Satan and the Sanctity of Marriage

[gsa]

So Paul was supposed to be some sort of revolutionary, Because 2000 years after his time, Our culture would deem his wrong?
Right. Because that's completely reasonable? lol.

If Paul was a product of his time, I see no reason to believe he has any timeless insights worth considering today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Poor Paul. He is one of my favorite Saints and he gets crapped on so much today.

St. Paul, pray for us. We need it.

 

[Thana]

If Paul was a product of his time, I see no reason to believe he has any timeless insights worth considering today.

I don't really know what to say to that.
You do realize most beloved historical figures were as bigoted as the rest of the world? Racists, anti-semites, sexists, slavers, I mean the list goes on. Most, if not all, were like that yet they contributed to the world we live in beyond measure. But you want to dismiss them because they were products of their time?

 

[Jainarayan]

And I'm trying to tell you he was a product of his culture

So was Jesus.

 

[Thana]

So was Jesus.

And?

 

[Jainarayan]

And?

You... really... don't... get... my... point?

Hint: Jesus didn't think of or talk to people the way Paul did.

 

[Thana]

You... really... don't... get... my... point?

Hint: Jesus didn't think of or talk to people the way Paul did.

Well there's no need to be rude, No, I don't get your point. Jesus was the Messiah while Paul was a preacher and a Pharisee.
And Jesus didn't speak out against Slavery or gender inequality either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So now you're just assuming Paul knew of their existence?

He got around a lot, and he seemed to have had at least some education, so it seems reasonable that he at least knew of some of them.

Cool so, if you had of been Paul, born when he was, as a Pharisee, You would have realized the 'evil's' of slavery and inequality and you would have done something about it?

Come on....

If I wouldn't have, it still wouldn't have made me right, and it wouldn't have made it any better. Just because that is "just how things were" doesn't mean those things are good, excusable, or appropriate. If it was, the Nuremberg trails wouldn't have happened, "just following orders" would be a valid defence, and the Nazis slaughtering Jews and everybody else would have been ok because they were going through very difficult times and it's to be expected the Germans would find a scapegoat, and it's just what they were doing.

 

[Thana]

He got around a lot, and he seemed to have had at least some education, so it seems reasonable that he at least knew of some of them.

So yes, Assuming.

If I wouldn't have, it still wouldn't have made me right, and it wouldn't have made it any better. Just because that is "just how things were" doesn't mean those things are good, excusable, or appropriate. If it was, the Nuremberg trails wouldn't have happened, "just following orders" would be a valid defence, and the Nazis slaughtering Jews and everybody else would have been ok because they were going through very difficult times and it's to be expected the Germans would find a scapegoat, and it's just what they were doing.

I never said it was right and I never said it was okay. It was just appropriate for those times. What fit, what was expected, what was natural to them.

I'm not okay with sexism, But I also don't forget that it's been less than 115 years since I, as a woman, have been allowed to vote. The world has been 'wrong' for a long, long time. And I honestly don't have much right to judge, I imagine life was very cruel and very hard and very short. I'm not excusing anything, I'm just not pretending everything is black and white when I know it is not.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well there's no need to be rude, No, I don't get your point. Jesus was the Messiah while Paul was a preacher and a Pharisee.
And Jesus didn't speak out against Slavery or gender inequality either.

Not rude, frustrated.

Jesus did not treat people differently or look down on them.

 

[Thana]

Not rude, frustrated.

Jesus did not treat people differently or look down on them.

Paul was just a man, he played the cards he was dealt to the best of his ability. But no-one was perfect, like Jesus.
All of the men in the bible were sinners, chained by the world they lived in. None were perfect. Not David, not Moses, not Job, not John, not Paul.

I don't understand why you would expect perfection from a man?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not okay with sexism, But I also don't forget that it's been less than 115 years since I, as a woman, have been allowed to vote. The world has been 'wrong' for a long, long time. And I honestly don't have much right to judge, I imagine life was very cruel and very hard and very short. I'm not excusing anything, I'm just not pretending everything is black and white when I know it is not.

