Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is Romans a similar "letters" by Paul to the People of Rome?

Easy E wrote:Is Romans a similar "letters" by Paul to the People of Rome?

Close: Romans Pasta House

Easy E wrote:Is Romans a similar "letters" by Paul to the People of Rome?

Its actually to the city of Corinth, which at the time was pretty much populated by Roman citizens using it as a colony in Greece.

EDIT: No wait, it is to Romans in Rome XD My head was on Corinthians for some reason.

Nitros14 wrote:This sort of thing just baffles me. After all the abuse the Black community in the United States has suffered some of these pastors are just all too eager to turn around and deny someone else's right to live their life without prejudice.

Had the same track of thought as I read that.
Then again, you could say the same about the Christian community in general, comparing the Church in medieval times to its existence as a banned cult in the Roman Empire.

Granted, this is by far not something that is exclusive to religion. Mankind rarely learns anything from its own past, and old ideals are forgotten from one generation to another. It just becomes even more apparent when people still claim to be all about mercy, love and charity rather than at least ceasing to propagate what amounts to pretty much empty words.

sebster wrote:Oh, and was already pointed by another poster, Australia is at least as backward on this issue as the USA is. At least it's an issue up for debate in your country, that a major political party may soon adopt. Here no major party will touch it

Damn, that bad? I've only heard of you people banning small breasts.

Damn, that bad? I've only heard of you people banning small breasts.

Kaldor wrote:

Polonius wrote:While the bible doesn't make nearly as big a deal of homosexuality as some people think, it's pretty well documented, that at best, the writers of the various books weren't big fans.

More importantly, what is the relevance? Why should someone else's religion affect my marriage?

This.

What about Paul's letters to the Daily Mail? It's about the proposed housing development on the Sea of Galilee and how the Romans are taking all the jobs, signed "disgruntled of nazareth".

Also, don't forget Roman's letter to Paul "please stop writing, regards, Rome".

Kaldor wrote:

Polonius wrote:While the bible doesn't make nearly as big a deal of homosexuality as some people think, it's pretty well documented, that at best, the writers of the various books weren't big fans.

More importantly, what is the relevance? Why should someone else's religion affect my marriage?

Look I don't know how they do things in whatever place you're from that's as backwards as your flag (Your stars are where you stripes should be, and your stripes are where your stars should be! just fyi). However here, in the best country in the world we have guiding principles. When the founding fathers helped Jesus write the bible, they knew what they wanted for this country. Every time our good lord sees what's happening to his beloved home country, I'm sure he's spinning in his grave.

Brother Heinrich wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Polonius wrote:While the bible doesn't make nearly as big a deal of homosexuality as some people think, it's pretty well documented, that at best, the writers of the various books weren't big fans.

More importantly, what is the relevance? Why should someone else's religion affect my marriage?

This.

Because, as some people put it
"Merrica is god's country! It was founded on christian ideals and laws, when you let dem queer folks get married you'll done git god's protection removed from merrica. Then the mexicans, iranians, and canucks will come back fer der land"

and Yes, I indeed have heard this argument before, along with legalizing gay marriage will cause a second civil war....

Note that these people are also insane

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:I wish I had enough money to buy one of those houses where they require "good Christian morals" and then turn it in to a soup kitchen and homeless shelter!

This is easily the best thing you've written on Dakka. Well, maybe there was better, I'm pretty loaded and prone to wild claims right now, but it was still awesome.

Yay!

Although I'm actually quite serious. I'd be able to be both charitable AND spiteful at the same time. How could I say no?

Also, don't forget Roman's letter to Paul "please stop writing, regards, Rome".

was this before or after the Cist and Desist letter from Rome? Mail delivery at that time was a bit spotty.

Steve steveson wrote:What about Paul's letters to the Daily Mail? It's about the proposed housing development on the Sea of Galilee and how the Romans are taking all the jobs, signed "disgruntled of nazareth".

Also, don't forget Roman's letter to Paul "please stop writing, regards, Rome".

Huffy wrote:

Brother Heinrich wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Polonius wrote:While the bible doesn't make nearly as big a deal of homosexuality as some people think, it's pretty well documented, that at best, the writers of the various books weren't big fans.

More importantly, what is the relevance? Why should someone else's religion affect my marriage?

This.

Because, as some people put it
"Merrica is god's country! It was founded on christian ideals and laws, when you let dem queer folks get married you'll done git god's protection removed from merrica. Then the mexicans, iranians, and canucks will come back fer der land"

and Yes, I indeed have heard this argument before, along with legalizing gay marriage will cause a second civil war....

Note that these people are also insane

And as insane as they are, they're not crazy enough to start a second civil war, after all, that might jeopardize fast food production, and no matter what your views are, we Americans love our fast food.

