• Kim Davis lawyer claims Pope Francis met controversial clerk during DC visit
    33 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48800807]You linked to this: I don't see how what I referenced was convoluted. edit: But lets say some christian apologetic tried to argue that I need to consider the context of the verses. Maybe yahweh needed to make those rules to keep from alienating men at his churches. Something about culture during those times and how wives weren't normally allowed to speak in public and god didn't want to alienate the men so he made those rules that would be changed at a later date. Then I could point to verses that claim that god's word is eternal, not bound by the changing tides of culture, (which are really in there) etc. It's all pointless SUBJECTIVE bullshit. People make their own minds up. Nobody really follows their holy text. Churches wouldn't survive if they did in the civilized world. So they have to ignore verses left and right to accommodate their dying beliefs to survive as long as they can. Basically, a christian calling any other person who follows some sort of rules laid out by their interpretation of the same book "not christian" is full of shit. They have almost no legs to stand on.[/QUOTE] I was basically saying that 1 Corinthians 14:34's meaning could change with those words added
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48800807]You linked to this: I don't see how what I referenced was convoluted. edit: But lets say some christian apologetic tried to argue that I need to consider the context of the verses. Maybe yahweh needed to make those rules to keep from alienating men at his churches. Something about culture during those times and how wives weren't normally allowed to speak in public and god didn't want to alienate the men so he made those rules that would be changed at a later date. Then I could point to verses that claim that god's word is eternal, not bound by the changing tides of culture, (which are really in there) etc. It's all pointless SUBJECTIVE bullshit. People make their own minds up. Nobody really follows their holy text. Churches wouldn't survive if they did in the civilized world. So they have to ignore verses left and right to accommodate their dying beliefs to survive as long as they can. They will keep changing to meet the beliefs of their followers as their followers progress in ideas along with the rest of society (how ever much slower). We've seen this happen over the last dozen centuries. What really has changed since the 10th century regarding scripture besides cultural interpretations? Why would christians change how they follow scripture? Where they just flat out wrong in the past and we have a greater understanding of god's word now? I don't think so. Basically, a christian calling any other person who follows some sort of rules laid out by their interpretation of the same book "not christian" is full of shit. They have almost no legs to stand on.[/QUOTE] I just want to point out that there's a difference between contextual commands and generalized commands. To say that a contextualized command terminates outside of that context isn't a destroying of the command, but an appropriate application of it. The great part about Christianity is that none of that stuff is what makes a Christian a Christian. The part that really matters, salvation through the grace of God through Christ, is a constant through almost all Christian demonstrations. The Bible even cautions Christians about judging each other too strongly about non-essential doctrine.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48800979]I just want to point out that there's a difference between contextual commands and generalized commands. To say that a contextualized command terminates outside of that context isn't a destroying of the command, but an appropriate application of it. The great part about Christianity is that none of that stuff is what makes a Christian a Christian. The part that really matters, salvation through the grace of God through Christ, is a constant through almost all Christian demonstrations. The Bible even cautions Christians about judging each other too strongly about non-essential doctrine.[/QUOTE] I basically understand and agree with what you're saying. My response was mostly directed towards the individuals that claim other obviously christain groups aren't really christian. I've been out of the christian apologetics game for a long time, but this is good practice. The problem with what you said is that I can have a subjective disagreement with what you judge as contextual and generalized commands. I can point to verses saying god's word is eternal, and stretch that to mean all biblical law that doesn't disagree with the christ's teachings as being the law of god. You can fight me on the different interpretations, but that doesn't change the fact that it's subjective.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48801007]I basically understand and agree with what you're saying. My response was mostly directed towards the individuals that claim other obviously christain groups aren't really christian. I've been out of the christian apologetics game for a long time, but this is good practice. The problem with what you said is that I can have a subjective disagreement with what you judge as contextual and generalized commands. I can point to verses saying god's word is eternal, and stretch that to mean all biblical law that doesn't disagree with the christ's teachings as being the law of god. You can fight me on the different interpretations, but that doesn't change the fact that it's subjective.[/QUOTE] I mean, The New Testament actually covers disagreement on whether to follow the Old Testament laws very specifically. It basically says that you are not required to, but if you feel like you should, then that's what you should do. The important part is that you are fully convinced that what you're doing is right instead of following the old laws out of obligation or putting hope of salvation in the law. Romans 14 is almost entirely about this subject. His conclusion is this: "13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. " So if you were to feel that wearing clothes of different fabrics was unclean, then you shouldn't do it, but you also shouldn't judge other people for wearing clothes with multiple fabrics. [editline]1st October 2015[/editline] You're right, there is subjectivity, but Christianity clearly provides for subjectivity where teaching isn't crystal clear. There are a few things that must be objective because the entire hope of Christianity rests on them, but everything else can be interpreted. People can disagree and not lose their Christianity because those things aren't what Christianity is based on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.