Chris,

>>Hi Chris…..
>>
>>Some notes from the… I'm serious about scripture and faith and believe scripture to be God's word but also understand that in scripture we find metaphor and other literary techniques to teach a truth…... group
>
>I understand, and although I do not share your beliefs, I respect them.
>
>>>I am having trouble with Mathew 5:28-29. I think it means I have to tear out >both my eyes. That >is going to seriously delay the project I am working on.
>>
>>Of course when you read the text IN CONTEXT the truth being taught is that Christians (assumed since it is a NT reference) need to be ready to take even extreme measures (what ever it takes) to get sin out of our lives. It is a metaphor.
>
>"it is a metaphor" - Some would argue your position.
>
>This is my problem with Doug's comments previously. When replying to a post earlier from Steven Bennett, he used what I consider a very strict interpretation of Scripture, specifically the sacrifice at the Temple. I believe Doug's argument was that since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, there is nothing you can do. That was my point, that Doug was arguing for a strict interpretation.

You do not have the right to insert your interpretation and call it mine though Chris. That's what you are doing here. I also have said on more occassions than I think I should have to (as I have found others need to be reminded all the time to pay attention) also use my mind.

I also went on to explain that the keeping of the law was now moot as grace trumps the law. (in so many words) My assertion was that the Jewish worshipper had this problem, not the Christian. Get your facts straight, ok? <g>

It's painfully obvious to me that your understanding of the Bible is woeful at best - and yet you think you're smart enough to criticize those of us who have spent many years reading and studying it so easily... ?? <g>

Tom was absolutely correct in with his mention that you need to read/study these works IN CONTEXT. Another issue is that you also need to remember that 'IN CONTEXT' also means cultural, social, political and other areas as well. How's your understanding of Biblical History these days? <g> There are a lot of passages that make huge sense once you understand the local customs.

Two come to mind:

1) Women shouldn't speak in church.

This is really simple to understand when you learn that synagogues made men and women to sit on opposite sides of the building and Paul was simply attempting to make sure that services were conducted decently and in order. IOW, keep the ladies from shouting across the room to their husbands to have them explain something.

2) Women should cover their heads.

Again, in Corinth, where this was written to, the Temple Priestesses (about 1,000 of them +/-) of Diana (?) performed their 'services' via sexual acts and the 'donation' would go to the Temple. They indicated their 'position' by having uncovered heads. So.. Paul was simply wanting to avoid confusing Christians with Temple prostitutes. He (Paul) also went on to say that this custom was essentially localized.

Gotta read in context and use your brain. Tough to do if you have a pre-conceived notion of things, don't you think? <g>


>
>>So your project should not be in jeopardy… unless it is causing you to sin? < vbg >
>
>My project is probably in jeapordy for many other reasons. < g >
>
>>>These are also troubling:
>>
>>>Ephesians 6:5-9
>>>Colossians 4:1
>>>Timothy 6:1-3
>>
>>Yea…… Yea…. Yawn…. Yawn.
>>
>>Early Christians, perhaps even more so than those of us that claim the faith today, were faced with the need to distinguish themselves in their behavior. Even those in extreme circumstances. Paul is simply encouraging those that are found to be in slavery to be excellent slaves and in doing so distinguish themselves and show the power of their faith. That encouragement was also extended to slave owners. They were encouraged to be kind and decent masters. That would certainly distinguish them and their faith. THAT is what these verses are about. They do not condone or endorse slavery. They simply acknowledge it as a fact of the culture of that time and encourage those that find themselves in that circumstance to use even that as an opportunity to witness to their faith.
>
>Adultery apparently was a fact of the culture, yet it was explicitly condemned in the New Testatment (many times), but I do not think the same holds true for slavery. Where in the New Testament, or the Old Testament, is slavery explicitly condemned? And if not, why not?
>
>Here is the source of my information:
>
>http://www.religioustolerance.com/sla_bibl.htm
>
>If someone can point out the errors in their arguments, that would be more than fine with me.
>
>>Why is when these vain attempts to make the NT look as if it is pro slavery you never quote writings where Paul encourages a slave owner to set his slave free?
>
>Are you reffering to Paul's Letter to Philemon? Why did Paul not free the slave (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)?
>
>>Scripture has been abused from both sides of this coin for centuries and judging from the current exchange this trend will continue. Chris…. I can boldly say to you that Scripture says…. "there is no God" Of course I left out…. "the fool has said in his heart" that preceds it. < s >
>
>Ah, so my arguments are those of a fool? Well, thank you Tom.
>
>>Anyway, just a slightly different perspective for you to consider.
>>
>>Peace and Blessings on you.
>
>And also with you.