abortion

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Christians existed before the Bible was officially ratified by the Church (you know that).

One can be illiterate and still a Christian (most were until the last century). One need never (gasp!) have read the so-called Word of God!

I think Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Christ, which are not necessarily the teachings of Paul.

What was the source of Paul's authority?

Yes. Read the book of Acts and find out what happened when the Holy Spirit came down. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would come. The Holy Spirit inspired the writtings of Paul. I hope you realise that Christ and the Holy Spirit are both part of the trinity. So for you to say that beliving in the Entire Bible does not make you a Christian is absurd, unless of course you can point out where the words of Christ and the writings of Paul contradict each other.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That's another of your distortions .. I told you that by the time I got halfway through reading Joshua it was clear that The OT was not God inspired.
And told you to seek the word of the kingdom. which you wont find in the OT.

Jeez ,,, dj do you take EVERYTHING as literal ??????????

So let me repeat my question: Where do the words of Christ and the words of Paul contradict each other?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So let me repeat my question: Where do the words of Christ and the words of Paul contradict each other?

We been through all that before ,, you chose to take Pauls words over Christ's.

Originally posted by frogstomp
First you concedethe laws are only religion based.
and then you say it's used as an excuse to to forbid laws I don't like.
I don't like any laws that violate separation of church and state, maybe that's because I ...[text shortened]... hat religious values they themselves are going to follow.

A couple of points please, just the other day someone was saying
they didn't understand what I meant, they changed the words of
my text and left out everything else I wrote and they said that they
could not grasp my meaning. So I want to ask you for something
so we can grasp the meaning, in context.

"Church and state", put that in context from our constitution so we
can see how it should be applied in law, so we can see the protections
and know who is protected from whom. I want to see those words in
the context they are used, then we can talk about them. If you cannot
put those words into context than they can mean anything anyone
wants (judges included), at any time they want to use them, because
they are without context.

I normally avoid with a passion when in discussions like this bringing
up God or scripture for two reasons. Most of the time the people I am
talking to do not follow God or scripture, so even if I were to tell you
the Word of God says this and gave it to you in proper context to
prove my point it is worthless, unless you have by your free will bound
yourself to follow God and scripture so that those Words can be used
as a guide for your life. If you are not one of God's followers why would
you care what the scripture says? The second reason, almost 90%
of the time, it will not be me to bring God into conversations it will
always be the other guy, it is as if I cannot have a an idea without
them bringing up my religious faith.

I also believe that laws will not stop abortions; it is the hearts and
minds of those involved I want to reach, yet I get accused of
attempting of changing the laws if I speak my views on abortion. I do
just want to change the minds of those that may read my posts.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If you take three seconds to google "Pauline theology" your first hit will be this scholarly article--PAULINE THEOLOGY, the Origins of Christianity AND The Challenge of Q. A Personal journey. (Published in L.Padovese (ed.), Atti del V S ...[text shortened]... that has reigned in Christian theology since the Enlightenment.

I dislike answers like you just gave as much as you do when you
asked a Christian to prove his point and s/he just points to a web
page, or when their whole points is anothers work.

If there is an issue, give them and your reasons why, who cares
what some joe blow thinks on thier web page. WE are the ones here
making points, if we get questioned on what we mean we should
be able to give our thoughts on why we mean what we mean. A
web page may of course be added for extra reading, but is sucks
if that is all you can, or want to do. Just go somewhere else and read
someone elses work.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
If you think you are agreeing with me you are frightfully wrong. since the 6000 year time is approximately around the time that the Sumerian civilization started, Man had been around for quite sometime before that.
and if all i had to go on was Paul not considering paganism a religion I would have to rethink my ...[text shortened]... nclusion.

the genesis quote is just putting a religious spin on a natural process.

You believe we have been here longer, your faith about the past.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I dislike answers like you just gave as much as you do when you
asked a Christian to prove his point and s/he just points to a web
page, or when their whole points is anothers work.

If there is an issue, give them and your reasons why, who cares
what some joe blow thinks on thier web page. [b]WE are the ones here
making points, if we get question ...[text shortened]... that is all you can, or want to do. Just go somewhere else and read
someone elses work.
Kelly[/b]

There is a key difference. I read the article I referred to, and I offered my own synopsis, not a copy and paste hack job. What I did was scholarship, although superficial.