I realize that as well. However, it doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize something just because it's the way it is.
And in the case of Paul, he specifically said women are to not speak at church, and they are not to have authority over men. Such an attitude shouldn't be defended.

 

[Thana]

I realize that as well. However, it doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize something just because it's the way it is.
And in the case of Paul, he specifically said women are to not speak at church, and they are not to have authority over men. Such an attitude shouldn't be defended.

I'm just acknowledging his belief in the necessity of those words. He didn't say them because he thought women were lesser in the eyes of God, he said them because the women of his time, the women who he was surrounded by (which was generally poor to middle class women) were uneducated, sheltered and not fit to have authority or knowledgeable enough to interrupt church services.

I truly feel that if Paul was from now, and saw the world now, he wouldn't think those things.

And honestly, I don't know how it's sexist to acknowledge the truth. The women he knew weren't capable, Not because they were women and not because they were born that way but because they were forced to be that way. And he took that into consideration.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't understand why you would expect perfection from a man?

Paul was supposed to be speaking for Jesus guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm just acknowledging his belief in the necessity of those words.

They weren't necessary though. No amount of apologetics will make up for the fact that he saw women as below men.

He didn't say them because he thought women were lesser in the eyes of God

He said women are to obey their husbands as their husbands obey God. That meant, to Paul, it went God, then men, then women.

he said them because the women of his time, the women who he was surrounded by (which was generally poor to middle class women) were uneducated, sheltered and not fit to have authority

That describes most people of his time. He said nothing about education or ability, he specifically said women.

 

[shadowvamp085]

Oh man... Forever_Catholic I have a few things I would like you to comment upon.

1. I thought God loves everyone and created all of us?
A. So he loves gays but it's satan who allows them to truly love by getting married?
B. Did God mess up on his creations then if they are gay?

2. I read your "what's next" post. So you believe that people are going to try and run the Christians and their religion.... Well aren't those same Christians doing the same by trying to regulate how people live their lives -be it gay, birth control, so on?

3. Christianity was not the first for marriage to play a part in. But why is their view the "right" view?

4. You do realize that a lot of the things in the bible came from other religions right -such as paganism. Take Christmas, that wasn't actually Jesus' birthday... It was the winter solstice... But now it's Jesus' birthday?

5. If God is so right and satan is so wrong.... Why has god killed a lot of people according to the bible, while satan hasn't really killed one?

6. Why is it okay to look past the raping of children by priest and focus on gay marriage?

7. You think marriage between homosexuals will ruin the sanctity of marriage? Well look at celebrities... Married for a month and then divorced... Heterosexuals don't seem to be saving the sanctity very well.



Man I could go on. But I'll start with those.

Btw: I don't believe all Christians can be lumped into one. Nor am I antichristian. I just believe none can be proven right or wrong. People should be able to exercise their freedoms as long as they don't infringe upon another's.

Congrats to the gay community. It doesn't affect my life but glad yall can do what yall want!

Vote: freedom not chains

 

[shadowvamp085]

Also I would like to state religion is created by beliefs not facts.

So quite frankly, believing that gay marriage is satans agenda is not fact. Just a belief. Give me solid proof that satan loves the love, and God hates it. And if you by some miracle can find a solid based fact of this... I feel bad for all those who follow a God who would hate the happiness of what he supposedly created.

 

[shadowvamp085]

And if we are supposed to stay in the "traditional" lifestyle in regards to what the bible says, than women are to be almost nothing and rape would be okay. Also we would still be stoning people to death....

Is that okay Forever_Catholic?

 

[Thana]

They weren't necessary though. No amount of apologetics will make up for the fact that he saw women as below men.

He said women are to obey their husbands as their husbands obey God. That meant, to Paul, it went God, then men, then women.

That describes most people of his time. He said nothing about education or ability, he specifically said women.

Welp, I've said all I can say. Let's agree to disagree

 

[Thana]

Paul was supposed to be speaking for Jesus guided by the Holy Spirit.

So? He was still a man.
I've got the Spirit, But I still stuff up a lot. The Spirit is a guide, it doesn't control us.