My question was not qualified. And the "qualifying" you cite from the scripture is not an exception, but an additional description of some of the things that are lawful. If something is not advisable ("expedient" and "edify" are used in the KJV), it does not make it unlawful.
I'm not doing that. If the Bible makes a statement in one place, and it says something different elsewhere, I do not ignore it. You make one or the other say something other than what it says. I see them both for what they say, and see a contradiction. I do not twist scriptures. You do.
Says logic.
No.
I don't have to bet my life on any such thing. I simply live my life, to the best of my ability. If you're going to bring Pascal's Wager into it, you must follow every religion ever invented, just in case!
Timmy, how would a Catholic answer your question?
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Anyone who speaks English and understands very simple logic would answer the first one "no" and the second one "yes", whether Catholic or not. I think. Why do you ask?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
By the way, anyone who holds the Bible to be infallible and true has the same problem Byrd is struggling with. They read that "all things are lawful" scripture, and do some fancy footwork to make it look true, too. Some do a little better job, I think, but still fall short, logically. This and other "apparent" contradictions are the main reason some believers think they have to reject logic. They have to invent things like "God's logic" or "the logic of faith". So, I sympathize, I really do.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Anyone who speaks English and understands very simple logic would answer the first one "no" and the second one "yes", whether Catholic or not. I think. Why do you ask?
Not that question. The one on which scriptures to use.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
By the way, anyone who holds the Bible to be infallible and true has the same problem Byrd is struggling with. They read that "all things are lawful" scripture, and do some fancy footwork to make it look true, too. Some do a little better job, I think, but still fall short, logically. This and other "apparent" contradictions are the main reason some believers think they have to reject logic. They have to invent things like "God's logic" or "the logic of faith". So, I sympathize, I really do.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
...
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
It seems hard to believe that Paul meant murder was acceptable when he wrote that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God only a few verses before...
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Not that question. The one on which scriptures to use.
Oh! Back on topic!
Well, I guess they'd include the Apocrypha, but I understand they ascribe some kind of lower level of inspiration to those books. Been a while since I've read about that.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
It seems hard to believe that Paul meant murder was acceptable when he wrote that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God only a few verses before...
Yeah, I agree. It's weird, though. Why did he make such a statement? It's quite feasible that he didn't intend it to be taken literally, I fully admit. But what is the intended non-literal meaning? How does it make any sense? And there are so many things in that boat, in the entire Bible, that we have to wonder, is anything intended literally? Life after death? Heaven? Hell? Salvation instructions (and which ones)?
And maybe he really did mean everything was lawful for him, Paul. He had a pretty high opinion of himself, after all. As a self-proclaimed apostle, maybe he actually thought he could do no wrong. Well, that's not quite true, either: he lamented that he did things he didn't want to do. But: it wasn't him doing them! It was the sin inside him! He's off the hook! Hmm. It's all starting to make sense now!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Yeah, I agree. It's weird, though. Why did he make such a statement? It's quite feasible that he didn't intend it to be taken literally, I fully admit. But what is the intended non-literal meaning? How does it make any sense? And there are so many things in that boat, in the entire Bible, that we have to wonder, is anything intended literally? Life after death? Heaven? Hell? Salvation instructions (and which ones)?
And maybe he really did mean everything was lawful for him, Paul. He had a pretty high opinion of himself, after all. As a self-proclaimed apostle, maybe he actually thought he could do no wrong. Well, that's not quite true, either: he lamented that he did things he didn't want to do. But: it wasn't him doing them! It was the sin inside him! He's off the hook! Hmm. It's all starting to make sense now!
I think that Paul was just using a general principle that just because something isn't taught against doesn't mean you should do it. Basically it's a be wise in what you do kind of saying. This line of thinking is mostly applied toward non christian rituals invovling food. We see food being mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6 and 10 in the immediate vicinity of Paul's everything is lawful remarks. We also see parallels to that concept in Romans 14 where Paul says some will eat the meat and some will not eat it (both of those things, were lawful) but that its better to not eat than to offend your brother.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
I think that Paul was just using a general principle that just because something isn't taught against doesn't mean you should do it. Basically it's a be wise in what you do kind of saying. This line of thinking is mostly applied toward non christian rituals invovling food. We see food being mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6 and 10 in the immediate vicinity of Paul's everything is lawful remarks. We also see parallels to that concept in Romans 14 where Paul says some will eat the meant and some will not eat it (both of those things, were lawful) but that its better to not eat than to offend your brother.
Hey. That actually makes sense. (But he could have made the point without that oddity of "all things are lawful", IMO.)
See, Byrd? That wasn't so hard, was it? You don't have contradict yourself to defend the Bible! (Not that part, anyway. )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
)
Linear Mode
