Posted on 05/10/2006 6:28:01 AM PDT by bondjamesbond
I don't think so.
The Bible is a library. Each book was written independently. To say that Revelation, which was written on the Isle of Patmos, prohibits changing the words of other books of the Bible is to add words to the book of Revelation. If this phrase was in the original writing, it didn't apply to any other book. If added when Revelation was included in the Canon, it was violated.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6. If you read down, long hair is considered a covering. But an uncovered woman with short hair is not allowed, and neither is long hair for a man. And I sure hope you don't have any female leaders in your church, because women are supposed to be submissive to the male leaders of the church.
It's not OT, so the out of "We don't have to follow those rules anymore" doesn't exist.
>> Someone who thinks that anyone disgreeing with him is "attacking" him, for starters.
> And who would that be?
Anybody who would respond to: "And I bet you slam the door in the face of every Mormon, Jehovah Witness, and every other person of faith that visits your home."
With: "Why do you attack me?"
Notice that you didn't refute "Lunatic Fringe's" bet.
And exactly how are these contrary to conservatism? They're at the heart of conservatism. It's liberals who betray the ideals of equality, love, compassion, tolerance, and peace. Time and time again.
By the way, Jesus was also big on intolerance. Tolerating evil, after all, isn't tolerance, it's just apathy.
Jesus dared to say that no one could come to the Father but through HIM. He also called religious leaders of the day "slimy snakes," smacked people around in the temple, told some it would be better for them on the day of judgment if they had millstones wrapped around their necks and were tossed into a lake, talked about evil, called some "dogs," and so on. But I suspect you know all this.
I believe it has been taken to mean that the Bible (as a collection of books) comprises a single entity and is not to be changed.
>>This is Andrew Sullivan's problem, not mine.
Let's just get that put away from the very start.<<
Its a shame you post this part but this is exactly the sort of thread that gets out of time.
> My logic is faultless.
No, it isn't. A group that adds new books to the bible (see: "Mormon") may not be "Christians" afterwards, btut hat's not the same as declarign them "cultists."
Note that Protestants and Catholics have somewhat different Bibles. That means someone there is a cult, by your "faultless" logic.
Your stance would imply that the Bible is a living document that can be added to or deleted from at will.
I reject that.
Well, gee...
Mormons believed that God The Father physically impregnated Mary.
That changes one of the basic tenents of Christianity (Immaculate conception).
That is the hallmark of a cult.
Nice try.
>> The First Amendment is *explicitly* non-Christian.
> Really?
Really. The first amendment allows anyone to worship as they please... they can even make a graven image if they so choose. This goes against several Commandments.
> why the atheists are working so hard to infringe on the free exercise of Christians.
I'm sorry... when are the atheists bursting into your church and tackling the preacher? Or shutting down religious cable channels? Or taking Bibles out of your home?
More martyr-mongering.
> When the atheists implement a system, the first thing they do is stamp out the Christians.
Never happened. Atheists rarely attain any sort of power whatsoever. Perhaps you are thinkign of the Communists, who were about as atheist as *you* are. They simply replaced a supernatural God with a "historical dialectic" god and a State-god.
> If it is any other non-Christian philosophy, show me one of the major religious movements in the world that tolerates individual free will as Christianity does.
Buddhism springs immediately to mind.
> Any other belief system seeks to dominate.
Sigh. Strap on those blinders a little tighter.
Your belief is illogical... but you are entitled to it.
> That changes one of the basic tenents of Christianity (Immaculate conception).
> That is the hallmark of a cult.
Again you persist in the faulty belief that a religion that has different tennets than yours is a "cult."
No. I believe in what the Bible says to be true.
All beliefs and religions are not of equal veracity or value.
On topic:
Andy's main problem with "Christianists" is that they won't be good little boys and girls and agree with him that Paul didn't really mean what he wrote about the buttsex. And they aren't likely to anytime soon, if ever. And that comparing them to the nutters with the Koran in one hand and the detonator button in the other on that basis is, if anything, going to make it even more unlikely than before.
Uh... no. You infer too much. Who am I to alter God's Word? That also means that I can't give my own meaning to His Word as many Protestant denominations have done (and not just with this phrase).
Again, logically... if the Book of Revelation was written on the Isle of Patmos before there was a Canon of the Bible (and it was), then EITHER:
1. The phrase was written to apply to its own writings
or
2. It was violated when added by those who compiled the Canon.
Simple logic.
If this is not a personal attack then what is it?
With: "Why do you attack me?"
Notice that you didn't refute "Lunatic Fringe's" bet.
And you didn't bother to read and notice that I was not fully quoted in the original post where I said:
"If my neighbor is hopping and skipping his/her way toward Hell, I am compelled by my faith to try and make them see the error of their ways in a compassionate way WITHOUT beating them over the head with my faith.
Where are these people who are "incessantly evangelized?" I've never heard of such a thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.