Jihadin wrote:

Also, don't forget Roman's letter to Paul "please stop writing, regards, Rome".

was this before or after the Cist and Desist letter from Rome? Mail delivery at that time was a bit spotty.

Embarrassingly it came before, which was the reason for the restraining order. The disagreement over whether it was stalking or just a healthy interest was one of the major causes of the schism between the Roman and Orthodox rights. Little known fact there for you.

Chongara wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Polonius wrote:While the bible doesn't make nearly as big a deal of homosexuality as some people think, it's pretty well documented, that at best, the writers of the various books weren't big fans.

More importantly, what is the relevance? Why should someone else's religion affect my marriage?

Look I don't know how they do things in whatever place you're from that's as backwards as your flag (Your stars are where you stripes should be, and your stripes are where your stars should be! just fyi). However here, in the best country in the world we have guiding principles. When the founding fathers helped Jesus write the bible, they knew what they wanted for this country. Every time our good lord sees what's happening to his beloved home country, I'm sure he's spinning in his grave.

This is quite honestly the best post EVAR.

Anyway, I'm glad Obama has finally set the steamroller of progress rolling.

Just incase what the US flag represent

The stars on the American flag represent the number of states in the Union. For that reason, the appearance of the American flag has changed many times over the years. The original flag, known as "Old Glory," displayed 13 stars to represent the original 13 states when the nation declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. Today's flag has 50 stars because there are now 50 states. The last two stars were added in 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union, bringing the number of states -- and the number of stars on the flag -- from 48 to the present 50. The flag has not changed since then. The stripes represent the 13 original colonies.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_do_the_stars_and_stripes_mean_on_the_American_flag#ixzz22DjOvG00

White stands for purity and innocence, red is hardiness and valor, and blue vigilance, justice. and perseverance.

the white on the flag stands for purity and innocence, the red stands for hardiness and valor, the blue stands for vigilance, justice and Perseverance.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_each_color_of_the_American_flag_stand_for#ixzz22DjmWzZa

Granted there are no official description of the colors

I do and always will say, the reason homosexuality is condemned is sexism.
If your a guy dating a guy it is seen and lowering yourself to the position of a women, a big no no.
If your a women dating another women its seen as elevating yourself to that of a man, another big no no.
atleasts thats how i see it.

@ sebster - I had no doubt you did in fast mention that, good job.

@generalgrog - wow that was an extremely defensive post.

A: I have never read, watched nor cared about the conspiracy of the Davinchi Code.

B: I am not writing a thesis on a forum, so will not in fact quote all my sources because I have much better things to do with my time than try remember the exact name and date I heard some scholar speak about something.

C: Do some research, listen to a lot of people for 4 decades, and figure it out for yourself, and be generally educated.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I do and always will say, the reason homosexuality is condemned is sexism.
If your a guy dating a guy it is seen and lowering yourself to the position of a women, a big no no.
If your a women dating another women its seen as elevating yourself to that of a man, another big no no.
atleasts thats how i see it.

Interesting theory. I don't agree with it (but you might be right), personaly I think it is more like marmite. People are discusted by the thought and therefor feel that others should be. The diffrence being that they are right about marmite. I mean, what people do in there own home is up to them, but do we realy need to see it in the supermarket where there might be children?

The view it as the same as being attracted to someone they view as being realy realy ugly, and cannot accept that they might be wrong about how attractive someone is. I mean, look how angry people get about which sports team someone supports.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Define exclude "biblical books" Heritical writings don't count.

"Things I don't like don't count."

This. Who decided what was heretical? Gee, I guess that would've been the Church. Who would've thunk it?

Oh so we should include things like...the book of mormon...the new world translation(JW'S) the writings of David Koresh, Jim Jones etc..etc.. because we don't want to exclude anyone?

So all kidding aside...Who decided what was heretical is complicated and cannot be answered completely on a miniatures war game forum..However I can give you a quick answer.

If the books of the old testement were referred to by Christ himself in the gospels..they were included. If books of the old testament were referred to by an apostle in one of their letters, they were included. If an epistle was acknowledged to be written by one of the apostles it was included. In fact the epistle to the Hebrews was not part of the original canon because the compilers were not (and still are not 100%) sure who wrote it. it is widely attributed to Paul because the same writing style is used.

If an epistle was found to contradict one of the apostles or Christ it was excluded. Such as the gnostic gospels (an example would be the gospel of Judas)

GG





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@ sebster - I had no doubt you did in fast mention that, good job.

@generalgrog - wow that was an extremely defensive post.

A: I have never read, watched nor cared about the conspiracy of the Davinchi Code.

B: I am not writing a thesis on a forum, so will not in fact quote all my sources because I have much better things to do with my time than try remember the exact name and date I heard some scholar speak about something.

C: Do some research, listen to a lot of people for 4 decades, and figure it out for yourself, and be generally educated.

