JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

he might have been, but if he was we have no evidence of it

 

Paul is quite unfairly maligned. His teachings are honestly pretty indistinct from the other apostles and prophets. Certainly, the other leading voices of the day--male and female--recognized him as not only an equal but a leader who had authentically captured and articulated God's teachings. We oughtn't pretend he is some terrible rogue.

 

I mean, Peter wasn't a huge fan and he was a p big deal around the same time so.

point remains tho. I think that Paul gets a bad wrap because he was so prolific and prominent, so his fairly common views had more of a magnifying glass on them.

 

Eh. The man went out of his way to endorse Paul. I'm not sure how that translates into "not a huge fan."

 

wocky, the conflict between Peter and Paul is pretty well documented.

akfs, that's the thing though. the NT was PROGRESSIVE for its time. it helped change things, to be less ****ed. it's important to keep that in mind!

 

Wrestling is as real as ya want it to be............



because.....






Oh yeah! Brother! Fa fa fa fa fa for life! Do you smell what The Rock is cooking! And that's the bottom line cuz Stone Cold said so!

 

Peter and Paul certainly had conflicts; how could two personalities as strong as Peter & Paul not? But Peter does reference Paul's writings in II Peter, referring to him as "dear brother Paul" and says that Paul has written "with the wisdom of God." I mean, I think we all know that people can respect each other and yet also have serious personality clashes. Hell, even love each other and have serious personality clashes. But it's also clear in Paul's writings in Galatians that the flaws that Paul saw in Peter had to do with Peter attempting to function as a placating force in the conflict between Jews and gentiles; Paul castigates Peter for not taking a firm stand, but we don't really have Peter's side on that - most likely he was just trying to "be all things to all people," a concept Paul understood in other instances. So, yes, conflict between the two, though not necessarily a lack of respect; and Peter seen by Paul probably as not being as firm and unbending as Paul himself was - but hindsight lets us in on the fact that Paul could have stood to be a little more flexible, so, you know. God, Bible geekery. I do love it so.

As to the whole issue about forgeries and such, I'd just like to say that Christianity is not built around the historical Jesus; it's built around the revealed Jesus of the gospels. I accept the gospels as including much historical truth, but there have been amendments and editing and all that stuff that happens to ancient literature over time. Still, it's the revealed Jesus that I believe in and love and attempt to emulate. Even if the historical Jesus was of divine origin, he was also of earthly origin and doubtless held some views that were pretty unenlightened; it's important to remember that while on this earth, Jesus did not retain divine knowledge. He says again and again that he receives the power to heal and the wisdom to preach and teach on a dispensational level from the Father. Jesus on this earth did not know all things; he knows what is told to him by the Father. As the Bible says, he "humbled himself" and took on the weaknesses and frailties of mankind.

Was the historical Jesus homophobic? I mean, the entire culture of the time was. God gave Jesus wisdom that was progressive to a degree, but he didn't give him the knowledge and wisdom that we have today. The historical Jesus, ceding that he was divine, still would not have understood an internal combustion engine. It's part of the 100% God/100% man paradox. So, it's likely that the historical Jesus wasn't totally on 2016 levels when it came to all the social and cultural issues. But he was significantly ahead for the time and in a way that is often timeless because it's social/cultural truth as general principles, not as specific issues. And in the Bible, God chose to reveal Jesus to us in a certain way, a timeless way. The historical Jesus might have been homophobic; the revealed Jesus of the Bible is not.

 

I want to hear where Mary stood in this feud between Peter and Paul.

 

James (Jesus' brother) had a more prominent role than Mary did. I haven't researched it too much but I'd assume that she'd be closer to his camp than Paul's.

 

I'm just going to assume you've been puffing the magic dragon and my joke didn't fail.

 

that's a very safe assumption to make at this hour in the evening.

 

That's okay, it took me a minute as well.

 

I think we're reading a great deal into a very small space. What we have, realistically, is a couple of pretty isolated points of conflict. Whereas we see instances of Paul never working with some individuals again, even as all sides concede that both parties of the conflict are godly. By contrast, whatever happened between Paul and Peter was probably milder.

More broadly, this whole line of conversation is kind of reductive. Like any religious text, the Bible is pretty dense. Its writers had a number of goals they were trying to achieve simultaneously, and the gestalt product of all their work is more complex still. One thing we can know with near certainty, however, is that they weren't concerned with how "progressive" things were or were not. I have always found it ridiculous to the point of scorn when people try to scour the Bible for support of something like, I don't know, libertarian free market principles. I don't think it's any better when we do the same with points of liberal concern.

 

acknowledging facts about historical texts is not the same thing as reading current politics into unrelated passages.

 

Yeah, it's like I said: cultural context. Some ideas are timeless. Others are meant for the ears of the people who lived among Jesus and the Apostles.

 

Does it make sense that people still read proven fiction in order to find guidelines? Homophobic, racist, sexist fiction?
If you say yes, then I say that Star Wars is a way better moral guide than the Bible or Qu'ran.

Time for a world that REJECTS sexism, homophobia, racism and intolerance, no matter if a billionaire (hi Donald!), a president, your local redneck teacher (Texan books deny slavery, did you know?) or the interpretation of your preferred myth collection tells you otherwise. Time for a world that is secular, only acts according to human rights and that gives education to the masses. They need to know how man-made religions are, how ideologies are used against mankind, how governments whitewash history... Uneducated people fall for the deluding misinformation pomoted by ideologies / religions easily.
But even if all had enough knowledge, there would still be morons who feel attracted to the dramatic mumbojumbo because people tend to think that if something dramatic happens or if they "know" something secret, they are chosen ones and no more mere frustrated / racist / homophobic / sexist suckers. So, the stuff in the Bible and Qu'ran will always be dangerous and should be banned forever.

 

Eep, this'll end well...

 

I live my life according to Treasure Island. I preach a gospel of being a small boy instead of a thieving pirate. My lord and savior James Hawkins saved the non-mutinous crew of the Hispaniola from the traitorous pirates. So shall my soul be saved from this world.

 

I am an Atheist and have my issues with certain aspects of different religion, but I have absolutely no problem with somebody believing in God. The world is a pretty awful place filled with disease, poverty, famine, violence and bigotry, and if you can find something that helps you get though it, whether it be God or something else, then good for you.

 

Uh congrats?

 

I feel similarly. I consider myself an agnostic with a tendency to atheism but interestingly enough it happens that I pray or thank (or condemn ) God - even though I don't believe in any religion as all religions are man made and have mistakes (the best religion I know is Buddhism, that's the only one I like).
I understand that several people like to believe in something, I just don't like Christianity, Islam, Jehova's witnesses, Scientology and so on for obvious reasons (it starts with making people believe in anti-historical and illogical stuff and ends with all the immoral stuff that's in the scripture and that's done).

 

What about Buddhism do you like?

Me personally, I don't see anything in New Age and Eastern spiritual beliefs that I'd like to believe in.

 

I was sitting with my brother-in-law and he said "When we were kids, the whole family would say the Rosary every night before dinner.". And a Cousin-in-Law nodded along. Bonding over pointlessly saying Mail Mary fifty times over.

And out of my mouth leaked "You mustn't have had TV". It left my mouth before I realised I had said it.

And now he passive aggressively hates me.

 

Surely, he knows you said it in jest. He can't be that immature, right?