• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Here's your chance: Stump the Christian Chump

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest

It didn't addess dopp's response to your post. It wasn't even in the same universe.

He didn't interpret the text, so you have no basis for asserting that his understanding of the text doesn't fit with rest of the Bible.

And your claim that your interpretation is done in light of the whole Bible is merely a claim to authority, and it's empty. If you're misinterpreting it, you're misinterpreting it.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
It didn't addess dopp's response to your post. It wasn't even in the same universe.
He didn't interpret the text, so you have no basis for asserting that his understanding of the text doesn't fit with rest of the Bible.
See post #72 for his interpretation.

And your claim that your interpretation is done in light of the whole Bible is merely a claim to authority, and it's empty.
I have a whole post that can back up my claim. Perhaps you could address my points in that thread.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
See post #72 for his interpretation.

I have a whole post that can back up my claim. Perhaps you could address my points in that thread.

Ah, you weren't quoting #72.

I see. I don't know if I'll address your points... for me it's a simple reading issue and one doesn't need a complex hermeneutical argument or debate.

In other words, if you can't understand the text from my post and dopp's, there's no hope for further discussion.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Ah, you weren't quoting #72.
The issue flowed from there.

I see. I don't know if I'll address your points... for me it's a simple reading issue and one doesn't need a complex hermeneutical argument or debate.

In other words, if you can't understand the text from my post and dopp's, there's no hope for further discussion.
I see. You're correct, end of discussion. Thanks Daddy.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;2380376 said:
I'm not sure I even understand what the discussion would be. The text says what it says. I have no interest in debating his theology.

I don't do theology.

That's about where I am.

Well, dopp. You're a theologian who doesn't theologize. But you philosophize theology.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Well, at least between us on that topic.

Dopp is fair game. :beach:
The interesting thing about Romans 1-2 is that the primary, if not the only, scripture from the NT cited to condemn homosexuality is that very same list at the end of Romans 1. In context, what Paul is saying is that if you claim that "God" will judge any of those activities as sin or profess to condemn people who do any of those things, when in fact, because of the "riches" of God's kindness and forebearance they will not be judged - then the only person who is going to be judged is YOU, for showing contempt for those riches.

In addition, such hypocrites bring shame and suspicion on "God" and the gospel. Of course, the world is full of real examples of this. How many homophobic, "Christians" turn out to be closeted homosexuals? It makes a mockery of the faith, and it negates "God's" grace in their lives because they cannot forgive themselves. In other words, quite apart from a 'supernatural' interpretation of judgment, what Paul is stating here is very much psychologically true.

That's what Paul is saying, in context, about these "riches."
 

Frank Merton

Active Member
I guess most Christians are hypocrites, but then so are the rest of us. All this tells me is that Christians have no claim on being better.

The essence of hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Pertinent to your comments about jugmentalism, all religions preach that we should not be judgmental, but they all are. An interesting question is whether this is in spite of the religion or because of it.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
The essence of hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Pertinent to your comments about jugmentalism, all religions preach that we should not be judgmental, but they all are. An interesting question is whether this is in spite of the religion or because of it.
It's in spite of the teachings, but because of the religions supposedly based on them.
 
Top