Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

[quote pid='1109399' dateline='1447090346']
" Again, All I've done is take a full reading of what you have cut up and are now in full denial about again. "

all the verses i put in my comments i copy and pasted directly from the following website [/url][url=http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html]http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html
as you can see i did not add or subtract anything from the bible verses that were on the website you can see for yourself they are exactly as listed there what is in my comments. I trust this website far more than i trust any corrupted translation of verses that have questionable legitimacy to begin with

" The Law was divided up into three sections in the OT. Cermonial law, Communial (of which dietary laws were included) and Moral law. Moral law demanded a blood sacrifice and a turning of sin/repentance. Dietary concerns simply made one unclean for a few days. a cleaning cermony and quarrentine was all that was required to be absolved of those sins. "

how do you know any of that is true? just because a book says something is true doesnt make it true there are many different religions that have things written down in a book that doesnt mean that every religion is true . why do you think your religion is true why should anyone believe that its true ?
 
" Jesus' sacrifice Paid all that was owed.(completing the law) Meaning Jesus' work on the cross paid for the quarrentine time and the cleansiing cermony which means that no longer had to be done. In essence all food was made clean UNLESS you could not reconcile this truth with yourself, then it became a moral law violation.

With a Moral law violation Jesus paided the blood sacrifice part but the repentance is still due/something only you can do. So that means All Moral sin still require the sinner to turn from their sin "

how do you know any of that is even true and that jesus did that ?

" Again, being Homosexual has absolutely nothing to do with the identification of their sin. They are in sexual sin because they have sex (what Kind is irrelevant) outside the confines of a sanctified marriage, and Jesus did infact speak on/Against that. Their sin is sexual in nature, just like all other sexual sin. Meaning it is not unforgivable IF one repents of it, one will never repent if one can somehow make sin 'moral.' "

so sex within marriage is ok right? so again homosexual sex within sanctified marriage is fine , the fact that christian ministers perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples proves that not all christians agree with your interpretation of what does and does not constitute a " sanctified marriage ",so what proof do you have that your interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong ?
 
" Just because you want to pretend the bible is silent, does not mean the bible grants you permission. Because again ALL SEX OUTSIDE OF A SANCTIFIED MARRIAGE Is Still A SIN!!! Jesus Very Specifically said those people (People steeped in sexual sin) would NOT enter Heaven. This means two things, Homosexuals have always had the 'equality' they've been clammering for, in they are doomed to the same hell as all Heterosexual sexual sinners are, and at the same time have the same oppertuities to repentance as the rest of us do as well. "

why should anyone have respect for anything that is contained in this bible ? we dont know if its even true or not first determine that something is true and then if something is shown to be true and legitimate then there is value in studying it , what makes christianity more true than any other religion . what proof do you have that christianity is true ?  only after its established that something is true  can there be serious discussion about its details . but if its all a lie why would anyone be interested in studying a lie ?  noone is going to believe its true just because you say it is you dont believe greek mythology is true just because many people used to believe in it right or just because the myths were written in books

[/quote]
I asked you to do a couple of things for me before we can continue. I need to know you are indeed reading what I write TO YOU (It seems ironically enough you can read just fine what I write to other people)

[jenny1972]

[quote pid='1109399' dateline='1447090346']
" Again, All I've done is take a full reading of what you have cut up and are now in full denial about again. "

all the verses i put in my comments i copy and pasted directly from the following website [/url][url=http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html]http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html
as you can see i did not add or subtract anything from the bible verses that were on the website you can see for yourself they are exactly as listed there what is in my comments. I trust this website far more than i trust any corrupted translation of verses that have questionable legitimacy to begin with

" The Law was divided up into three sections in the OT. Cermonial law, Communial (of which dietary laws were included) and Moral law. Moral law demanded a blood sacrifice and a turning of sin/repentance. Dietary concerns simply made one unclean for a few days. a cleaning cermony and quarrentine was all that was required to be absolved of those sins. "

how do you know any of that is true? just because a book says something is true doesnt make it true there are many different religions that have things written down in a book that doesnt mean that every religion is true . why do you think your religion is true why should anyone believe that its true ?
 