Reading, whether posts by KellyJay, published articles and books--some in cyberspace, and websites, and talking to people who know things that I don't are how I gain knowledge. No one's work is entirely his or her own.

Nevertheless, I see why you might take offense. I should have elucidated Petros Vassiliadis's argument in greater detail.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There is a key difference. I read the article I referred to, and I offered my own synopsis, not a copy and paste hack job. What I did was scholarship, although superficial.

Reading, whether posts by KellyJay, published articles and books--some in cyberspace, and websites, and talking to people who know things that I don't are how I gain knowledge. No one ...[text shortened]... u might take offense. I should have elucidated Petros Vassiliadis's argument in greater detail.

Thanks, are you going to give it in greater detail? 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A couple of points please, just the other day someone was saying
they didn't understand what I meant, they changed the words of
my text and left out everything else I wrote and they said that they
could not grasp my meaning. So I want ...[text shortened]... want to change the minds of those that may read my posts.
Kelly

This is the Law

from amendment 1 of the US constitution
".....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....."

a law based solely on somebody's religious view is in violation of that,

and the 14th covers the State governments:
Amendment XIV

"Section 1....... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."

I redacted some from both to keep it absolutely clear what the standard is.

Originally posted by frogstomp
This is the Law

from amendment 1 of the US constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; a law based solely on somebody's religious view is in violation of that,

and the 14th covers the State governments:
Amendment XIV

Section 1....... No sta ...[text shortened]... es;

I redacted some from both to keep it absolutely clear what the standard is.

Okay, but I cannot find a couple of words I thought we were talking
about! I see that Congress is limited from establishing a religion,
but where are the words, "separation of church and state?" Not being
able to establish a religion is different than making sure there is no
evidence of any religion within a school, but the words that I do not
see "separation of church and state" are used for that purpose. I don't
see them do you? I do not see the words "separation of church state"
in either amendment, do you? So I guess they are not there, what is
here in this country is a term that has no context in the constitution
yet is being used to remove all evidence of religion everywhere, it
cannot be questioned when those words are used, because they are
not in context anywhere.

This is a separate question than abortion too, can we discuss it without
worrying about me trying to change the law of the land, since I’m not
in Congress?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, but I cannot find a couple of words I thought we were talking
about! I see that Congress is limited from establishing a religion,
but where are the words, "separation of church and state?" Not being
able to establish a religion is different than making sure there is no
evidence of any religion within a school, but the words that I do not
see " ...[text shortened]... ut
worrying about me trying to change the law of the land, since I’m not
in Congress?
Kelly

Kelly read what you just wrote.
you dont see the word "separation of chuch and state" ,,of course you don't , but apparently you don't see ",,,shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

I'm trying to be respectful Kelly, but that post of your's is a bit on the absurd side.
Your opinion on abortion isnt really the issue , and you know it,,,its the attempt to make that particular religious tenet into Law that you arguing for,
,as for the rest of your post the State has no constitutional authority to teach, enforce or in any way be involved with religion..
And that's the cornerstone of freedom of religion.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Kelly read what you just wrote.
you dont see the word "separation of chuch and state" ,,of course you don't , but apparently you don't see ",,,shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohi ...[text shortened]... ligion..
And that's the cornerstone of freedom of religion.

Like my intent you are reading more into something than what is really
there.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
If you continued beyond this point, I was unable to read it. The arrogance in your assumptions was so profound and far reaching that I was momentarily disabled.

My assumption that the Dali is human?

Originally posted by chinking58
My assumption that the Dali is human?

I assume you are human, but I have no earthy idea what is happening inside your heart and your head; I know only that it is frightening, deserving of pity, or that you are very young.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like my intent you are reading more into something than what is really
there.
Kelly

Any spin you try to put on it Kelly, it's still trying to establish a religious state. We had them before ask Martin Luther even John Calvin or any other religious guy that didn't agree with the State Religion... better still ask the Pilgrams or the old women Cotton Mather burnt at the stake.
Read a Mayan book or two...oops I forgot there's one that survived the book burning.
or more recently ask the Ayahtolla Komeini or the women in Taliban Afganistan.

The place to draw the line is not letting the government into religion or religion into the laws.