Family life?

[chang50]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 1000-years

[vodean]

so when an ultra anti-american and socialist newspaper prints something hateful towards conservatives and christians, we just believe them? yes, some of this is true, but many of the arguments in here are completely invalid, or just plain wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

so when an ultra anti-american and socialist newspaper prints something hateful towards conservatives and christians, we just believe them? yes, some of this is true, but many of the arguments in here are completely invalid, or just plain wrong.

Uh, no. In fact, the far right is trying to move Christianity in a direction that has been proven to cause serious harm. You might consider the real reasons behind all that, it is only superficially religious in its design. But, well, it is getting harder and harder to really find other voices out there on the net, so why should I be surprised that so few here , at least within the US are aware of what life is really like elsewhere or has been like in history?

PS, to name one example, if Christ was so against female leadership, then why Mary Magdelen? (who was NOT the prostitute!!!)

[chang50]

so when an ultra anti-american and socialist newspaper prints something hateful towards conservatives and christians, we just believe them? yes, some of this is true, but many of the arguments in here are completely invalid, or just plain wrong.

Yet curiously you provide no examples of which arguments are completely invalid or just plain wrong.As for describing the Guardian as 'ultra anti-American and socialist',I can only assume you have little knowledge of this newspaper in particular and the wider political world in general

[Night Strike]

Considering the article starts with a couple of scriptures that are blatantly out of context, it's very hard to consider that to be a legitimate article.

[chang50]

Considering the article starts with a couple of scriptures that are blatantly out of context, it's very hard to consider that to be a legitimate article.

Out of context how?

[Night Strike]

Considering the article starts with a couple of scriptures that are blatantly out of context, it's very hard to consider that to be a legitimate article.

Out of context how?

Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple".

Jesus was born without his mother even having sex, which is itself obviously a miracle. Plus the fact that in that time, when the couple was betrothed, they were essentially married to each other, except that they hadn't actually consummated the marriage. The second quote from Luke is completely out of context. It's saying that no matter what everyone else close to you in the world says, it's still your obligation to follow Christ.

[chang50]

Considering the article starts with a couple of scriptures that are blatantly out of context, it's very hard to consider that to be a legitimate article.

Out of context how?

Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple".

Jesus was born without his mother even having sex, which is itself obviously a miracle. Plus the fact that in that time, when the couple was betrothed, they were essentially married to each other, except that they hadn't actually consummated the marriage. The second quote from Luke is completely out of context. It's saying that no matter what everyone else close to you in the world says, it's still your obligation to follow Christ.

So the meaning of 'hate',has changed? I can agree a virgin birth would be a miracle,but come on... surely that's one of the allegorical bits of the Bible,right?

[Night Strike]

So the meaning of 'hate',has changed? I can agree a virgin birth would be a miracle,but come on... surely that's one of the allegorical bits of the Bible,right?

I don't think the definition of hate has changed, but the verse was taken out of context. The context was that in order to follow Christ, you have to leave behind anything or anyone that may keep you from following Him. And if people are actively working to keep you from following Christ, you must forsake them ("forsake" is another translation).

Why would the virgin birth be allegorical? How else to prove that Jesus really is the Son of God than for a virgin to give birth to a son? Plus the fact that it was foretold hundreds of year before his actual birth.

[Phatscotty]

so when an ultra anti-american and socialist newspaper prints something hateful towards conservatives and christians, we just believe them? yes, some of this is true, but many of the arguments in here are completely invalid, or just plain wrong.

Uh, no. In fact, the far right is trying to move Christianity in a direction that has been proven to cause serious harm. You might consider the real reasons behind all that, it is only superficially religious in its design. But, well, it is getting harder and harder to really find other voices out there on the net, so why should I be surprised that so few here , at least within the US are aware of what life is really like elsewhere or has been like in history?

PS, to name one example, if Christ was so against female leadership, then why Mary Magdelen? (who was NOT the prostitute!!!)

Hmmm, I think if we look back at our own society, things have really went to shit in all areas since we started moving Christianity the way it is continuing to be moved.

schools, marriage, shootings, loss of morals and values, selling our very own children into debt in order to grow more government social programs and vote ourselves more benefits in the present.

[vodean]

so when an ultra anti-american and socialist newspaper prints something hateful towards conservatives and christians, we just believe them? yes, some of this is true, but many of the arguments in here are completely invalid, or just plain wrong.

Yet curiously you provide no examples of which arguments are completely invalid or just plain wrong.As for describing the Guardian as 'ultra anti-American and socialist',I can only assume you have little knowledge of this newspaper in particular and the wider political world in general

considering how i have lived outside the US far longer than inside, i would tend to disagree...

In his classic book A World of Their Own Making, Professor John Gillis points out that until the Reformation, the state of holiness was not matrimony but lifelong chastity. There were no married saints in the early medieval church. Godly families in this world were established not by men and women, united in bestial matrimony, but by the holy orders, whose members were the brothers or brides of Christ.

that is clearly not true... if all good christians practiced abstinence, they would have died out long ago. Only those attached to the church in some way (priests or pastors, etc.) had to practice abstinence. True, they were the only ones who became saints (i think) but you could go to heaven after having sex. even some people working for the church had sex.