" Jesus' sacrifice Paid all that was owed.(completing the law) Meaning Jesus' work on the cross paid for the quarrentine time and the cleansiing cermony which means that no longer had to be done. In essence all food was made clean UNLESS you could not reconcile this truth with yourself, then it became a moral law violation.

With a Moral law violation Jesus paided the blood sacrifice part but the repentance is still due/something only you can do. So that means All Moral sin still require the sinner to turn from their sin "

how do you know any of that is even true and that jesus did that ?

" Again, being Homosexual has absolutely nothing to do with the identification of their sin. They are in sexual sin because they have sex (what Kind is irrelevant) outside the confines of a sanctified marriage, and Jesus did infact speak on/Against that. Their sin is sexual in nature, just like all other sexual sin. Meaning it is not unforgivable IF one repents of it, one will never repent if one can somehow make sin 'moral.' "

so sex within marriage is ok right? so again homosexual sex within sanctified marriage is fine , the fact that christian ministers perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples proves that not all christians agree with your interpretation of what does and does not constitute a " sanctified marriage ",so what proof do you have that your interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong ?
 
" Just because you want to pretend the bible is silent, does not mean the bible grants you permission. Because again ALL SEX OUTSIDE OF A SANCTIFIED MARRIAGE Is Still A SIN!!! Jesus Very Specifically said those people (People steeped in sexual sin) would NOT enter Heaven. This means two things, Homosexuals have always had the 'equality' they've been clammering for, in they are doomed to the same hell as all Heterosexual sexual sinners are, and at the same time have the same oppertuities to repentance as the rest of us do as well. "

why should anyone have respect for anything that is contained in this bible ? we dont know if its even true or not first determine that something is true and then if something is shown to be true and legitimate then there is value in studying it , what makes christianity more true than any other religion . what proof do you have that christianity is true ?  only after its established that something is true  can there be serious discussion about its details . but if its all a lie why would anyone be interested in studying a lie ?  noone is going to believe its true just because you say it is you dont believe greek mythology is true just because many people used to believe in it right or just because the myths were written in books

I asked you to do a couple of things for me before we can continue. I need to know you are indeed reading what I write TO YOU (It seems ironically enough you can read just fine what I write to other people)
[/quote]

yes i read what you write to me and to other people also all you are doing is quoting a book that is yet to be shown to us to be true to begin with , but yes i do see your comments just fine

[Drich]

So in your intellectual mind, you think it is ok to dishonestly handle what people have said and done, just because you on some level can find offense?/It is ok to be intellectually dishonest if you do not respect an ideology... What about something you do respect? is it ok to be intellectually dishonest about something you do respect and are trying to protect?/do you also lie about things that support your position when you know they are wrong?

Let me ask you this.. When is it mandated that you only tell the truth? when do you check emotion at the door (what you want to be true) and let the simple truth speak for itself?

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through her lie unto his glory; why yet is she also judged as a sinner?

(Romans 3:7, Gal 2:9, Acts 15:7)

What you did is no different than what she was trying to do. Your 'question' is answered the same way hers is in Context Context Context.

Romans 3 in context:
7 Someone might say, “When I lie, it really gives God glory, because my lie makes his truth easier to see. So why am I judged a sinner?” 8 It would be the same to say, “We should do evil so that good will come.” Many people criticize us, saying that’s what we teach. They are wrong, and they should be condemned for saying that.
Do you understand this is not a good thing according to the context of Romans 3?

Gal 2:
6 Those men who were considered to be important did not change the Good News message I tell people. (It doesn’t matter to me if they were “important” or not. To God everyone is the same.) 7 But these leaders saw that God had given me a special work, the same as Peter. God gave Peter the work of telling the Good News to the Jews. But God gave me the work of telling the Good News to the non-Jewish people. 8 God gave Peter the power to work as an apostle for the Jewish people. God gave me the power to work as an apostle too, but for those who are not Jews. 9 James, Peter, and John seemed to be the leaders. And they saw that God had given me this special gift of ministry, so they accepted Barnabas and me. They said to us, “We agree that you should go to those who are not Jews, and we will go to the Jews.” 10 They asked us to do only one thing—to remember to help those who are poor. And this was something that I really wanted to do.

