Saul: true believer or spouter of lies?

[chang50]

yeah you guys are right, the world would be much better if islam were the dominant religion instead

Or if we were governed by relativists

Well Einstein was an extremely clever chap,just not sure his talents would be best suited to governance..

[john9blue]

yeah you guys are right, the world would be much better if islam were the dominant religion instead

I guess I missed those posts..no checked again,no-one even remotely has suggested that in this thread

oh yeah, you think people don't need religion and that the western world would be atheist if christianity died out. LOL never mind.

[mrswdk]

Religious wars are sooo last millenium, johnny.

[chang50]

yeah you guys are right, the world would be much better if islam were the dominant religion instead

I guess I missed those posts..no checked again,no-one even remotely has suggested that in this thread

oh yeah, you think people don't need religion and that the western world would be atheist if christianity died out. LOL never mind.

Can you point me to the post that even vaguely implies that the world would be much better if Islam were the dominant religion instead?Sadly if Christianity did die out there is a very good chance Islam would take it's place and that would be catastrophic for civilisation.You really should stop assuming what other people think,and read their posts carefully before commenting on them..

[mrswdk]

At their peak the Arab caliphates were busy churning out advanced science and culture while Christian Europe was still rolling around in mud. Why exactly would Islam's domination be 'catastrophic' for civilization?

Bear in mind that the scary Sharia wife rapers you hear about in your propaganda are no more representative of Islam than 'God hates fags' is representative of Christianity.

[chang50]

At their peak the Arab caliphates were busy churning out advanced science and culture while Christian Europe was still rolling around in mud. Why exactly would Islam's domination be 'catastrophic' for civilization?

Bear in mind that the scary Sharia wife rapers you hear about in your propaganda are no more representative of Islam than 'God hates fags' is representative of Christianity.

There is I believe a substantial minority in Islam,perhaps 10%,who have a disproportionate influence on the religion.Moderate Muslims are terrified of speaking out in countries like Saudi Arabia where there is no toleration of other religions and women are barred from driving.Or in Iran,Afghanistan,or Pakistan where Sharia still prevails in many areas,and that young girl (Malala?) was shot for wanting to go to school.
Btw not everyone agrees the caliphates were churning out advanced science as you claim,they certainly did not progress to the next level as Europe did in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century and the Industial Revolution 100 years later.When exactly the modern scientific method emerged is very much a matter of serious debate and little consensus.

[mrswdk]

Yeah, yeah, and how many Muslim civilians have been slaughtered by an army whose country's money bears the motto 'In God We Trust'?

[chang50]

Yeah, yeah, and how many Muslim civilians have been slaughtered by an army whose country's money bears the motto 'In God We Trust'?

Which relates to my point how?I've never defended that.At least the Christians have stopped murdering atheists for their disbelief in recent times,so they are the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

[_sabotage_]

Are you referring to the money which has the eye of horus on in it? Perhaps we should follow Jesus's command to give on to the illuminati what is the illuminati's.

From my Muslim friends, I don't see a great difference in the Catholic Church and the Muslim Mosque. In most countries, the Quran is not legible to a large portion of the population. The mullahs are then free to interpret it as suits them, with some pretty bad results. Some Muslims are even lead into joining the CIA and encouraged to satisfy US policy over the teachings of Mohamed.

As for the scientific capabilities, one unarguable fact is that Catholic Church suppressed documents which did not uphold their view. Meanwhile the Muslims preserved them.

[PLAYER57832]

I simply am not interested in gaining the extensive knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church required to discuss why they use Paul's writing and not the words of Jesus. I would guess if your accusations are correct, it's possible that it's what makes the gospel "the gospel," instead of merely a letter between a follower of Christ and whom ever. You can twist and distort another human's idea even if it was actually a good one to begin with.

I am quite puzzled by this assertion. (probably missing a lot, coming late into this thread as I am) Lutherans are known to follow Paul/Saul primarily. The Roman Catholic Church is rather descended from Peter. That is, all Christian churches look to all the disciples and books, but to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is focusing too much on Paul, as opposed to making that claim about Lutheranism is rather strange.

[_sabotage_]

Player,

In many instances the disciples of Jesus dissuaded him from talking with women. In all instances he ignored them, in some instances he rebuked them. The Lutheran Church does ordain women, why doesn't the Catholic Church? Was this at Peter's bequest? Is there any substantiation of this in the New Testament?

