Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Some kind of put-on? Come back and explain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Apart from the fact that Jesus was no such thing, it's so odd that anyone would claim Communism, or socialism either, is in favor of equality, unless of course that means equality of poverty for the masses and extravagant wealth for the bosses. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What utter nonsense.What you are describing is just the ordinary charity of the church in helping to support others in dire need.Jesus didn't live in a commune. He said He had "no place to lay My head."There was one time later, after His crucifixion, when the church pooled all their goods. One time. Not the norm.The parable of the talents is rather a capitalist example it seems to me: each being provided with an original stake and expected to invest it to increase its value.You need to stop reading your liberal commentaries.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have no idea what weird theology you subscribe to but that long post taking me to task about Acts 15 for some incomprehensible reason quotes me saying things that most Protestants say about that council: the point was to resolve issues raised by Jews about Gentiles not obeying their laws, specifically circumcision; and they eventually decided only to require them to obey the laws Jews would find most offensive if disobeyed. This was asked of them not because it was necessary -- the Gentiles had every right not to obey any of it -- but to show respect for their Jewish brethren -- on the basis of the "Law of Love" rather than the strict law of the Jews. The passage shows that it is not wrong for believers in Christ to obey the Jewish laws and also not wrong not to obey them at all. It's all easily findable in Protestant commentaries online. I said pretty much the same thing in both of those quotes you post of what I said.It logically follows that when the Church became predominantly Gentile that there would no longer be any reason to obey the laws the council asked of them, and as a matter of history those laws were dropped.Again, I have no idea what yhou are complaining about. What I said is standard Protestant understanding of that council. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What is a "Roman Empire Christian" anyway?I'm a strong Reformation Protestant. What are you?

You did quote a bishop some time ago as having the same views you have, but if you do just get your wacko readings of the Bible on your own, that would make sense. We need preachers and teachers to get it right and you are a poster child for how wrong it's possible to be.ABE: There is safety in a multitude of counselors says the Bible. Trusting yourself alone to get anything right is sheer foolishness. The more commentaries you read the better able you are to sort out the truth from the errors. The Bible also requires "two or more witnesses" to determine the truth of any claim, usually criminal claim, but the principle applies in general. Loners are not to be trusted. (And that is certainly one strong reason to recognize Mohammed as a false prophet by the way)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Only a total idiot would think he's the only one who can read the Bible correctly. An arrogant total idiot. And as soon as anyone, you or that bishop, gives an opinion about what it says, that makes you or him, a "commentator" or an apologist. Duh. We still have to choose between different interpretations of what it says. My choices are quite consistent back through the Reformers down to the Church Fathers, ignoring a lot of the RCC but following dissident groups. I'd bet you can't trace your own interpretation back more than a few decades if that.I also think this thread has proved many times the truth of the title. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as "says what it says." What you think it says is your interpretation. And yours is more wrongheaded than anything I've seen. You don't know how to read at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even within a "sect" there are many different viewpoints, and I don't confine myself to Reformed believers, I read a whole range of commentaries including from some "sects" I would only join if all the others were nuked off the planet.

I learn something new every time I read a commentary and certainly every time I read the Bible. Maybe I'm just not as dishonest as you.

What would be the fun of that?

It's absolutely certain that YOU can't read it accurately so like it or not you have interpretations and in fact the worst possible interpretations.I can't remember one thing you've ever said about what the Bible says that is true.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that's as clear as pea soup.ABE: Did you mean my mention of Protestants as an argument from authority? If so it wasn't. It's a way of saying I'm a Protestant, my sources are Protestant, I think like a Protestant, I don't get this "Roman Empire Christian" nonsense.For the rest I just don't understand what point you are trying to make, as usual. Seems to me I already covered the decision by the council to limit the burden on the Gentiles.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.