Patriotism

[dropoutdave 0]

The whole debate about gay marriage is bullshit. Who's business is it what people do, take into their bodies, who they want to be with and how they want to show each other how much they care for each other...as long as they do not harm another human being on this planet then it is all imaterial!!!!

People need to take a big step back, look at the big picture and realise that they are far too involved in such trivial issues that, at the end of the day, mean nothing.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Would you be so kind as to (or anyone) explain, to me, what Paul meant in the following two verses as found in the Book of Romans? Is it not referencing same-sex sex? I get the impression that such is contrary to the laws of nature.


1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Same goes for you...

Would you please explain what

"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head"
1 Corrinthians 11:3-6

"...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

... and big number of parts in the bible mean?

People read the bible (and other religious texts) in different ways. You know, that's ok - as long as it does NOT interfier with the rights of others.

[billvon 3,090]

>Wrong, BillVon...I checked with both manifest and the JM...He didn't
> tell the whole story, so it was a rightous call on my part. Check your
> facts before stating something you don't know about.

Not arguing about anything having to do with manifest or a JM. You complained about people finding something controversial and stirring the shit, and then you found something controversial and stirred the shit. Something to keep in mind the next time you either want to a) stir the shit or b) complain about people doing the same thing.

[Luv2Fall 0]

I most certainly will.............after I have my question answered.

[billvon 3,090]

>what Paul meant in the following two verses as found in the Book of Romans?

I suspect the same thing that was meant in Leviticus 20:13:
-----------------
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
-----------------

Of course, given that many of the posts on this thread took place on Sunday we have a much bigger problem than having to kill all the gays:

Exodus 31:14 - Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Three times they said it, it was so important to the Lord! I figure that sentences just about all working skydivers to death.

[Luv2Fall 0]

Bill - you mean people were posting yesterday instead of jumping.........sinful.

Naw........not the same - relative to putting one to death. I explained the "Dispensation" deal a couple of times I think. We are no longer under the Dispensation of Law.......abolished due to Christ's work during His short period here.....we're under the Dispensation of Grace as the vast majority of Theologians agree.

I'm glad we are not under such "laws" today. Out with the "Old", Bill.

[billvon 3,090]

>Bill - you mean people were posting yesterday instead of jumping.........sinful.

Yep. And they're predicting another 10 days of rain, too.

>Naw........not the same - relative to putting one to death.

I didn't think we'd actually be putting either one to death. But if being gay was proscribed in one place in the bible, and working on the sabbath was proscribed in THREE places, surely it's a much bigger problem to work on sunday than to be gay. In biblical terms, it would make a lot more sense to prohibit workaholics from marrying than gays. (Make some sense from a family-raising perspective too.)

[Luv2Fall 0]

I see your logic although the Sabbath, "I believe" referred to a day of worship for Isreal - a Saturday to boot........in the OT.

I do see your logic...........different perspectives can make for some interesting discussions.

Well, Bill, let's try a "Reverse Indian Rain Dance" so the jumping can once again commence....whether it is a day or worship or not.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>it would make a lot more sense to prohibit workaholics from marrying than gays. (Make some sense from a family-raising perspective too.)

Workaholics can form whatever type of partnership they want, they just shouldn't call it "marriage" no wait

that term is taken.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,559]

Quote

Would you be so kind as to (or anyone) explain, to me, what Paul meant in the following two verses as found in the Book of Romans? Is it not referencing same-sex sex? I get the impression that such is contrary to the laws of nature.


1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Since Jaaska is in Europe, and the thread might have disintegrated by then, I thought I'd offer an explanation -- I'm dying to hear your answer to his question, and you said an answer to yours was a condition
My take is that Paul meant exactly what you think he said; he found homosexuality to be personally abhorrent, and since he was a close follower of Jesus's, that must mean that he could speak for Christianity.