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

In many instances the disciples of Jesus dissuaded him from talking with women. In all instances he ignored them, in some instances he rebuked them. The Lutheran Church does ordain women, why doesn't the Catholic Church? Was this at Peter's bequest? Is there any substantiation of this in the New Testament?

My query is why you attribute this to Paul. (and by-the-way Luther is not exactly known for putting forward the cause of women in the church).

I would put forward a slightly different history. Firstly, Rome was extremely anti -women, an extremely chauvinistic society. Judaism, by comparison (and in comparison to many other societies and groups of the time) was a haven for women, offering them power and rights. This actually changed under Roman oppression. All Judeo-Christian sects were infused with chauvinism because that was how so much of the world was, regardless of whether that was a dictate of Christ or not. For myself, I put it into the category of slavery, something that Christ did not really support, but understood was not going to go away immediately, if ever. I find it pretty telling that much of what Christ tells women mirrors what he tells servants/slaves.

I did go back and catch, on page 6, I think, where you were debating with 2dimes about Corinthians, where women are told to ask their husbands rather than speaking up in church. The context of that (and I believe the words have been subtly shifted in some versions, but I refer to the Revised Standard Version), is that women were basically standing up and arguing with their husbands in church, effectively looking for the congregation to help them win spiritual debates with their husbands. That is not appropriate. In that day, women could not just speak up in most forums. Women also could not go without head coverings. Christians cannot completely go against the mores of the day and society in which they live. If you live in a society where women going uncovered are automatically harlots, then women there should not go uncovered. That doesn't mean a change in society is wrong or unwarranted, it means women -- you don't want to be thought a harlot. Similarly, in a society where women are not normally allowed to speak in church, Christian women should be no different.

But, you still don't really answer why you think that Paul is who the Roman Catholic Church follows most.

Per the last 2 questions, The Roman Catholic Church refers to the part where Jesus tells Peter he will be the keeper of the keys to heaven. Each Pope is considered to be a spiritual descendent of Peter, his spiritually appointed successor. Priests are celibate because, they say, Christ and all of his apostles were celibate.

The Greek Orthodox Church, I am told, takes the opposite view. You must be married to be clergy in the Greek Orthodox church, because they believe that this part of humanity is important to understand for anyone leading people spiritually. Marriage is, in their view, a part of God's design and should not be rejected commonly.

[BigBallinStalin]

At their peak the Arab caliphates were busy churning out advanced science and culture while Christian Europe was still rolling around in mud. Why exactly would Islam's domination be 'catastrophic' for civilization?

Why didn't the Industrial Revolution start within one of the Arab kingdoms?

I think answering this would also answer why an Islamic-dominated region wouldn't be catastrophic, but definitely not that great. Of course, the Catholic Church had a good hold on Europe, and the Islam which we see of today is different from the past. But the hold of the Catholic Church diminished at an increasing rate through the Age of Enlightenment, so this relatively greater freedom of ideas shifted the UK in the right direction.

The legacy of colonization has really produced some long-term consequences for N. Africa and the Middle East. So there's problems in imagining how a future Islamic region would look without having been colonized, and people can't take today's Islam and copy-paste into the past then project that model into the imagined future.

[PLAYER57832]

At their peak the Arab caliphates were busy churning out advanced science and culture while Christian Europe was still rolling around in mud. Why exactly would Islam's domination be 'catastrophic' for civilization?

Why didn't the Industrial Revolution start within one of the Arab kingdoms?

I think answering this would also answer why an Islamic-dominated region wouldn't be catastrophic, but definitely not that great. Of course, the Catholic Church had a good hold on Europe, and the Islam which we see of today is different from the past. The legacy of colonization has really produced some long-term consequences for N. Africa and the Middle East. So there's problems in this argument, but it points in the right direction.

You could argue they were, in their time. Sometimes events are more a matter of fortune than any grand design.

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate, etc. Arabic society was, by comparison pretty luxurious and civilized. They did not have the need to change the way Europeans did.

[_sabotage_]

Player,

Are there no female descendents? I oft repeated the same question, which I don't think anyone has cared to answer: For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.
What does it mean?

[BigBallinStalin]

At their peak the Arab caliphates were busy churning out advanced science and culture while Christian Europe was still rolling around in mud. Why exactly would Islam's domination be 'catastrophic' for civilization?

Why didn't the Industrial Revolution start within one of the Arab kingdoms?

I think answering this would also answer why an Islamic-dominated region wouldn't be catastrophic, but definitely not that great. Of course, the Catholic Church had a good hold on Europe, and the Islam which we see of today is different from the past. The legacy of colonization has really produced some long-term consequences for N. Africa and the Middle East. So there's problems in this argument, but it points in the right direction.

