Jury rules against Westboro cultists

Referring to Pastor as clueless is not name calling -- it is fair comment and criticism.

And what "valid point" did he bring up?

His response to my point --- that you you can't take things in the bible out of context without looking at the entire context, both of the passage and within the era and time period it was written --- was to take two individual scripture passages completely out of context without any background info or context and then try and use it as his evidence.

Brilliant.

The fact that you are trying to support that nonsense only speaks to the fact that you don't like me, which is fine, I really don't care.

I will say it again -- when you take individual scripture passages out of context, both within in the scripture and the time frame with which they were written about -- you can make any point you want and find many contradictions.

But if you look at the entire bible as a whole and you understand the context with which it written and you read it in its entirety, there aren't nearly many contradictions or rationalizations as people -- both Christian and non-christian -- would have us believe.

 

So the Bible is only good for the context and time period it was written?

How do you feel about the Constitution?

 

It was good in the beginning but then went too far.

 

Zagoshe, I quoted the Bible's endorcement of slavery. The Bible is supposed to be the direct word from God. So, where in the Bible does it say that slavery really isn't acceptable?

Prove your point or we can continue to view you as someone that only flings mud. You really are an intellectual coward.

 

That's not at all what I said and you know it. I said if you want to go through the bible and pull random passages without context you can prove anything you want to prove.

And that's exactly what Pastor did - he pulled two scriptures out without providing the proper context of them and then acted as if he proved something other than my point, which is if you take scriptures out of context you can rationalize anything.

 

You've already proven my point. You pulled two scriptures out of context and clearly have no real understanding of them. You can call me all the names you want, I don't care, you have already lost this one regardless of how many you ways you shift your position or ask me to do your research for you.

Here is a quick cut and paste from the blog of a Minister.........

"Critics are correct that the Bible contains numerous references to slavery (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon), and many of these references imply an acceptance of the institution. The danger is that when Americans think of "slavery," they conjure up an image of whites enslaving Africans - the institution of slavery that our nation experienced. This is NOT the type of slavery referred to in the Scriptures.

The only sane, valid way to interpret and understand the Bible is the historical-grammatical method. You must understand the historical context of the Bible's references, determine the timeless principle, and go from there. The Bible's matter-of-fact or sympathetic references to slavery do not automatically mean a comprehensive and complete endorsement for all forms of slavery throughout all of time. Slavery in the Bible is mostly of the indentured servitude variety, and was almost always on a term basis - 7 years, 14 years, and so forth.

It is true that 18th century southern plantation owners used the Bible to excuse slavery and talk their slaves into submission, but this does not make their twisted interpretation valid. Permanent, race-based, comprehensive slavery is NOT endorsed by the Bible.

Most critics of the Bible who resort to the slavery argument probably know this, but they are serving an agenda that goes far beyond issues of racial justice and equality. They are not interested in condemning slavery so much as they are in undermining the Bible, and they will resort to whatever means necessary to do so - even distorting its meaning to make it stand for something it does not."

 

So, Biblically speaking, its OK to own someone as long as you put in term limits and don't make it race-based.

There you go, Pastor.

 

Putting them in traction won't solve anything. The only way those inbred fucknuts will stop is once they're six feet under and they become Satan's bitches.

 

some more quick research

http://www.amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdThread=Tx6Z7A6VIIZGG3&displayType=tagsDetail

 

There is nothing out of context about what you posted, because you quoted straight from the Bible. No argument there.

What needs to be mentioned, though, is the audience which is being written to. The Old Testament is entirely old, Jewish law. The points that are mentioned are not for the present-day church that follows the teachings of the new promise, which is Jesus. The old law was in effect for the entire time that Jesus was not on earth, and for the time after he died and resurrected. In effect, the Jewish law has no bearing or ruling on the lives of the present church.

I can't answer for the context it was written for the intended audience at the time it was written, because, well, I wasn't alive then. And I can't claim to know all of the theological answers. I just know Jesus.

 

No, no, no -- Just because something is cut and pasted directly from the text doesn't mean it isn't out of context.

For instance if an official manuscript read....

"Sheep is a slang word in certain parts of New Jersey in 2007 that means hot females
For instance, one might say Jennifer Lopez is a sheep.
There is also a message board poster named Pastor who likes to have sex with sheep."

And 100 years from now your great grandson cuts and paste only this part....

"There is also a message board poster named Pastor who likes to have sex with sheep."

Well, you would be factually correct, but that would be certainly be taken out of context and would also have a completely different meaning within its context than it does if it is taken out of it.

 

Not trying to pick a fight, honestly, but I'm genuinely interested:

If you pitch the Old Testament overboard as outdated law or incorrect history, where does that leave the Ten Commandments? Or Genesis and the Creation, for that matter? Don't you wind up selectively abandoning or discounting all of it?