Christian bands/christian accountable bands

[Nicky007]

My definition of "inspired" would be "God-breathed." God spoke *through" the writers of the gospels and epistles without obliterating their personalities or simply dictating as I think Muslims believe Allah did when he gave Muhammed the Q'uran.

Nice, Keith. Full agreement here.


> Then, in the 4th century, the early church got together and sorted out what was acceptable and what wasn't. I believe God had control over that process as well. The result was a Bible that is consistent and whose apparent contradictions can be resolved with a proper understanding of the entire context and intent of their writing.

I agree, except that the Church Fathers at the time might have left out some things that we could use today, like aspects of Judas.


> Your example of Paul's instructions on women speaking in church is a good one. My understanding is that Paul was speaking to a church where the women had a habit of interrupting the preaching service by asking their husbands questions. This was part about keeping the order and perhaps some of Paul's cultural differences with his Greek congregations. I don't think it really spoke to the matter of women leading a church.

Didn't know about the extent of disorder during services. Interesting aspect.


> Now there*are* some other places where Paul talks about the qualifications for elders and deacons. The sticking point is usually the phrase "husband of one wife" and the issue becomes "do we apply that literally or is it a principle? If we apply it literally, then, men without a wife are not qualified. Or is it a principle that has more to do with overall fidelity. Or maybe single men should't be church leaders. Perhaps the temptation toward sexual impropriety would have been too strong. Lots of things to consider.

I think that the important thing is to ensure that the libido of the elders and deacons is at rest while they're at their job, whether they're men, women, married, single, homosexual, or whatever. A restless libido can create terrible distress, as we've seen with the Catholic priests in question.


> Nicky, I respect your ideas on how our attitude toward the treatment of animals might be evolving. Perhaps it is like our attitude toward smoking -- at least here in parts of the U.S. It is becoming very unacceptable (which is fine by me). However, I just would never consider eating meat or not eating meat to be a matter of whether I am "saved" in the Christian sense or not.

Agree with you fully on your last point. I just think that, in our present civilisation, we could live more lovingly and respectfully as vegetarians.


> Lastly, I want to thank everyone for their civil tones in this discussion. Here in the U.S., it seems that all people want to do is quarrel over these things rather than discuss and understand one another.

In any case, the Room is a great place for all sorts of discussions. Let's keep it that way.

Nicky.

[kmorse]

Nicky,

If by "aspects of Judas," you mean some of the gnostic gospels, I think those were best left out. Especially with regard to the recently publicized "Gospel of Judas." It is a very late entry to the party, having been written some time in the 3rd century, I believe. The four Gospels that made it in all were wrapped up by the end of the first century, without much doubt. There are scholars who place their writing later than that, but in my study, I've leaned toward the earlier dates.

Even what's in the Gospels about Judas gives us some food for speculation. What were his motives? Did he really belive Jesus was the Messiah or was he an impostor from the start? Did he grow disillusioned and decide to cash in or did he have a plan that went awry? This side of heaven, we can't know for sure, I suppose, but we can muse about it some for now.

Keith

[funkster]

Apologies for going slightly off topic , but i am not sure of another band's website where i could post this.

http://parishofheswall-yc.sampasite.com/

If you tab down a bit you will see the testimony i wrote and read out at our local church at pentecost. Any comments or feedback would be greattfully received.

Thanks for reading

[Nicky007]

Any comments or feedback would be greattfully received.

Thanks for sharing, Funkster.

I think many of us here have had similar big experiences, where our life has atrophied for a while, then at a critical point we began to pray and seek, and all of a sudden, light broke through.

Life is really a bitch when the God-connection is missing.

Nicky.

[Appelmoes??]

I sort of agree with Nicky here. Paul's letter's are one of the main reason why I think the bible makes God look like a hypocrite. There's a whole book about sexualtity in the old testament. A testomony to the beauty of it, and then Paul comes along saying that sex is bad, BAD! And that people would be better off not being maried... Stuff like that make me believe that the church would be better off without his letters. They are way to confusing and sometimes downright contradictive to other partso f the bible.