You could argue they were, in their time. Sometimes events are more a matter of fortune than any grand design.

I have also heard it argued that Europe made those advances because Europe could not succeed very well in their climate, etc. Arabic society was, by comparison pretty luxurious and civilized. They did not have the need to change the way Europeans did.

Well, it's not like the Middle East and N. Africa didn't have its hardships due to climate, so I have trouble buying that argument. Other factors than climate matter more.

Arabic society was pretty much on par with European society on a per-capita basis. The relative differences were minor. Also, 'civilized' is a very funny description. What exactly was more civilized there than in Europe?

[_sabotage_]

The harems, especially in the detailed training.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

Are there no female descendents? I oft repeated the same question, which I don't think anyone has cared to answer: For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.
What does it mean?

OK.. I did not say "descendents" as in physical, biological children. The Popes are supposed to be the spiritual descendents, or successors, of Peter.

No, the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize women as being eligible for the priesthood of any form, never mind Pope. "Pope Joan" aside (a story, pretty much considered fraudulent, not just by the Roman Catholic Church, but by independent investigators), Popes and Cardinals are men. Because lower priests don't go through the same investigative process, there have certainly been some "regular" priests who were women, but they did so fraudulently. The penalties were very harsh indeed when discovered.

Per the rest.. I am not Roman Catholic, do not believe they are correct in this rule.

[2dimes]

The Lutheran Church does ordain women, why doesn't the Catholic Church? Was this at Peter's bequest? Is there any substantiation of this in the New Testament?

The Roman Catholic Church and the Mormons both teach/believe they are ordaining people to carry on the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood lines.

There were allways rules against women holding those priesthoods. Probably hundreds of years before Jesus maybe even thousands. Never mind Paul or Peter.

There is no new testament rules on them because Jesus became the last priest, since his sacrifice was perfect we never needed human priests to sacrifice anything after.

That was why the temple veil was torn and eventually the temple ceased to exist. Now some modern Jewish people don't even believe in the temple being important. I was asking about some thing regarding sacrifice in the temple at a Jewish Holocaust museum in Melbourne, the lady there said she was not sure about how "the cult of the temple" functioned regarding that.

The cult of the temple? I'm not even Jewish but I would not call ancient Israelites that. Seems to me she is pretty distant from her ancestors. I believe in the past the Israelites had a legitimate priesthood that required sacrifice in temples.

[_sabotage_]

Player, Kind of my point. And Jesus makes clear these brothers and sisters are of the spiritual sense as well.

As such, why couldn't Peter's spiritual descendents be both? The only argument I have found to favor this in the New Testament was not in an act of saying of Jesus. It would appear to be opposing his teachings. Why then incorporate it with his teachings?

[_sabotage_]

2dimes,

There was a direct New Testament link to the Aaronic and levitical priesthood lines and and the person telling the Churches how to organize and behave. I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.

Jesus offered understanding to anyone who heard his words. And that would be gained by seeking to understand his words. This was supposed to be spread so that others may hear them and understand. But if everyone can understand, then no one has the power; the authority rests in each individual to understand the words for themselves and seek more words. You don't have to listen to me, agree with me and may instantly be greater in understanding then whatever length of time I have spent gaining authority in whichever organization I have dedicated myself to. Because in choosing a religion, you are dedicating yourself to their controls which were created by their interpretations. In choosing Jesus and your own understanding, then you are attempting to adhere to God.

And then the orthodox will attack you. Not because of anything to do with your interpretation, but because they are threatened by it.

[2dimes]

2dimes,

There was a direct New Testament link to the Aaronic and levitical priesthood lines and and the person telling the Churches how to organize and behave.

I'd like to see it.

I just don't think that this agrees with Jesus.

Neither do I.

[_sabotage_]

That link was a Roman Jew (prior?) employee of the Pharisees, with a hard on for the destruction of Christianity, who was then allegedly blinded by Jesus. It's interesting to note that Jesus choose his disciples from the uneducated classes and then here are all these books from an educated man telling us what Christianity really means.

[2dimes]

Oh, sorry I thought you meant there was something written in the New Testament about how to organize churches around the priesthood.

Some nice young guys with white shirts told me that. When I read the verse they cited It did talk about Jesus holding the priesthood but also explains how we did not need men to do it anymore. (Women either I suppose.)

[_sabotage_]

Those nice men in the white shirts encouraged me to look into their Church. I encouraged them to look into their Church as well.