I hear ya kim...but it's real easy to type sound bytes on here. My response wasn't necessarily directed at you..but a lot times I reply so that everyone else sees another point of view.



GG

generalgrog wrote:
Oh so we should include things like...the book of mormon...the new world translation(JW'S) the writings of David Koresh, Jim Jones etc..etc.. because we don't want to exclude anyone?

None of which anyone, ever, would describe as "Biblical", except the NWT which actually is Biblical; being a translation and all.

generalgrog wrote:
If the books of the old testement were referred to by Christ himself in the gospels..they were included.

Still not getting beyond "Things I don't like."

generalgrog wrote:It's very convenient when you can throw out a bunch of "facts" and not even attempt to back them up.

You're doing the same thing, when you pretended there was so many instances of condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible, and I pointed actually there's a whopping total of three, and a couple of those might not have even been talking about homosexuality.

But you ignore that, and then pretend it's other people who are just throwing out claims and not backing them up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:Damn, that bad? I've only heard of you people banning small breasts.

It isn't that there's a great deal of homophobia. I mean, there's way more than there should be, but it isn't like the US. And like in the US church groups here maintain the same kind bs 'we don't hate you but we don't like your lifestyle so we're going to oppose equality' nonsense, but those church groups have nothing like the power they do in the US - they represent less people and have way less funding.

It's more that there's not much of a tradition of social activism in Australia. Getting 100 people to turn out to a rally for anything other than winning sporting team is near impossible. Without anything like that activism, there's nothing to force the left wing party to act on this issue. Add in the fact that much of the membership of that party are Catholics drawn to social justice issues, and they'd rather not risk those votes.

It's more or less the same reason that while abortion is between 70 and 80% supported among the general population, it isn't actually legal anywhere. Instead we have this weird situation where you can get an abortion and it is legal on a technicality (abortion is allowed when the mother's life is in danger, and abortion is a safer medical procedure than giving birth therefore...) and the police just look the other way, and leave the anti-abortion laws unenforced. But the left wing party won't do anything about it because the status quo costs them no votes, whereas making it an issue risks pissing off the Catholic portion of their membership base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yay!

Although I'm actually quite serious. I'd be able to be both charitable AND spiteful at the same time. How could I say no?

Yeah, the more serious you are the more awesome a suggestion it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote: Oh so we should include things like...the book of mormon...the new world translation(JW'S) the writings of David Koresh, Jim Jones etc..etc.. because we don't want to exclude anyone?

So all kidding aside...Who decided what was heretical is complicated and cannot be answered completely on a miniatures war game forum..However I can give you a quick answer.

If the books of the old testement were referred to by Christ himself in the gospels..they were included. If books of the old testament were referred to by an apostle in one of their letters, they were included. If an epistle was acknowledged to be written by one of the apostles it was included. In fact the epistle to the Hebrews was not part of the original canon because the compilers were not (and still are not 100%) sure who wrote it. it is widely attributed to Paul because the same writing style is used.

If an epistle was found to contradict one of the apostles or Christ it was excluded. Such as the gnostic gospels (an example would be the gospel of Judas)

GG

Well, that's a decent theory for what happened, but the basic reality is that exactly when and where various texts came into prominence, and exactly why those texts specifically were chosen is a matter for debate, unless you can get into the head of St Athanasius. Or for that matter, establish whether it was St Athanasius' list that was the basis for the list decided upon by Pope Damasus.

It's really weird how Protestants will reject the Catholic Church for being a compromised, human institution, but think that the same forces could never, ever have impacted on the formation of the Bible.

generalgrog wrote:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (NIV)

So what do we propose to do about the adulterers? Gay people seem to get beaten with a much bigger stick than people who have affairs. At least gay people aren't trying to deceive anyone.

People preoccupied with homosexuality 'because of the bible' are just justifying their own prejudices. There are so many things in the bible that people tend not to apply literally, yet when it comes to homosexuality they suddenly start waving the big book around. It's almost like they came to the prejudice first and then justified it with their reading of the bible, rather than the other way around.

You mean you don't see vast swathes of Christians protesting against tattoo parlours ?

Also, "sexually immoral" is a very vague statement, and I would propose that you are placing your own dislike of homosexuality in to the mouths of the writer when you read it that way.

Even then? It's a bad translation of the text. We honestly do not know the definition of the term arsenokoite, itself a combination of arseno (man, singular) and koiten (bed), but early translations had nothing to do with homosexuality. For a long time, it was translated as masturbation or those who masturbate (arseno is singular, thus, "a man who beds himself"); others translated it as "those who ogle men"; still others translated it to incest, orgiastic conduct, and plenty of other definitions as well.

In truth, Paul probably meant to repeat Leviticus' prohibition of temple prostitution, but since that's no longer really applicable in today's times, people rarely use that definition.

Tatt's are evil/sin? hhheeeyyyyyy nnnoooooowwwwww