That works for me; it allows me to view the specifics of what he said as being culturally and personally biased; not to ignore them, but take them in that context. I think the Bible is a marvelous record of the history of the Israelite tribes, their early laws, and a lot of thoughts (carefully vetted) about the rather dramatic religious events surrounding the birth of Christianity. I don't think that God wrote every word with his own hand; too many of them are contradictory between themselves, and seeing it as a work of men allows the substance within to be studied without focusing on the typeface or the translation of specific words.

The description of it as the divinely-inspired word of humans works for me.

I have a feeling the same thing doesn't work for you, which is why I'm interested in how someone can maintain a consistent interpretation. I don't mean that in an accusatory way; I'm interested in how people see things.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Luv2Fall 0]

Yes ma'am....extremely fair and you raise some excellent points. Gotta step out to the grocery store.........to fix dinner tonite.....when all is said and done, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

[Faber 0]

im NOT patriotic at all.Only things in my life that i would die for would be my kids.I would never fight for my country or any other cause at all(atleast not a fight were io could get hurt)...

Simply becourse my life is MINE,and to my eyes its too short to fight about a flag,land and so on.. i would simply move on...

I do feel alot for my country,but not enough to die for it...

I DO respect thouse who desides to fight for me,my country and so on,but call me anything,but i dont want to die for somthing like that...

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Luv2Fall 0]

Background

The church at Corinth was founded by Paul on his second missionary journey. Corinth was a principal city of Greece. Apparently, it had become infected with the "evils" which surrounded it in a licentious city. The Greeks were pround of their learning and philosophy, but at the same time were addicted to gross immorality. They were especially found of oratory. Apollos, an eloquent Christian Jew, had come to Corinth and captured the imaginations of the Greek Christians, see Acts, Ch. 18 vrs 24-28. This fact led to the drawing of comparisons between him, with his silver tongue, and other religious leaders. Especially to the discredit of Paul, whose bodily presence seems not to have been impressive. See 2 Cor. 10.10. This probably is the clue to the schimsms in the church, ch.1.11-13. It was the desire of Paul to purify the church from partyism and immorality, which was the primary cause of the writing of the epistle. The first few chapters of Corinthians will explain, in detail, the sins that crept into the Church of Corinth. Paul blames, and endeavours to rectify, some manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, #1. The misconduct of their women in the public assembly, who laid by their veils. "This behavior he reprehends, asserts the superiority of the husband yet so as to also REMIND the husband that both were made for mutual help and comfort, ver. 1-16.

I Cor. 11-2 Ordinances ='s Oral Teachings

Verse 11.3 = "The head of the woman is the man". Paul's teaching here was/is based on Gen. 3:16, and makes it the basis for the wearing of a covering.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The women of the Church of Corinth prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v.5. It is generally accepted in the Theological Community that it was indeed an apostolical cannon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (ch. XIV. 34; 1 Tim. II. 12 Paul DOES NOT in this place prohibit this thing,, but reprehend the manner of doing it. "The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done". Some believe these reasons was based on contemporary social costume..most do not. The thing Paul reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesing uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4-5. The reason on which he grounds his reprehension..........the man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, mainly, Christ, the head of every man (v.3) Verse 15: "her hair is given her for a covering. This is not the same word as that used on verses 5-6. The point here is that as the hair represents the proper covering in the natural realm, so the veil is the proper covering in the religious. Verse 16 shows that there were no customs of women worshiping without a covering.

It is also "generally accepted/believed" by many Theologians that it is the man who is set at the head of of creation and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v.7). She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man. "A woman should do nothing that looks like an affectation of equality, She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power that is, a veil, the token that she is under the power of her husband, as Jews and Christians had the opinion that these ministering spirits (angels) were present in their assemblies.
A caution lest the inference be carried too far (v. 11-12). They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. It is God's will that the man abuse not his "power" in this case. The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair is a token of softness and effeminacy. At the end of chapter 11, Paul sums up all by referring to the usages and customs of the churches. v. 15. The common practice of the churches is what he would have them govern themselves by.

I don't know if the above makes any sense..........Paul was a bit "miffed" at the Church of Corinth when he wrote this epistle.