[PH]

I sort of agree with Nicky here. Paul's letter's are one of the main reason why I think the bible makes God look like a hypocrite. There's a whole book about sexualtity in the old testament. A testomony to the beauty of it, and then Paul comes along saying that sex is bad, BAD! And that people would be better off not being maried... Stuff like that make me believe that the church would be better off without his letters. They are way to confusing and sometimes downright contradictive to other partso f the bible.

Appelmoes??, can you give me the exact chapter and verse?

Oh and by the way, if you think it's so contradictive, why do you believe Solomon instead of Paul? Solomon had over 1000 wives... you bet he thought sex was good!
I'm not saying that sex is bad though. LOL.
But anyway, I always thought of Solomon as a bit of a hypocrite.

-Paco

[Nicky007]

Solomon had over 1000 wives... you bet he thought sex was good!

Good'n Paco  

How bout making a poll in the Room: What's best: prog, beer, or sex?  

Nicky.

[PH]

Haha, at the moment I'd say prog.

Beer is out of the question and for the third I'd like to ask: what exactly is 'sex'?
There's so many definitions.

[Appelmoes??]

Well, Solomon might have had 1000 wives, but we were talking about sex and sexuality. Not about polygamy
(Besides, the bible is at least very clear about this. It says Solomon was wrong and that a man should have one wive...)

About chapters or versus, just read any letter from Paul and it will come up. Some more than others though...

[PH]

Hey wake up Appy! Why would he have 1000 wives?
For the cleaning?
For the dishes?

No no no no no...

Of course he wrote a whole book about his favourite spare time activities. Why would he have written it?

[Nicky007]

... and for the third I'd like to ask: what exactly is 'sex'?

If you don't know, your girlfriend will, Paco 

Nicky.

[Nicky007]

Haha, at the moment I'd say prog. Beer is out of the question ...

Paco, in case you didn't know, prog and beer are two sides of the same thing. Isn't that right, John?

Nicky.

[PH]

Hehehe, I was just trying to bring you to a deeper level of this conversation.

When we say "sex", it can mean the action of which a possible child is the result. (How's that for a cryptical answer?)
But it can also be taken much broader. Hugging and kissing for instance.
Then even holding hands is part of sex.



-Paco

[PH]

Paco, in case you didn't know, prog and beer are two sides of the same thing. Isn't that right, John?

I think John will disagree.
He just went to see The Watch and didn't touch a drop of beer.

[Appelmoes??]

Hey wake up Appy! Why would he have 1000 wives?
For the cleaning?
For the dishes?

No no no no no...

Of course he wrote a whole book about his favourite spare time activities. Why would he have written it?

Political mariages? Remember he was the peace bringer. Marying a lot of princessen and stuff will help a lot.

(You're sounding a bit smartassy btw, which is exactly the reason why I don't like discussing stuff like this.)

[Nicky007]

Hugging and kissing for instance.

Hugging and kissing are on each their side of the dividing line, Paco. I'll gladly give you a hug, but for kisses you'll have to go somewhere else.

Nicky.

[Nicky007]

... peace bringer. Marying a lot of princessen and stuff will help a lot.

I'll keep that one in mind. "Baby, I'm the peace bringer ...." 

Nicky.

[PH]

Hugging and kissing are on each their side of the dividing line, Paco. I'll gladly give you a hug, but for kisses you'll have to go somewhere else.

It all depends on the culture and the way of doing it.

When a girl celebrates her birthday I give her a kiss. This is an entirely different kiss and in a totally different setting than giving my girlfriend a kiss.

[Nicky007]

It all depends on the culture and the way of doing it.

When a girl celebrates her birthday I give her a kiss. This is an entirely different kiss and in a totally different setting than giving my girlfriend a kiss.

Yeah, OK, Paco, accepted. But when that's said, I must say that the French megasmooching aint my thing.

