|
Post by blondie on May 2, 2007 10:19:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 2, 2007 10:55:12 GMT -5
I think this would be a more comprehensive answer: Rom. 3:10-12 NKJV
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 2, 2007 11:43:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 2, 2007 11:50:57 GMT -5
Didn't take you long to forget the title of the thread....
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 2, 2007 14:34:56 GMT -5
It sure is much longer than the few verses zoomixer listed. Fact of the matter is that Christians are still humans with a free will. Most humans have a sex drive. Christianity is not a panacea for human shortcomings. Although you don't care for that Roman Jew, he also said this 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 - And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness " Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong. Paul admitted that he had weaknesses and he is considered by many Christians to be a role model. Not on the same level as Jesus but then again, Jesus was without sin and we are, just as Paul was. Paul was basically saying that Christians should realize what their weaknesses are and turn to God for help in overcoming them. So basically, Christians have premarital sex because they have the human sexual drive. The difference may be that some take measures to keep themselves away from the temptation, just as I do. In that way, I am strong in my weakness.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 2, 2007 16:14:22 GMT -5
So Caesar Agustus passed a law in 17 BCE called the Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis outlawing Adultery. Amazing that he figure that out all by himself without Jesus.
Why do you think St. Paul is particularly profound?
He was just a conservative justifying the social norms of his time.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 2, 2007 16:42:18 GMT -5
So Caesar Agustus passed a law in 17 BCE called the Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis outlawing Adultery. Amazing that he figure that out all by himself without Jesus. Why do you think St. Paul is particularly profound? He was just a conservative justifying the social norms of his time. Do you purposely leave openings so that we can continue the discussion? Exodus 20:14 - You shall not commit adultery. Written well before Caesar Augustus. Oh, and Caesar Augustus' law was rather sexist, wouldn't you say? He must have had a woman cheat on him a time or two Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis: Made adultery, on the part of a woman, a severe crime, punishable by exile - Augustus even banished his own daughter, Julia, for adultery. It also made it mandatory for a husband to prosecute his wife, if he knew of any adultery. What of the man? I guess it was OK for him to shag whoever he wanted. See, Bible doesn't exclude by sex. As for Paul...well, see, there's this thing about the belief of the infallibility of the Bible...so most of us tend not to ignore based on whether it "sounds right" or not.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 3, 2007 9:46:58 GMT -5
So Caesar Augustus passed a law in 17 BCE called the Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis outlawing Adultery. Amazing that he figure that out all by himself without Jesus. Why do you think St. Paul is particularly profound? He was just a conservative justifying the social norms of his time. Do you purposely leave openings so that we can continue the discussion? Exodus 20:14 - You shall not commit adultery. Written well before Caesar Augustus. Oh, and Caesar Augustus' law was rather sexist, wouldn't you say? He must have had a woman cheat on him a time or two Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis: Made adultery, on the part of a woman, a severe crime, punishable by exile - Augustus even banished his own daughter, Julia, for adultery. It also made it mandatory for a husband to prosecute his wife, if he knew of any adultery. What of the man? I guess it was OK for him to shag whoever he wanted. See, Bible doesn't exclude by sex. As for Paul...well, see, there's this thing about the belief of the infallibility of the Bible...so most of us tend not to ignore based on whether it "sounds right" or not. Sure, but The Code of Hammurabi is older than Exodus and it condemns adultery too. My question is why you think Paul is particularly profound. None of these examples represent adultery as we understand it in America today. Paul probably didn't consider having sex with a slave girl adultery. You know there is a lot of "evidence" that Augustus was a god. A man-god like Jesus. There were temples built to him and he is supposed to have been a descendant from Venus. Why do you dismiss the Augustus claim for godhood and accept that of Jesus? What system do you use to determine the merits of the two claims? It's OK to say you use Christianity as the measure.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 11:57:44 GMT -5
Acceptable. I merely wanted to show you that you made a statement that seemed to indicate that Caesar Augustus was the "originator". We can agree that just because the same belief is used earlier does not really prove anything. Without digging further into it, we might assume that the Code of Hammurabi predates them all. It does not lessen the validity of the Ten Commandments just because it (COH) came before Exodus. As far as Augustus being a god? Well, don't know too many who claim it today so we'll just discount him. Doesn't seem that his ability to be a influential deity continued throughout the rest of history . "Probably" doesn't cut the mustard. There is no evidence that suggests this so your "probably" is ignored. And I didn't say that Paul was profound -- I merely accept that he is the continuance of what Jesus had started with his life on earth and a further example of how Christians should live. I accept the deity of Jesus because of my personal conversion by faith through grace. 'Nuff said. As far as Augustus, well, remember that Janet Jackson song: "What Have You Done for Me Lately". EDIT: Here's reason enough for me to not recognize the deity of Augustus: Augustus' personal life, on the other hand, was a series of disappointments & disasters. He had no son & his only daughter's sons all died before him. So, he was forced to adopt his wife's son, Tiberius, whom he disliked. In public Augustus posed as champion of traditional family values; but the intrigues & scandalous behavior of his own family, including his wife, daughter & their children produced one of history's most lurid soap operas, complete with the murder of kin, public debauchery & incest.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 3, 2007 16:11:15 GMT -5
