Paul, Peter and Jesus

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-06-10 03:14am

A theologian once said something like this: The reformation was the defeat of Peter by Paul, while fundamentalism was the defeat of Jesus by Paul.

Does that make sense? I think it does...

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-10 03:02pm

paul ist da winnah!

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-06-10 03:40pm

Yeah, it does. Jesus' primary teaching was to love thy neighbor, and fundamentalism sure as hell doesn't show that teaching...

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-06-10 04:53pm

its a good point, except there are more peterists then then there are paulists or jesusists

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-06-10 06:13pm

I have met alot of people who like to quote the "Women Submit" and other similar passages from paul.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-06-10 07:13pm

Vorlon1701 wrote:Yeah, it does. Jesus' primary teaching was to love thy neighbor, and fundamentalism sure as hell doesn't show that teaching...

No, it sure as hell doesn't. The 'second greatest commandment' I guess wasn't repeated enough in the Bible to get it through people's heads or people are just twisted beings to begin with.

Like so much of those crazy fanatics and fundamentalists out there.. a lot of them just catch on to one phrase or key word and twist it to their purposes or warped mind and teach it to ignorant..

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-10 07:47pm

Kitsune wrote:I have met alot of people who like to quote the "Women Submit" and other similar passages from paul.

A lot of what Paul said was his own interpretation of Scripture and therefore his opinion. I find myself in disagreement with fellow Christians on Paul.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-10 08:33pm

jegs2 wrote:A lot of what Paul said was his own interpretation of Scripture and therefore his opinion. I find myself in disagreement with fellow Christians on Paul.

I have known many Christians (ironically enough, including one named Paul) who felt the same way as you do and who don't necessarily think something must be true just because Paul said so. I prefer that approach, as opposed to the fundie "everything in the Bible is equally valid" approach.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-06-10 11:20pm

..and also remember some of the things Paul wrote were relating to specific cultural references to who he was writing to.

Most Christian women that I know agree with the "women should submit" though let me explain. Jerkoffs will use that line to keep women "barefoot and pregnant" so to speak, but a better interpertation is taken as a more 'respect' ideology. In terms of marriage, it's supposed to be that women are supposed to respect the husband as the head of the household and be the spiritual leader (NOT dictator). Does that mean women should be completely subservient and all that crap? Not at all.

Christ actually goes out of his way to ensure that women have a position of great respect in the Bible. Women should be loved, respected, honored and taken VERY good care of, and that's really no different than any good healthy marriage. The only difference is that it's just making the point that men should really be the ones looked to to step up to plate in terms of responsibility for their family.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-06-13 08:16am

Why isn't Paul apocrypha(sp)/quasicanon? He contradicts the master in every letter!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-13 02:25pm

Because a conference of cardinals in the middle ages decided that he was right.