|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:35 pm
At PoppyDadswell: yes, they were, and some of them still are. I was simply correcting a very bad misquote and misinterpretation. For instance, "We the people," today certainly means Everyone in the United States of America.
On Separation of Church and State: Everyone should rediscover this concept as it doesn't mean a complete separation. He only refers to the fact that the church can't be expected to act like the state and vice-versa.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:24 am
CCubed At PoppyDadswell: yes, they were, and some of them still are. I was simply correcting a very bad misquote and misinterpretation. For instance, "We the people," today certainly means Everyone in the United States of America. On Separation of Church and State: Everyone should rediscover this concept as it doesn't mean a complete separation. He only refers to the fact that the church can't be expected to act like the state and vice-versa. often when the state and church join it becomes dangerous.the state and goverment become the church's puppet.that happen in the repulic of ireland.the catholic had supreme control;contraceptives and the pill were not allowed until about 1989,even for non catholics.the madaleine laundrys were horrific and there was one still open until 1990.and when a td, dr noel browne tried to introduce free health care for mothers and children the church made the goverment ban it and ensured he lost his job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:18 am
Right, which is exactly why he put it in there. He knew that every time the church had tried to be the state and vice-versa, something bad happened. However, he does acknowledge that the church can do things that the state cannot, and as such, if they work together on equal levels, key term: equal levels, they can provide each other with what they don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:23 pm
CCubed Right, which is exactly why he put it in there. He knew that every time the church had tried to be the state and vice-versa, something bad happened. However, he does acknowledge that the church can do things that the state cannot, and as such, if they work together on equal levels, key term: equal levels, they can provide each other with what they don't have. agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:19 pm
PoppyDadswell OMG its Luisito Ok Poppy, let me get things straight. You take the Bible literally, but you let women be priests? Taking the Bible literally will lead to this: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 34 Let your woman keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. According to your beliefs, Poppy, women cannot be priests or teachers in church, because you take the Bible literally. Now, PoppyDadswell and anything that might take from god like radios,tvs,theatre and cinema are banned. I'm not sure I understand this. If you ban tv (which by the way not everything is bad to watch; there are Christian channels and programs), radio (Christian stations?), and other modern technologies, why on Earth are you on the internet, where there is a plethora of more distracting stuff than on the radio, tv, cinema (there are many Christian movies nowadays like One Night With the King, Facing the Giants), etc. I'm not trying to criticize you, but it seems to me like you contradict yourself too much. yes,you are quite right,however its not me contradicting myself but my church which contradicts itself.dont think i havent put that towards the 'priests' and my parents as a kid.the bible does contradict itself an awful lot.eg-old testament says an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth but then the new testament says turn the other cheek.the only conclusion i got for that was that Jesus made the difference.I use the Internet as its allowed.to be honest i do think that the internet has a more harmful potential that say going to the theatre.perhaps timothy 1 was more with the 'times' then than now,i mean more women were treated like that then than now. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. God does not contradict himself. When you say in the Old testament "An eye for an Eye a tooth for a tooth" it is talking about what we call the "Law" Most of the old testaments rules are under the Law dispensation (dispensation means - span of time in the bible). Now, listen carefully. When Jesus Died on the cross and rose. We changed dispensations. The rules of the Law ended, and the Grace dispensation began. In otherwords, the begining of the new testament is the grace period. The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply changes to fit the time dispensation. God has had to work differently with humanity through the ages. God simply put the Law in place to hold thigs together until he could get Jesus on the earth. Basically your looking at two completely different dispensations. One rule, only meant for the Grace period, and the other only meant for the Law period. If you dont believe we are no longer in the law, read the book of Galatians. Its dedicated to telling us the difference, and how the law is no longer active. ---------------------------- "What then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed (<-- "faith" is the grace dispensation, jesus) So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:05 am
`Kel` PoppyDadswell OMG its Luisito Ok Poppy, let me get things straight. You take the Bible literally, but you let women be priests? Taking the Bible literally will lead to this: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 34 Let your woman keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. According to your beliefs, Poppy, women cannot be priests or teachers in church, because you take the Bible literally. Now, PoppyDadswell and anything that might take from god like radios,tvs,theatre and cinema are banned. I'm not sure I understand this. If you ban tv (which by the way not everything is bad to watch; there are Christian channels and programs), radio (Christian stations?), and other modern technologies, why on Earth are you on the internet, where there is a plethora of more distracting stuff than on the radio, tv, cinema (there are many Christian movies nowadays like One Night With the King, Facing the Giants), etc. I'm not trying to criticize you, but it seems to me like you contradict yourself too much. yes,you are quite right,however its not me contradicting myself but my church which contradicts itself.dont think i havent put that towards the 'priests' and my parents as a kid.the bible does contradict itself an awful lot.eg-old testament says an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth but then the new testament says turn the other cheek.the only conclusion i got for that was that Jesus made the difference.I use the Internet as its allowed.to be honest i do think that the internet has a more harmful potential that say going to the theatre.perhaps timothy 1 was more with the 'times' then than now,i mean more women were treated like that then than now. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. God does not contradict himself. When you say in the Old testament "An eye for an Eye a tooth for a tooth" it is talking about what we call the "Law" Most of the old testaments rules are under the Law dispensation (dispensation means - span of time in the bible). Now, listen carefully. When Jesus Died on the cross and rose. We changed dispensations. The rules of the Law ended, and the Grace dispensation began. In otherwords, the begining of the new testament is the grace period. The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply changes to fit the time dispensation. God has had to work differently with humanity through the ages. God simply put the Law in place to hold thigs together until he could get Jesus on the earth. Basically your looking at two completely different dispensations. One rule, only meant for the Grace period, and the other only meant for the Law period. If you dont believe we are no longer in the law, read the book of Galatians. Its dedicated to telling us the difference, and how the law is no longer active. ---------------------------- "What then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed (<-- "faith" is the grace dispensation, jesus) So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25 yes I'm aware that Jesus's death cancelled the harsh old testament laws out but some of the others were wondering why I was 'contradictory' like having women priests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:07 am