Acceptable. I merely wanted to show you that you made a statement that seemed to indicate that Caesar Augustus was the "originator". We can agree that just because the same belief is used earlier does not really prove anything. Without digging further into it, we might assume that the Code of Hammurabi predates them all. It does not lessen the validity of the Ten Commandments just because it (COH) came before Exodus. As far as Augustus being a god? Well, don't know too many who claim it today so we'll just discount him. Doesn't seem that his ability to be a influential deity continued throughout the rest of history . "Probably" doesn't cut the mustard. There is no evidence that suggests this so your "probably" is ignored. And I didn't say that Paul was profound -- I merely accept that he is the continuance of what Jesus had started with his life on earth and a further example of how Christians should live. I accept the deity of Jesus because of my personal conversion by faith through grace. 'Nuff said. As far as Augustus, well, remember that Janet Jackson song: "What Have You Done for Me Lately". EDIT: Here's reason enough for me to not recognize the deity of Augustus: Augustus' personal life, on the other hand, was a series of disappointments & disasters. He had no son & his only daughter's sons all died before him. So, he was forced to adopt his wife's son, Tiberius, whom he disliked. In public Augustus posed as champion of traditional family values; but the intrigues & scandalous behavior of his own family, including his wife, daughter & their children produced one of history's most lurid soap operas, complete with the murder of kin, public debauchery & incest. You're compairing everything to Christianity. Maybe Agustus was a differnt kind of god. If you worshipped Caesar and I was asking why you didn't worship Jesus you'd be saying because he was some peasant and your god ruled an empire. Also as far as standing the test of time, what about Krishna. He was around before Jesus. Your assumption that Paul had 20th century ethics is less credible than my guess that he would have assumed sex with a slave girl didn't count as adultrey. You're a presuppositionalistt. You start from your assumption that Christianity is right and work from there. That's fine but it's totally subjective.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 3, 2007 18:32:26 GMT -5
Not necessarily saying Paul had 20th century ethics. In fact, if we all did as Paul said, it would be wrong for women to cut their hair short. Some Christians would contend that this is still the case. Yeah, I know...sometimes we do look at the culture and make adjustments. But much of what even Paul talks about is not classified as a sin, but more of a way of honor and, as you said, a part of the culture. One of the funniest things about the portraits of Jesus (which are most assuredly inaccurate) is that he always has long hair. Yet Paul spoke against long hair on a man. So yeah, we do make cultural adjustments as Paul was speaking to the people of the time. However, morality is not quite the same IMO. There are some things that have been part of human nature since man was created. One is lust -- David looked on Bathsheba bathing below, today he might have seen her via webcam!! But lust is still lust, adultery still adultery. As far as your statement about adultery and a slave girl -- there still is no indication that this is even remotely suggested. Not in the KJV which was translated when slavery was still very real, nor in any of the original manuscripts. Yeah, and I ran across this too The definition of atheism in its broadest form as the absence of belief in God has important implications with respect to who holds the burden of proof. If one makes a positive assertion, then the obligation is on that person to present to evidence for his case. Some theists, hoping to cover the weakness of the positive case for God's existence tried to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist. By defining atheism as a rival belief to theism-i.e. the belief that there is no God or gods-they then argue that if the atheist cannot provide positive proof that God (or any type of supernatural first cause) does not exist then they are in no better position than theist. Indeed it is even claimed that being an atheist requires even more faith than a theist since the former has to believe he knows everything before he can know for certain that God does not exist. In essence, that was my approach in the other thread about Christianity. I can understand the reason behind this except one very important exception: why do I need to prove the reality of God? I can tell you what I know and, according to my faith and God's Word, the rest is up to Him. In other words, even my faith tells me I don't have to prove anything. This has never been shown to be the case anywhere in scripture. In fact Luke 27:16-21 - "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house -- for I have five brothers -- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'" Mose and the Prophets are represented to us in the Bible, so the advice remains the same. We can also hear His word preached and taught. So as you see, it was the rich man's decision not to believe.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 4, 2007 20:26:09 GMT -5
See the "when did girls start dancing like this?" thread for your answer.
|
|