The fact is that Paul seems to contradict himself on this subject. The so-called "limiting passages" are incredibly difficult to interpret. Given their obscurity, no one can be dogmatic as to what Paul really meant when he wrote them. This being so, interpretations that have been given to these texts has shortcomings. I, personally cannot give a "definitive" answer......I can, however, share some of what I knew concerning a thing or two that Paul was concerned with at the Church of Corinth and a little background concerning the church........hopefully giving a better understanding relative to the context in which these verses were written.

Now to put this entire subject into maybe a more complete context upon which one can formed either an opinion or to draw their own conclusions concerning either a woman's role in the church/ministry or conduct within a church, the overall teaching of the NT reveals a different picture than one from drawn from fragmented doctrines. The NT is a story that contains a consistent message........the message of the New Covenant. This covenant is not an updating of the Old Covenant...........it does not include a new set of rules to replace the old set of rules. We can only conclude that, authors of "Books" of the NT to include the epistles were influenced, to a degree, by old traditions, one's personality traits and those same influences were apparently found in the early church.

As to build to a "more complete context", as referenced above - one only has to read the Gospels of Jesus' recognition of and/or non-discriminatory treatment of women in matters of marriage and divorce (Mark 10: 11,12) and strangely enough so did Paul (1 Co. 7:10). The Gospel's represent the women followers of Jesus as being the first to see/proclaim/preach the risen Christ - Mat 28: 1-10, Luke 24: 1-10, John 20: 1,2 & 11-18. There are numerous more examples of the ever expanding role of women within the church and the proclaimation Christ's message to the world. The above may or may not make sense to you................but it is pretty much how I understand the subject.


A quickie concerning this verse as requested by the other poster:

"...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

In the Book of Matthew Christ states "That whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Apparently Christ was teaching that the only reason "permissible" regarding divorce was that of fornication.........to the best of my recollection, according to the original language, that the "unfaithfulness" was a continous thing....not a one time thing. There is much to be said here also...........hell - I remarried, but as circumstances would have it, my first wife was continually doing the nasty while I was in the field while in the Army. There is a lot to be said here, but I think the purpose with which questions were asked has been accomplished..........well....at least on my end.

[jaaska 0]

... Is it just me (and the fact that English is my L2)...

Ok... So, according to you,

a) women should/should not speak in the house of Lord. (Also, some people believe that in more general terms this means women should not be educated)

Yes/No?

b) women should wear a veil.

Yes/No?

c) having a divorce is possible.

Yes/No?

Oh... And if you answer either Yes or No and you add some BUTs, why cannot people add BUTs to different parts of the bible as well?

[Luv2Fall 0]

Quote

... Is it just me (and the fact that English is my L2)...

Ok... So, according to you,

a) women should/should not speak in the house of Lord. (Also, some people believe that in more general terms this means women should not be educated)

Yes/No?

b) women should wear a veil.

Yes/No?

c) having a divorce is possible.

Yes/No?

Oh... And if you answer either Yes or No and you add some BUTs, why cannot people add BUTs to different parts of the bible as well?

Let's be a bit more accurate by saying "according to Paul" as I didn't write the Epistle..........not trying to be difficult, I just didn't pen this stuff. Language "may be" a barrier.

Your first question - my response to your initial question reveal that women CAN speak in Church. As for education, maybe an indirect implication of some sort of perceived subservant position of a woman, has no bearing here. A woman has the right to become as educated as highly she likes.

As to your second question............here's a little historical context in which Paul gave this "directive" - The custom of wearing the veil was maintained in the primitive Churches of God. (1Cor.11:16). We see this in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The women of Corinth beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome’s commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess.2-14, 2Thess.1-4), which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess.2:15. 3:6). We need to really read the "entire" Bible to sometimes put other peices of scripture into context. Separating the historical context and the specific intent Paul wrote this epistle to the Chuch of Corinth - NO - women DO NOT have to wear the veil that was referenced here.

