Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you understand what you mean. When I read the lotus sutra, I always keep context in mind.
I find it much safer to assume that anyone doesn't. If being a hisotry major has taught me anything, its that history is always taken out of context, and its taken out of context differently in every period.
I find it much more intellecutally satisfying to form shortlived versions. You can easily change them, dispense them if necessary. If gives you a great power of transformation and flexibility.
Of course some things written in the past still have pertinence today, but I'd be extremely skeptical of anything.
Its annoying to listen to people banter back and forth on "this text is right" or "this text is right".
If you're looking for truth, you're going to have to take into acount all information possible, with rational exclusions of course.
Truth is not going to be found in a book.
Originally posted by Alliance
I find it much safer to assume that anyone doesn't. If being a hisotry major has taught me anything, its that history is always taken out of context, and its taken out of context differently in every period.I find it much more intellecutally satisfying to form shortlived versions. You can easily change them, dispense them if necessary. If gives you a great power of transformation and flexibility.
Of course some things written in the past still have pertinence today, but I'd be extremely skeptical of anything.
Its annoying to listen to people banter back and forth on "this text is right" or "this text is right".
If you're looking for truth, you're going to have to take into acount all information possible, with rational exclusions of course.
Truth is not going to be found in a book.
I had a funny typo on my post you quoted; I meant to say "I think I understand what you mean.". 😆
Originally posted by debbiejo
Yeah Paul was a deluded person..........yet I don't hate him.
* calling him a heretic almost everytime means you don't hate him?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Can't quite remember at this moment.......but Jesus didn't preach about homosexuality did he?Only this moment.......Hmm sounds like a song ..........
* not directly... in Matthew 10:27-28, even homosexuals can be in this category...
Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah its nice that it was put there to make sure that literalists never deviated from doctrine again and that the supposed purities of the Church hierarchy was maintained as a system of ultimateloyalty."neutral" 😆
You can run around all day trying to figure out what someone meant in poorly recorded texts thousand os years ago and then spin yourself in circles trying to create a "literal" interpretation of it, but at the end of th day you will only find a biased interpretation of reality trapped in a box.
Its better to live with the inescapeable bias outside of the box.
* maybe you didn't read the thread topic, "On Homosexuality & Religion" or even the type of forum, "Religion Forum"... can't blame myself, can i?
* "outside of the box" 😆
* you can run all day and see several (so-called) "christian" sects and denominations spewing that their group is of-God and they are in accord with the Bible... but majority of them rejects homosexuals and condemns them to hell... the verse I Corinthians 6:9-11 is a living witness that these groups are not what they preach... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd
* you can run all day and see several (so-called) "christian" sects and denominations spewing that their group is of-God and they are in accord with the Bible... but majority of them rejects homosexuals and condemns them to hell... the verse I Corinthians 6:9-11 is a living witness that these groups are not what they preach... 😉
Yeah. Some religious cults have moved from the "they are just sinners and should be killed" philosophy to the "maybe if they pray hard enough, they can become 'normal'" philosophy, just like most religious sects sects did with blacks.
Fist they are worthless and should be enslaved. Then we can thank the good clergy for trying to turn them white through prayer.
Now you need to move to the next step and accept homosexuality as normal.
Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah. Some religious cults have moved from the "they are just sinners and should be killed" philosophy to the "maybe if they pray hard enough, they can become 'normal'" philosophy, just like most religious sects sects did with blacks.Fist they are worthless and should be enslaved. Then we can thank the good clergy for trying to turn them white through prayer.
Now you need to move to the next step and accept homosexuality as normal.
Do you have anything useful to say, or are you about done here?
Originally posted by peejayd
calling him a heretic almost everytime means you don't hate him?
Since when has the prerequisite for calling someone a heretic been that you hate the person? I mean in a simple sense a Heretic was simply someone misguided, or who thought wrong.
Granted, I think the whole heresy business was a load of tosh, but I don't believe one has to hate a person in order to use the word about them.
Originally posted by peejaydNo, I just call it like I see it...Paul was a heretic. It's just like a baptist going into a Catholic church to preach..or vise versa. He taught differently then what Jesus taught.
* that's just an intro... and there's more from where it came from... that's why i deducted she really hates Saint Paul... or maybe we should just wait for her response... 😉
Though I think the church would be better off without him.
Originally posted by ska57
What ever happened to FeceMan's "most hated" list?
Ah, Carnage2006, how I miss you.
Originally posted by debbiejo
No, I just call it like I see it...Paul was a heretic. It's just like a baptist going into a Catholic church to preach..or vise versa. He taught differently then what Jesus taught.Though I think the church would be better off without him.
* maybe you're just confused, my friend... Saint Paul never taught anything different from what Jesus taught... the big misinterpretation lies as to whom they are preaching to... Jesus preached mainly to the unbelievers/non-believers... whilst Saint Paul's epistles are for the brethren inside the Church... 😉