Here even in context i have no idea what you could possible be saying, because Paul was only endorsed by the 'leaders'/of the Original 12

acts 15:
6 Then the apostles and the elders gathered to study this problem. 7 After a long debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, I am sure you remember what happened in the early days. God chose me from among you to tell the Good News to those who are not Jewish. It was from me that they heard the Good News and believed. 8 God knows everyone, even their thoughts, and he accepted these non-Jewish people. He showed this to us by giving them the Holy Spirit the same as he did to us. 9 To God, those people are not different from us. When they believed, God made their hearts pure. 10 So now, why are you putting a heavy burden[a] around the necks of the non-Jewish followers of Jesus? Are you trying to make God angry? We and our fathers were not able to carry that burden. 11 No, we believe that we and these people will be saved the same way—by the grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Again so what?

It seems in you eagerness to throw out verses you forgot to look them up yourself. Romans 3 only 1/2 way reads in support of what you asked but when framed back in context, context, context we see that it is not a good thing.

[Minimalist]

"You guys don't know biblical Christianity and sound like hateful bigots!"
"Why's that?"
"Because you don't agree with my interpretation of the bible and don't treat it with the respect I demand!"

This whole thread presumes we should care about the bible.  I fail to see why.

Here's an Idea..
READ THE OP SPORT

We read it, drippy.  That's the problem.  If "paul" existed - a big fucking IF right there - and his work was not tampered with by later church fucks seeking to control varied populations - and there really is no "if" to that, at all - then all we would be left with is some crazy old coot who hallucinated some useless god and wrote it down.

[robvalue]

I can do that right now, if it would help.

"Ooh, I see a bunch of angels and God and he's telling me all this amazing shit. He says just be nice to each other and stop fucking around. But don't use the letter p anymore. Instant death for that one. Not even if you were to p

[Minimalist]

Sounds like Trump.

[jenny1972]

I can do that right now, if it would help.

"Ooh, I see a bunch of angels and God and he's telling me all this amazing shit. He says just be nice to each other and stop fucking around. But don't use the letter p anymore. Instant death for that one. Not even if you were to p

its not true rob unless you write it down in a book then drich will believe it nothing that is written in a book can be untrue so quick right it down

[Athene]

I didn't interpret it as such, but you'd have to ask her to be sure.

-Or we can simply look at the content and context of the Questions she asked, and her follow up.

I think it's been well established that we can look at and/or read the same thing and arrive at different conclusions. Not much say to beyond that. 
It's your thread. Think what you like.

[KevinM1]

"You guys don't know biblical Christianity and sound like hateful bigots!"
"Why's that?"
"Because you don't agree with my interpretation of the bible and don't treat it with the respect I demand!"

This whole thread presumes we should care about the bible.  I fail to see why.

Here's an Idea..
READ THE OP SPORT

I have.

Here's the thing: Christianity is not hard to decipher.  The bible has a shit ton of detail about lineages and whatnot, but the basic story is very simple -

Mankind is cursed with sin due to Adam and Eve engaging in the Original Sin.
God does stuff with the Jews, makes commandments, demands sacrifices, smites people, etc.
After a time, he decides to give humanity an out, so he sends himself (or, a portion of himself) down to live among the people and teach them the right way to live.
Cue: virgin birth, blah blah blah
Jesus performs some miracles, gains a following among the locals, and becomes a threat to Roman control of the area.  Claims to have fulfilled the old prophecies of the coming messiah, but, eh, let's agree to disagree.
He gets sold out by Judas, learns about it/already knew it would happen, has a crisis of conscious where he prays... to himself (lol), and lets himself be tortured and crucified to death.
In doing so, since he was the epitome of innocence and righteousness, his sacrifice magically gives the rest of humanity a way out of perpetual sin... so long as they believe that Jesus was actually the messiah, of course.
Jesus is resurrected three days later, does a quick farewell tour/victory lap, and rejoins himself (lol) in heaven.