Nicky.

[PH]

I wanted to reply again but then I realised that I didn't even know the actual original topic...

So let's get on topic again! It's been a while.
If you wanna discuss any further, make a new topic Nicky.

(I sound like an administrator/moderator. Where's Peter?? HEY PETER!)


This was the most recent reply that still made sense:

I sort of agree with Nicky here. Paul's letter's are one of the main reason why I think the bible makes God look like a hypocrite. There's a whole book about sexualtity in the old testament. A testomony to the beauty of it, and then Paul comes along saying that sex is bad, BAD! And that people would be better off not being maried... Stuff like that make me believe that the church would be better off without his letters. They are way to confusing and sometimes downright contradictive to other partso f the bible.

[Nicky007]

You don't think that Paul deserves a smooch, Paco?

I wanted to reply again but then I realised that I didn't even know the actual original topic...

And you're even the one who started it all.

Nicky.

[PH]

I don't think he would approve.

Now GET BACK ON TOPIC YOU #$%^@

[kmorse]

I sort of agree with Nicky here. Paul's letter's are one of the main reason why I think the bible makes God look like a hypocrite. There's a whole book about sexualtity in the old testament. A testomony to the beauty of it, and then Paul comes along saying that sex is bad, BAD! And that people would be better off not being maried... Stuff like that make me believe that the church would be better off without his letters. They are way to confusing and sometimes downright contradictive to other partso f the bible.

Appelmoes,

I don't think Paul was saying sex was bad -- at least not sex within the confines of marriage. But I *do* think that he was so single-minded in his pursuit of preaching the Gospel that he considered *anything* even sex to be a distraction from his primary purpose. His personal preference was that people remain single and pursue preaching the Gospel, but he didn't forbid marriage. Now, some of the gnostics -- who already were popping up even in Paul's and John's time -- *did* forbid marriage. This might very well be why the subject comes up in some of Paul's letters.

As a Pharisee, Paul no doubt had been married -- it was almost required -- and probably was not unfamiliar with sex. It's quite possible that upon his conversion, he was abandoned by his wife and family (this is just a guess on my part). Paul *did* say that "the marriage bed is undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4) and made several other comments along those lines which indicate to me that he had no objection to sex.

Also, Appelmoes, you made a comment in a different thread about the God of the OT and the God of the NT being "different" in that the OT God was vengeful and such while the God of the NT is forgiving. I've long seen no difference between the God of the two Testaments. There's plenty of fire and brimstone in both. I think that if you did a survey of Jesus' statements, you'll find he spoke quite often about Hell as well as forgiveness and salvation. By the same token, the God of the OT often spoke of forgiveness and reconciliation. In fact, I see the entire OT taken as a whole is just a big buildup to the arrival of the Messiah. Granted, there is a lot of bloodshed and debauchery along the way, but that mostly just shows that mankind just can't do it on his own. God had to step in from time to time and call "Time out!"

So, that is a matter that I often jump in and dispute: the "differences" between the "Gods of the two Testaments."

[PH]

And you're even the one who started it all.

Yes, you're right.
My fault. I'm sorry.

@kmorse
I couldn't agree more!

The Bible shows a red line through all of it.
This red line is God's Word.
God gave His Word (In Genesis, after man fell into sin, He promised that He would save mankind.)
God gave His Word (Jesus is the Word that became flesh (John 1:1-18). God sent His Son and fulfilled the promise He did.)
God gave His Word (The Bible. God gave this Book to read all about it and to see this red line.)

The whole Bible is a Word about reconcilation. When you read it in that perspective, you'll see that God has always been the same.

[Nicky007]

Keith, since you are quite an expert on the Bible and Christianity, I'd like to have your comments on the question: Why is the historicity of Christ so sparse? He didn't exactly make it easy for us to believe in Him, in fact His pure materiality is even questioned by many historians.

If anyone else wants to chip in, then you're welcome.

Nicky.