As to your third question - divorces are obtained everyday - no problem - legally that is.

I'm not giving "but's", but (there's one lol) there are those who will run with a scripture or two to suit a specific purpose or personal agenda....................taking the same scripture totally out of context in which it was written. Studying church history, customs during the periods in which the "original" text was written and a bit of secular history will reveal a "different Bible" than those who blindly read it. Studying line upon line, precept upon precept gives us a much better understanding of the Bible and can, for the most part, eleminate questions that serve as barriers or stumbling blocks to one's learning or to one's faith. There are those who will grab such verses (as presented to me here) as a way of "degrading" Biblical beliefs/doctrine and those who hold faith in the same...............all because of not being just a little familiar with the "background or premise" in which different parts of scripture were written.

Anyway, my apologies if my answers aren't seemly direct enough.........................as a personal passion of mine is (or was as I haven't the time anymore) Theology and related subjects............I have a hard time thinking in simple terms relating to these subjects as there is a lot more involved than what initially meets the eye. I had many questions concerning "inconsistencies" or some crazy notion derived from reading a verse or two so I have made it a point (with some formal training as well) to study and research to Bible. Unfortunately, time is a rather limited resource into truly "digging as deep as I would like".

[PhillyKev 0]

The simple fact that a thread on patriotism has morphed into one of Christian ideology says a lot about what is wrong with government these days.

[Luv2Fall 0]

Well - I left it alone after having been guilty of "theme deverision". Out of the blue, I'm asked these questions so I felt it was only fair to answer them as a personal stipulation was met.

.................very well it's only a part of the problem.......lot of other (forgive my non-christian language) shit has entered the equation as to what's wrong with our government. Things aren't quite that simple............

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The simple fact that a thread on patriotism has morphed into one of Christian ideology says a lot about what is wrong with government these days.

Why, yes, now that you ask, I do use a Cypres on my regular rig. But I don't think people should be required to use one if they don't want to.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Luv2Fall 0]

...........and I occasionally enjoy a simple PBJ sandwich.......often to the horror of those possessing a more sophisocated taste.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

...........and I occasionally enjoy a simple PBJ sandwich.......often to the horror of those possessing a more sophisocated taste.

More importantly...do you cut off the crusts?

[Luv2Fall 0]

If I haven't anything to drink at that moment.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

...........and I occasionally enjoy a simple PBJ sandwich.......often to the horror of those possessing a more sophisocated taste.

More importantly...do you cut off the crusts?

Personally, I think a thread on patriotism that morphs into a politics discussion that morphs into a religious discussion that morphs into a sammich discussion says alot about the United Nations. And about chocolate manufacturers in these modern times.

In real life, I'm thinking about Margueritas right about now......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Luv2Fall 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...........and I occasionally enjoy a simple PBJ sandwich.......often to the horror of those possessing a more sophisocated taste.

More importantly...do you cut off the crusts?

Personally, I think a thread on patriotism that morphs into a politics discussion that morphs into a religious discussion that morphs into a sammich discussion says alot about the United Nations. And about chocolate manufacturers in these modern times.

In real life, I'm thinking about Margueritas right about now......

.........my thoughts exactly......except for beverage of choice. The differences between those who consume Margueritas and those who consume Jack and Cokes are astounding........it's neither conducive to world peace nor space travel.

[rehmwa 2]

Good drink also. I'll meet halfway with Captain and Coke.

Do you really think space travel is a good way to cure HIV? Frankly, communism is highly overrated as a contraceptive.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Michele 1]

(Some very careful crafting of words here, and I'll bet I can turn this back to patriotism....)

Quote

Margueritas and those who consume Jack and Cokes are astounding..

Why, yes, yes there is.

I mean, Margueritas use tequila, which is imported, thus supporting outsourcing and the destruction of the American economy. However, should one consume Jack and Coke, both manufatured here in the good ol' USA, one is supporting local economies and keeping jobs at home.

Therefore, it is more patriotic to consume Jack and Coke than it is to consume margueritas.



Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~