sound like an ignorant fool. You also seem like somebody who doesn't know how to read. You quoted The Law which is dealt with through out scripture. God gave Israel, and through them the world, the Law for a variety of purposes, the least important of which is strict adherence. This is one of the reasons Jesus was crucified by the ruling Jewish clergy at the time. Men much more intelligent than you have fallen into the trap of misquoting the Law bit by bit and out of scriptural context.
What part of the NT invalidates that "wizards" verse, but not the incest, homosexuality and bestiality verses preceding it?
No verse invalidates the law but there are verses in the NT that explain the law and its purpose. Here's a few of them though I doubt you'll understand them, unfortunately.
Romans 7:4-6 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 8:1-3
(New International Version)
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
This means that the law was valid and just but we are unable to live up to it. Jesus paid the penalty of breaking the Law on our behalf so that the law has been fulfilled for me and everyone else who decides to stop trying to earn thier own way into Heaven by being a "good person".
As it is interpreted by modern Christians. Think of it this way, many Americans up though the 50s denied most rights to blacks under the Constitution. We say that they were wrong, but we don't say they weren't American in order to distance ourselves from something they did.
The definition of a Christian is one who follows after Christ
Again, according to your ideals of how he should be followed. And if, as I said before, almost nobody can attain that ideal of following Christ perfectly (we're all sinners, remember?), then that means there are at most a handful of actual Christians in the entire world.
Here's a few of them though I doubt you'll understand them, unfortunately.
So incest, homosexuality and bestiality are OK now. Thanks.
This means that the law was valid and just but we are unable to live up to it.
Those early Christians were quite able to live up to the law of killing witches, and you say they aren't Christians because of it? By this criteria, they are better Christians than you since they were able to actually follow the law that was "valid and just."
From your last response it is obvious you have no idea of what you are talking about. You've made up your mind based on anecdotal catch phrases that have been bantied about for centuries. To be American all one has to do is be born in America or go through the citizenship process (pay money, fill out and file papers). Nobody can be physically born into Christianity, it's impossible so you're comparing apples and oranges here. You might be interested to know that Christians led the abolisionist movement that started us on the path to the Civil rights movement. Also, I'm not sure but wasn't one of the leaders a Reverend or Dr. or both, maybe even a preacher? Nah, he was probably a peaceful Wiccan, they've done so much good for this world over the years!
So incest, homosexuality and bestiality are OK now. Thanks.
Unfortunately you did not understand the verses I quoted, AT ALL. Precisely because you don't understand the book you are trying to use to prove the reasonableness of your prejudice against Christians. I knew you were going to respond pretty much exactly like that. I chose those particular verses in Romans to draw you out so that you could display your ignorance fully and you have. The bible answers your question about homosexuality and bestiality, try reading it with an open mind, you'll find your answer if you really want one.
Those early Christians were quite able to live up to the law of killing witches, and you say they aren't Christians because of it? By this criteria, they are better Christians than you since they were able to actually follow the law that was "valid and just."
As far as following Christ, you don't understand that either. Nobody ever lived up to the Law save one Man. Nobody ever will, but fortunately for me Jesus lived perfectly according to the Law for me and paid the penalty I incurred for breaking the Law SO much. So, are sexual perversion and idolatry still a violation of GOD's Law? You bet. Will I be punished for my idolatry and sexual perversions? Praise GOD no!! Someone was kind enough to pay my penalty for me.
You're smarter than me though, so I'm sure you'll figure out a way to pay for your transgressions on your own without Jesus' help.
I made up my mind as a person who was raised a Christian and has read the Bible and numerous apologetics.
So, are sexual perversion and idolatry still a violation of GOD's Law? You bet. Will I be punished for my idolatry and sexual perversions? Praise GOD no!! Someone was kind enough to pay my penalty for me.
So you're not a perfect Christian, yet you remain a Christian. Why do you hold the Christians of old to a higher standard? Why say they weren't Christian just because they weren't perfect?
In any case, I grow tired of one of the biggest examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy I've ever seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.