1 Corinthians 5-8

[wolfpurplemoon]

If someone calls themselves a Christian but continues to act immorally then other Christians should avoid associating with them, so it is OK to judge other Christians. And any legal disputes between Christians should be settled without going to a non-Christian court.

The unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven include idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and swindlers.

The reason God is against sexual immorality is because your body is a temple for the Holy Spirit so doesn't belong to you.

Married couples must have sexual relations to prevent them being tempted by Satan, and if you have sexual desires then get married. Only one of the couple has to be a believer because both will become sanctified, this is the only sort of marriage that can end in divorce if the non-believer asks for one.

If you're not married when you convert then you should probably stay that way (though God didn't give specific instructions on this, it is just Paul's opinion).

There is no need to continue sacrificing food to idols, and food doesn't bring you closer to God.

Comments

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Again, Paul! WHY PAUL WHY DO YOU MISS THE POINT PAUL.

[(Anonymous)]

So arrogant.

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Hm. Me, or Paul?

[thrashbear.livejournal.com]

"...your body is a temple for the Holy Spirit so doesn't belong to you."

Aha! I thnk this is an important nugget right here. To folks like myself, my body belongs to me and only me, to do with as I please. I try and take somewhat care of it, as is practical, to extent good health and good life. But to think that my body and soul is owned by something, whether it be a god or a government, is offensive.

[wolfpurplemoon]

Yes I agree that the concept of anyone else owning your body is deeply offensive.

The text void of context is a pretext

[(Anonymous)]

I would whole-heartedly agree here as well, if this were forced. However, it is not. In context, the intended audience are those who have willingly placed themselves under the authority of God through faith in Jesus. Otherwise, it would be rape, of sorts, and out of context.
Tim

Re: The text void of context is a pretext

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Hundreds of people already have this belief that the body belongs to God only, and thus if you abuse the body in God's name it's fine. Priests do it on a daily basis to young women and innocent children. It's not incorrect.

Re: The text void of context is a pretext

[(Anonymous)]

Hundreds?

Re: The text void of context is a pretext

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Raised a Catholic. I've met hundreds of people before within the community. Most say the same thing.

[(Anonymous)]

The book of Corinthinians is written to Corinthian believers. Believers willfully turn their lives over to God. From the day I believed it became a joyful experience to obey and honor God. I can however, understand your point of view.

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

You don't see anything wrong with blindly following someone who isn't even upholding what Jesus originally said? To surrender all free thought to someone else, to be discouraged of thinking on your own? To consider your body your own, to have the freedom to do what you wish to it?

[(Anonymous)]

I read the Bible as telling me to have faith in God, prayer, and the gospel. I have never once in my understanding of the Bible seen your sublimation that faith should replace my faith in my own human abilities to achieve or think. I have seen in the Bible where one particular group of people were told not to tattoo there skin with the tattoos of a adjoining tribe because it was pagan. And now all I hear from my fellow Christians is that the Bible says not to do tattoos period. The problem with that is I read the Bible its not read to me. My understanding of the Bible is that I should glorify God in all I do. I believe my tattoos are tasteful and I believe they glorify God. Am I just dead wrong there? I've seen you say and heard my fellow Christians repeatedly say the Bible says that there's this supposed line in the Bible that says there is this one and only reason for divorce. Period. The end. In my reading of it I haven't found this to be so. I saw someone ask God/Jesus if they could now get divorced under the new testament for any reason. And very near to that I see something that could clearly be taken out of context. But I didn't take it out of context . This passage in the Bible is a test to Jesus to see if a man can detect God being fallible. That's my interpretations on just those two small parts of a very very long book. Yet again here you seem to try to spur on conversation while restating your option in a overbearing mannerism. It almost makes your questions seem rhetorical. The Bible is a very arguably good book. And lays out a way for society to function in away that gives freedom to grow. A far cry from the oppression that many people have caused in the name of God and the Bible. The Bible by its nature can mean many things to many people. It has been twisted and perverted many times in history. And it has at the same time done countless good. You seem to view God and the Bible not with just disbelief but distaste. You clearly take what you have heard coupled with basic research to base your conclusions on what the Bible is saying. In a clearly hypothetical way I ask this. Do you really believe that if you believed in God that your freedom to think would be encroached? For someone who trust in science and only science do you honestly think that is a healthy way to view anything? I would recommend more research into the history and facts as you deem them behind the writings of the Bible. I really think should you use the scientific approach you would find that what the words say are not what they mean. I know that religious beliefs and scientific fact have collided in some very nasty ways in the past. But we are living in modern times. I fell that as a societal hole we Christians are pretty far away from that stupidity. I for one whole heartedly accept science and its discoveries are making this post possible right now. I love science and I love God. There are a lot of scientist that nonpublicly believe in God. They are afraid of being dispelled by there peers. I think its about time we all come to a truce. I'm saying this because I don't want you to think I don't understand where you are coming from. I just read your post and I don't see them as constructive sometimes. There is a God there isn't a god. It's for you to decide. I just hope you don't sincerely view religion as some sorta zombie going around eatting brains. Lol I sincerely hope you will read deeper into the Bible not saying it would be bad if you found God in there. But you should really put some heart into it. However you certainly seem like a intelligent enough person that you can see it is a book of profoundly deep writing. From the bottom of my heart I assure you the best parts of the Bible are in-between the lines.

[wolfpurplemoon]

Gosh you wrote a lot without any paragraphs!

Before I started reading the bible I was already an atheist, but the past year of reading the bible and comments I get has done a lot to strengthen my position. I'm now of the opinion that the whole question of whether or not there is a God and whether or not believing in him will get you to heaven is pointless. I got to this position because I realised that as no part of a human consciousness can survive the death of the brain (meaning there is no soul) then there is no afterlife, so therefore no heaven and no point in believing in God.

I'm not sure if that was an answer to your post? Perhaps if you return here and reply in future you could maybe restrict yourself to a shorter comment or put in some gaps.