yes I'm aware that Jesus's death cancelled the harsh old testament laws out but some of the others were wondering why I was 'contradictory' like having women priests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:25 pm
`Kel` When Jesus Died on the cross and rose. We changed dispensations. The rules of the Law ended, and the Grace dispensation began. In otherwords, the begining of the new testament is the grace period. The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply changes to fit the time dispensation. God has had to work differently with humanity through the ages. God simply put the Law in place to hold thigs together until he could get Jesus on the earth. Basically your looking at two completely different dispensations. One rule, only meant for the Grace period, and the other only meant for the Law period. If you dont believe we are no longer in the law, read the book of Galatians. Its dedicated to telling us the difference, and how the law is no longer active. ---------------------------- "What then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed (<-- "faith" is the grace dispensation, jesus) So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25 I'm glad to see someone here with a bit of good knowledge of theology in this guild. However, Dispensationalism isn't something that I can agree with. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18 ) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. Covenant theologians have traditionally divided laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Moral laws (e.g., the Decalogue), based on the unchanging character of God, are eternally binding. Civil laws (e.g., Exod. 21-23), although they may illustrate moral law, were limited historically to the theocratic state of Israel and are not binding on the church. Ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrifices) were intended to prefigure Christ, and ceased to be applicable upon his first advent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:23 pm
Baptist Holman `Kel` When Jesus Died on the cross and rose. We changed dispensations. The rules of the Law ended, and the Grace dispensation began. In otherwords, the begining of the new testament is the grace period. The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply changes to fit the time dispensation. God has had to work differently with humanity through the ages. God simply put the Law in place to hold thigs together until he could get Jesus on the earth. Basically your looking at two completely different dispensations. One rule, only meant for the Grace period, and the other only meant for the Law period. If you dont believe we are no longer in the law, read the book of Galatians. Its dedicated to telling us the difference, and how the law is no longer active. ---------------------------- "What then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed (<-- "faith" is the grace dispensation, jesus) So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25 I'm glad to see someone here with a bit of good knowledge of theology in this guild. However, Dispensationalism isn't something that I can agree with. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18 ) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. Covenant theologians have traditionally divided laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Moral laws (e.g., the Decalogue), based on the unchanging character of God, are eternally binding. Civil laws (e.g., Exod. 21-23), although they may illustrate moral law, were limited historically to the theocratic state of Israel and are not binding on the church. Ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrifices) were intended to prefigure Christ, and ceased to be applicable upon his first advent. Im not speaking badly against the law or anything. It was definatly important when it was in place. However, Im just stating that the law is currently not in place. We live under grace now. (And yes, it is good to see other people with good knowlwdege in this guild)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:20 am
`Kel` PoppyDadswell OMG its Luisito Ok Poppy, let me get things straight. You take the Bible literally, but you let women be priests? Taking the Bible literally will lead to this: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 34 Let your woman keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. According to your beliefs, Poppy, women cannot be priests or teachers in church, because you take the Bible literally. Now, PoppyDadswell and anything that might take from god like radios,tvs,theatre and cinema are banned. I'm not sure I understand this. If you ban tv (which by the way not everything is bad to watch; there are Christian channels and programs), radio (Christian stations?), and other modern technologies, why on Earth are you on the internet, where there is a plethora of more distracting stuff than on the radio, tv, cinema (there are many Christian movies nowadays like One Night With the King, Facing the Giants), etc. I'm not trying to criticize you, but it seems to me like you contradict yourself too much. yes,you are quite right,however its not me contradicting myself but my church which contradicts itself.dont think i havent put that towards the 'priests' and my parents as a kid.the bible does contradict itself an awful lot.eg-old testament says an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth but then the new testament says turn the other cheek.the only conclusion i got for that was that Jesus made the difference.I use the Internet as its allowed.to be honest i do think that the internet has a more harmful potential that say going to the theatre.perhaps timothy 1 was more with the 'times' then than now,i mean more women were treated like that then than now. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. God does not contradict himself. When you say in the Old testament "An eye for an Eye a tooth for a tooth" it is talking about what we call the "Law" Most of the old testaments rules are under the Law dispensation (dispensation means - span of time in the bible). Now, listen carefully. When Jesus Died on the cross and rose. We changed dispensations. The rules of the Law ended, and the Grace dispensation began. In otherwords, the begining of the new testament is the grace period. The Bible does not contradict itself. It simply changes to fit the time dispensation. God has had to work differently with humanity through the ages. God simply put the Law in place to hold thigs together until he could get Jesus on the earth. Basically your looking at two completely different dispensations. One rule, only meant for the Grace period, and the other only meant for the Law period. If you dont believe we are no longer in the law, read the book of Galatians. Its dedicated to telling us the difference, and how the law is no longer active. ---------------------------- "What then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise referred had come." Galatians 3:19 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed (<-- "faith" is the grace dispensation, jesus) So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25 I'm aware of all of this.I said my church contradicts its self a little- not the Bible.I take it there are is just me and 2 other girls on gaia from my church.I put this in to find more people in my church not others critiseing metheres plenty i can see wrong with other churches too but i also see whats right with them too and most people here can whats wrong with my church but no right,which is surprising for a christian guild.Anyway I'm currently in the process of joining the beachy amish (theres a small group of us in ireland.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
