I agree with that. Martin Luther was an Anti Semite and St Paul was a misogynist. Nasty people both.
People like to say that about Paul. I don’t think they know what the word means.
As far as Martin Luther… sigh… I gotta grant that one.
Of course, your boy Tommy J owned slaves & probably knocked up Sally Hemmings! 
Thus starting a long tradition among politicans unfortunately. Sex exploits seems to be the one thing that Dems and Pubs agree on. 
Cheers.
Wasn’t his wife dead when he started banging Sally Hemmings?
Also, if the GOP is the party of Lincoln when did they start the tradition of banging slaves?
The party of Lincoln, like Elvis, has left the building. They are now the party of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.
So since Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin they have started banging slaves?
Well, I sure didn’t get the memo.
TO DO LIST:
- Get slave
- Start banging.
It’s going to be a little difficult to gather in Christ’s name if we start calling each other names.
Of course, if the Anglicans keep going the way they are, pretty soon two or three is all that will be available to gather.
Not really. Just that if Bishop Schori wants to make peace with the Anglicans who have split off, labeling the quest for individual salvation as idolatry and heresy is not a real skippy way to begin. IMO.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahhhh… well then, if Bishop Schori is rejecting St. Paul, she’s in a bit of a bind.
See, JESUS never said Christians could abandon Mosaic law. St. Paul did.
So, if St. Paul is just a nasty old misogynist to be ignored, Bishop Schori has an obligation to follow Mosaic law. Starting now.
Jesus never said we should follow St Paul’s laws either.
A theologian you are not. An historian you ALSO are not.
St. Paul never made any laws. Quite the opposite- he FREED Christians from the obligation to follow Old Testament laws
Jesus NEVER said his followers didn’t have to keep kosher. He NEVER said his followers needn’t circumcise their children. He NEVER preached to non-Jews. It was the evil misogynist Paul who did all that.
So, I repeat, any liberal Christian who wants to reject Paul is in a bind. If Paul is rejected, the liberal Christian HAS to follow Old Testament law, and HAS to convert to Judaism.
,
I’m happy and proud (not to a sinful extent, I hope) to be an Episcopalian, and I agree with you. I would go further and suggest that the PB is saying that we ought to draw strength and spiritual nourishment from each other. There is no particular tradition of Episcopalian hermits. We may and should have a personal relationship with God, but we should not erect barriers to one another, or be content to be saved as individuals while all around us fall into damnation.
Except that individual salvation IS antithetical to Christianity and always has been. She’s not saying anything controversial whatsoever.
You are of course correct that Smiling Bandit has a right to hold, and to express, opinions. And, since this is tje Great Debates board on the SDMB, if he expresses an opinion which has no basis in fact, he can expect to be called on it.
I wouldn’t say quite antithetical. But the idea of the church as the community of the faithful far predates the camp-meetin’ Come-to-Jesus style of one-off individual salvation – so your point is pretty solid. I only raise this to prevent the sort of hijack that would result from equating altar-call preaching with all of Christianity.
So Paul took it upon himself to contradict both God and Jesus? What a dick!
I can’t decide whether you’re being willfully ignorant or just trying desperately to be funny.
Either way, you’re dodging the issue. If Paul was such a prick, why do liberal Christians continue to follow his lead? If they really think Paul was an evil misogynist, why don’t they reject all Paul said, and start following Mosaic law?
If Bishop Schori doesn’t like what Paul stands for she has an obligation to reject him and go back to what Jesus himself taught. And contrary to what you may believe, Jesus was NOT a sweet, nonjudgmental hippie.
Jesus NEVER suggested that Mosaic law (including kashrut and circumcision) should be done away with. PAUL is the reason those things were done away with. You can’t reject Paul as a contemptible ass unless you’re prepared to follow Old Testament law to the letter.
You ready to do that, Dan? Is Bishop Schori?
But the central conceit of Christianity is the idea of a personal relationship with God. Barring that, what’s the point?
I have long rejected any sort of religion. I do find it ironic however, that conservative Christians think they are the intellectual decendants of the founding fathers. As I said before, the FF were some of the most enlightened people of their day. They tended to be more deist than Jesus-oriented, and many rejected the idea of the trinity. They had very little in common with the bible thumping, judgemental folks who want to return to a past that never existed.
I am surprised however, to see the extent to which you credit Paul with the *decision * that Christians don’t have to follow Mosaic Law (at least the inconvenient ones)., vs. the *interpretation * of Jesus’ teachings that they no longer applied. Do you really mean to imply that Paul just made these things up out of whole cloth?
And the “opinion which has no basis in fact” he expressed is what, exactly?