Then that whole Corinthians passage you quoted is merely a guideline and not a commandment. If you accept that premise, then how much else of Paul is merely a set of guidelines?Perfectly fine, and perhaps preferable. Why?
Then that whole Corinthians passage you quoted is merely a guideline and not a commandment. If you accept that premise, then how much else of Paul is merely a set of guidelines?Perfectly fine, and perhaps preferable. Why?
Read verses 1-9 of the same chapter. You asked me to talk about a specific point, and I did. But now you're bringing up a separate point, which is addressed in a slightly different place. What Paul has to say is pretty consistent with what the Gospels have Christ saying.Then that whole Corinthians passage you quoted is merely a guideline and not a commandment. If you accept that premise, then how much else of Paul is merely a set of guidelines?
If you're not going to actually listen to what I'm saying, then I'm not going to bother saying it.What did Christ have to say about homosexuality? And where did Christ address his shortcomings for not taking a wife?
Yeah, your case has been dismissed due to lack of evidence.Case closed.
A nice mixture of boring and well-known truths, inaccuracies, uncharitable interpretations, a laughable ignorance of the distinction between statements of fact and statements of justification, and simple extratextual interpolations. But, other than that, cool graphic.Traditional marriage according to the Bible:
Spoiler :
What did Paul think of Jesus failing to have a wife?
Because Old Testament laws are null
It's pretty much poor history or theology, or both. If I weren't in the middle of writing a long paper, I'd go into detail now -- but I am, so all I had time for was a simple assessment. If I have time tomorrow I'll get around to it, and if not then, over the weekend. (It's a crazy week.) If I forget, don't hesitate to PM me. I have no problem responding to this thing, again, but I'll probably spend a good hour finding the specific verses and explaining why that graph sucks, and with this paper needing to be done in six hours, and no sleep happening tonight, that's not going to happen right now.Nothing specific to rebut? How telling.
Because Old Testament laws are null, the former exists in both Testaments whereas the latter is only in the Old Testament
People get away with so much by casually referring to Old and New Covenants. It's almost as if the New Covenant conveniently only disbars the stuff you disagree with and sanitises everything you like.
That was part of the old covenant, but homosexuality is still forbidden in the New testament.
How is race generally related to childbirth in any way?
Respectfully, your roommate is an idiot, Jesus and John the Beloved Disciple were clearly in a relationship.I'm pretty sure that graph is accurate.
A former roommate of mine once went on a long explanation about how they were a gay couple, it seemed fairly convincing.
I've often remarked that half the bible is made up, thanks for confirming that.
The New Testament is fully validThat.
Old Testament laws are obviously not "null". From what I gathered, some Old Testament laws no longer apply, particularly in the specific form of the Ten Commandments, but some were affirmed. What's concerning is that Christians pick from all over the New Testament in order to justify what is still disapproved of and what is no longer disapproved of, and considering the writers of the New Testament were hardly of one mind, one could go pretty far to question their beliefs as they stand.
Ehn, so is the proscription against eating snared rabbit, working on the Sabbath, remarrying after divorce, and ignoring the poor while partaking in excess. Might want to put down the porkribs and click off the TV remote before picking at the speck in my eye.
Regardless, God was able to bless the consumption of abominations through direct revelation to Peter. Private revelation of holiness is Scripturally sound (see Galatians 5 for more detail). The average Christian cannot tell if a homosexual union is blessed by God or not, because there's no reason to think that God gives private revelations to everyone, even when they occur.
Pork was just as 'condemned' in the OT as homosexual unions. In the New Testament, consuming pork violates my understanding of the Golden Rule, but a good gay marriage certainly does not. Galatians 5 tells us that if it's really love, then it's allowed. And, I think, Jesus's summary of the law was to suggest that we stop being asses about the law, and figure out the intent.
We're totally miscommunicating somehow! Clearly, because the answer obviously (to me, anyway) is that the race of the child is influenced by the race of the parents. Of course social restriction of marriage (according to racial lines) can have a meaningful impact upon racist urges. A Christian interpretation banning interracial marriage is going to have material effects upon the 'natural' outcomes of marriage, namely the race of children.
Matthew 15:11 said:Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Galatians 5:16-26 said:I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
The New Testament is fully valid.
We're totally miscommunicating somehow! Clearly, because the answer obviously (to me, anyway) is that the race of the child is influenced by the race of the parents. Of course social restriction of marriage (according to racial lines) can have a meaningful impact upon racist urges. A Christian interpretation banning interracial marriage is going to have material effects upon the 'natural' outcomes of marriage, namely the race of children.