You can quibble about the details all you want.  That's the crux of the story.  The blood price paid by Jesus saves humanity, who would otherwise all be sent to writhe and burn in the hell his Phase 2 form created earlier.

It's a story with a ton of problems.  Masturbating over the details of the story doesn't address those problems.  And because the problems are so systemic (you need to take the bible's word for, well, just about everything... sorry, no; holy backwards morality letting someone else take the fall for what may or may not be my flaws; etc.) and obvious, I cannot take the tale seriously.  Nor can many others.

So, to go back around to the beginning: why should I care about your attempt to educate me?  Is it going to fix all of the problems the core story has with:

Morality?
Biology?
Physics?

Likely not.

[Vincent]

I'll be honest: I don't fully understand the quoting system on this website yet and I was having a difficult time trying to address your post point-by-point with quotations as you did with mine. So to keep it simple and easy, I'm just going to address the main argument you were trying to present -

I even open my thread with why I am doing this study, and it's not because I am concerned about the status of your belief. My study is to inform you of biblical Christianity. So how is this NOT A "logical fallacy" Because Again I am not making any claim to the status of your belief, and therefore do not have to "prove" the Whole bible to you. My efforts here center around informing you 'good people' what bible based Christians believe. Why? because you 'good people' sound like a bunch of hate filled biggots arguing in circles about what you think Christianity is all about. when in fact most of you are completely wrong./Do not have the first clue about the Christianity described in the bible. That is why I started with the book of Romans. as It contains the foundations of biblical Christianity.

Alright, for argument's sake, I'll admit that I misunderstood your intention as written in the OP. So instead, let's go along with your "trying to inform us of what Christians believe" goal. There are two problems with this:

1) You are giving us YOUR interpretation of the Bible. YOUR personal interpretation which is no way an accurate representation of what the entire Christian faith believes. For example, when dealing with the topic of gays, at some point I read a post from you saying that homosexuality itself isn't the sin, but the sexual act outside of a marriage is. Many many many Christians would disagree with you on that. Many. Some Christians believe that any sexual act between a man and a man is immoral not because it is outside of a marriage, but because it is happening between a man and a man. And some Christians believe that just wanting to sleep with another guy is inherently a sin. You are trying to teach us "Drich's personal guide to the Bible" with the intention of us gaining an "understanding" of what Christians actually believe, but in doing so you are using your own viewpoints. So to say that the information you are giving us is what Christians actually believe is misleading, because it's really what Drich actually believes, and you are not a stand-in for everyone. 

2) You make the claim in your OP that atheists lack an understanding of what Christianity is and what Christians believe. Now, I am an atheist. Do you want to know what I believe about Christianity? I believe that it is the foolish worship of a nonexistent being based on an ancient and factually fallacious book that contains scientific impossibilities including (but not limited to): the denial of evolution, a virgin birth, a guy turning water into wine, a guy walking on water, and a guy ascending into the clouds. I believe that it has spawned so much discrimination and ignorance throughout the years (i.e. sexism, homophobia, justification of slavery, denial of evolution), that it is not worth having in our society. Especially when we know that people can behave just fine without it. 

This is what I believe about Christianity and the Bible. 

You say I don't "understand" Christianity. Well, I'll admit again: I haven't read the entire Bible. But those things that I listed, do you or do you not believe in them? And the negative effects of your religion, are they or are they not factually correct? Has Christianity not caused sexism, the subjugation of women? Has it not been a leading cause of prejudice against homosexuals? Was it not used and quoted during the 1800's as a way to defend slavery as a moral institution? And was the Bible not held up as a reason to deny evolution (and is still used as such in some areas today)? 

So, then, in what way am I "not understanding"? In what way am I misrepresenting your faith in my dislike for it? 

The only way you can prove that my understanding is wrong is by either proving to me that Christianity is not responsible for the things I have said it has been responsible for (which will be virtually impossible), or by proving to me that the things that happened in your book actually happened. That the book is true. This Paul and Romans crap really ain't proving that my understanding of your religion is wrong in any way whatsoever. 

And sorry for my late reply. I've had nine hour shifts the past couple days and I didn't have the time/motivation to sit down and write an entire reply to your post.