"Thou Shall Not Kill", then boom God destroys entire cities and floods the world. Then there's that old "Angel of Death" incident.

 

I already know the response. That's in the Old Testament. The New Testament supercedes the old.

 

There's actually a lot more than just the incidents you referenced. There are numerous times when God kills or instructs to kill.

 

My response is not the Old/New Testament argument, because I believe that is often misused/overused/overblown, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

My belief is that God is the Author & Creator of any living thing. He has chosen to take life away, sometimes in large numbers, for His purposes. A lot of time this was for punishment/justice purposes. God instructed Israel to form an army. Well, I can only think of one reason you form an army: to protect the homeland & in the process take lives.

 

The reason God instructed man not to take life is because all life belongs to Him. The New Testament will later say to mankind, "You are not your own."

 

Personally speaking, I too have questions about why God instructed killing on certain occasions--particularly those that involved children. Nation cleansing, I guess we might call it today. I truthfully & honestly do not understand why He did that. But this is why Isaiah 55: 8-9 have become two verses to which I often have to cling. God says there, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" (I'm paraphrasing).

 

It's like Augustine once said..."Once we fully understand God, He stops being God."

I tend to agree on this, though I fully acknowledge it is sometimes difficult to discern when the Bible is giving a permanent principle or teaching a temporary cultural lesson. For example, when it speaks of not eating meat sacrificed to idols, this is obviously a temporary lesson. But other times, it's not as easy to figure out whether it's a cultural thing or a permanent admonition.

 

From the way Paul writes, it seems obvious that this was a specific question posed by the Corinthians. But, I think it is a specific example of a more general point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians and in Romans that we should forsake our own rights if it causes someone else to stumble. In 1 Cor. 8:9 he says, "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak."

 

Also, in Rom. 15:1 Paul says, "We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves."

 

I believe Paul is addressing their direct question here and making a broader point in how we should live. I've always felt that the consumption of alcohol could be used as a modern example. I don't believe there is anything wrong with a person having a beer or a glass of wine or whatever, if it is done responsibly and not for the sake of getting wasted. However, there are many who believe one drink is wrong. I think in our world today Paul could just as easily write a letter today telling a believer to forsake their right to have a drink to prevent it from becoming a stumbling block for someone else. I'm sure there are numerous other applications of this principle.

From the way Paul writes, it seems obvious that this was a specific question posed by the Corinthians. But, I think it is a specific example of a more general point that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians and in Romans that we should forsake our own rights if it causes someone else to stumble. In 1 Cor. 8:9 he says, "But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak."

 

Also, in Rom. 15:1 Paul says, "We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves."

 

I believe Paul is addressing their direct question here and making a broader point in how we should live. I've always felt that the consumption of alcohol could be used as a modern example. I don't believe there is anything wrong with a person having a beer or a glass of wine or whatever, if it is done responsibly and not for the sake of getting wasted. However, there are many who believe one drink is wrong. I think in our world today Paul could just as easily write a letter today telling a believer to forsake their right to have a drink to prevent it from becoming a stumbling block for someone else. I'm sure there are numerous other applications of this principle.

 

Good points.

 

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. I know it's there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

You're confused because you're trying to apply a teaching meant for the church to every aspect of life. Paul is merely stating God's intended structure for His church. It isn't applicable to our government and society. To try to extend it beyond that is an error.

 

^ It's from 1 Timothy in which St. Paul is writing directly to the leaders of the Church in Ephasus regarding the forms of worship and organization within the church. The epistle has little to no use outside of those areas and it's unfair to extrapolate it any further than that; this is the danger of removing Biblical passages from their context.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize what this was taken from. I haven't opened a bible in a few years.

Former, gonna look at one anytime soon? I can give some nice verses you can look at and ponder on.

Most of the opinions on this thread is why I don't to go to church anymore.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

 

Does this mean women cannot teach the children? Does this mean a woman cannot have an administrative position at a private catholic school? A woman is to stay quiet in church? Doesn't sound like Christianity.

Most of the opinions on this thread is why I don't to go to church anymore.

 

 

Does this mean women cannot teach the children? Does this mean a woman cannot have an administrative position at a private catholic school? A woman is to stay quiet in church? Doesn't sound like Christianity.

 

Getslow addressed this passage previously. It does not mean that women cannot teach...if anything, they are encouraged to do so. They are perfectly capable of, and are permitted to be administrators in schools. The vast majority of the teachers and principals in my diocese are women.

 

^ It's from 1 Timothy in which St. Paul is writing directly to the leaders of the Church in Ephasus regarding the forms of worship and organization within the church. The epistle has little to no use outside of those areas and it's unfair to extrapolate it any further than that; this is the danger of removing Biblical passages from their context.

^So what about shellfish? I'm sure none of you guys partake in the consumption of shellfish, right?

^So what about shellfish? I'm sure none of you guys partake in the consumption of shellfish, right?

 

This would go back to the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament argument, which you already established you don't necessarily accept. Still, in Hebrews 8:13 (Old Testament...to respond to your shellfish reference which is also an Old Testament passage, from Leviticus) it says, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." This was what I meant when I said that the new covenant, Christ's covenant, fulfills the first covenant and establishes a new one. By the establishment of the new covenant, Jesus "makes the first one obsolete", as was clearly established in the Old Testament itself.

A "Role?" or as a "leader?" the Church would suffer if not for women. The children ministry is hugely ran by women, Fellowships are ran by the women, Children's ministry most of the teachers are women, instruments and singers who help the worship leaders are women.

 

You have to refer back to scripture as a "role of leaders", usually these are men, but women can serve on panels inside the church. Paul tells us "women should be silent in Church and have no authority over men", but is he speaking to a certain group of ladies who were causing problems in the Church of Corinth?

 

Just for us we would no go to a Church with a woman as the preacher, its just a question of feeling the way I feel. But what if the man Preacher left the Church and no man stood up to take over and a women did?

 

Paul mentions ladies as his helpers many times. As Jesus was dying on the cross the men who followed hin ran and hid, the women never left him.

 

That is not Paul, but more likely one of his followers writing under his name.

 

Paul also tells us there is neither Male nor Female for we are all one in Christ.

Would you mind providing an example or two?

 

Genesis 1 and 2. Different stories of Creation.

Genesis 1 and 2. Different stories of Creation.

 

Genesis 1 explains the chronological sequence of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth, and Genesis 2 gives a more detailed explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth day of creation.

This would go back to the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament argument, which you already established you don't necessarily accept. Still, in Hebrews 8:13 (Old Testament...to respond to your shellfish reference which is also an Old Testament passage, from Leviticus) it says, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." This was what I meant when I said that the new covenant, Christ's covenant, fulfills the first covenant and establishes a new one. By the establishment of the new covenant, Jesus "makes the first one obsolete", as was clearly established in the Old Testament itself.

 

Sure sounds like picking and choosing to me. :idunno:

Sure sounds like picking and choosing to me. :idunno:

 

How so?

You have to consider style of writing. I personally do not believe that the Genesis 1 and 2 is meant to be taken as literal. I think it is written in a style to attack the pagan Gods at the time. I believe that is all true and divinly inspired but the syle of writing is quite intentional. "Hey egpytian, look I can take your sun God and place in here and there." "Hey pagans I can take your God of the water and determine where the oceans are placed."

 

Just because something is written in a specific style does not make it untrue.

 

Also, I think it is ridiculous to look at ages and ytears in order to determine whether or not things are real or contradictory. History is written from perspective and just because something is written differently, it does not mean that it is contradictory.