Not found in the Bible.
-
Cleanliness is next to Godliness is from Wesley, and is referencing both physical and spiritual cleanliness. Leviticus is full of ritual physical cleansing that is necessary along with sacrifice for the cleansing of sin. Then there was spiritual cleansing, washed in the blood of the lamb and all that. Sin is a foulness that keeps us separate from God… It’s a biblical message.
God works in mysterious ways - Romans 11:33-34: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!".
God helps those that helps themselves - That’s actually Ben Franklin. And it’s actually counter to the bible. Jesus wasn’t out there helping themselves industrious, he was helping those that were helpless and had no power to help themselves.
Moderation n all things also runs counter to Biblical teachings…
-
Is "I want to thank God for letting my team today and allowing to perform well" in the Bible?
Because someone says something like that after every sporting event and I always shake my head. "Oh god, why did you dislike the other team???"
-
Is "I want to thank God for letting my team today and allowing to perform well" in the Bible?
Because someone says something like that after every sporting event and I always shake my head. "Oh god, why did you dislike the other team???"
@taiwan_girl said in Not found in the Bible.:
Because someone says something like that after every sporting event and I always shake my head. "Oh god, why did you dislike the other team???"
He takes Sundays off from hating gays to hate the Pittsburgh Steelers.
And who can blame Him?
This week He's going to make another change and hate the New England Patriots just like everybody who lives in the uncivilized part of America, or possibly that other team whose name I can't remember.
-
In addition to being Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has self appointed himself the new Antipope:
“Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so,” he concluded.
Henceforth it is written he will be known as His antiHoliness, Mikey I.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-johnson-mansplains-religion-to-the-pope/?v
Edit: On second thought maybe Mike should henceforth be referred to as His antiHoliness, Johnson I.
-
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility. Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis. I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
Education is extremely important.
-
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
-
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
@taiwan_girl said in Not found in the Bible.:
That is the thing about religion, you can almost always find some saying somewhere in the Bible that you use to back your argument. Does not matter which side you are on.
Yes if you take the bible seriously it’s not easy to be a Christian, but that’s mostly to do with how strong and courageous and humble in your faith you are called to be. It’s easy to back political viewpoints any which way.
-
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility. Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis. I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
@Horace said in Not found in the Bible.:
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility.
Regardless, the pope’s comments were not being made ex cathedra. Your point is moot.
Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis.
True enough although I highly doubt the discourse on such are hand wavy. You should know that.
I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
The pope didn’t so why suggest he might have, or better, why did Johnson I feel the need to “mansplain” biblical passages in light of the Gregory XIV’s remarks which were not made ex Cathedra but presumably as head of the Vatican State?
-
@Horace said in Not found in the Bible.:
Not all Christians believe in the pope’s infallibility.
Regardless, the pope’s comments were not being made ex cathedra. Your point is moot.
Even those who do can have hand wavy rhetorical disagreements over word usage and emphasis.
True enough although I highly doubt the discourse on such are hand wavy. You should know that.
I doubt the pope would claim that borders are anti biblical. He might have some explaining to do about the Vatican.
The pope didn’t so why suggest he might have, or better, why did Johnson I feel the need to “mansplain” biblical passages in light of the Gregory XIV’s remarks which were not made ex Cathedra but presumably as head of the Vatican State?
@Renauda Johnson was speaking to the audience, not the pope. The pope’s arguments were sufficiently vague that they could be framed as a defense of essentially open borders, or a notion that once someone is in your country, regardless of how they came to be there, it is Christian to allow them to stay. It is fine to present alternative framings of the bible to address ill defined political battles over immigration.
-
Yes, I am acquainted with the Southern Baptist heresy. No need therefore to explain that in their minds they, and only they, are the final and absolute authority on all matters Scriptural.
I even recollect an outspoken Baptist of the southern persuasion, once telling a theologically learned and erudite RC he has a reading comprehension problem.
Elbows up!
-
Papal infallibility
Hey, it's what, 1700 years since the last significant meeting when some blokes met to decide which of their theocratic writings ought to be included in their book of religious texts.
Is it time for a New Improved Version? Get rid of all the politics, misogyny etc.
-
Papal infallibility
Hey, it's what, 1700 years since the last significant meeting when some blokes met to decide which of their theocratic writings ought to be included in their book of religious texts.
Is it time for a New Improved Version? Get rid of all the politics, misogyny etc.
I believe Thomas Jefferson already purged the book - at least the New Testament version - of most, if not all, the superstitious magic and mythology.
Edit: here it is although I am not certain whether the archaic social and political lessons, assertions and aspersions were expunged:
-
Yes, I am acquainted with the Southern Baptist heresy. No need therefore to explain that in their minds they, and only they, are the final and absolute authority on all matters Scriptural.
I even recollect an outspoken Baptist of the southern persuasion, once telling a theologically learned and erudite RC he has a reading comprehension problem.
@Renauda said in Not found in the Bible.:
Yes, I am acquainted with the Southern Baptist heresy. No need therefore to explain that in their minds they, and only they, are the final and absolute authority on all matters Scriptural.
I even recollect an outspoken Baptist of the southern persuasion, once telling a theologically learned and erudite RC he has a reading comprehension problem.
I recall that. I'd say it is more of an interpretation issue, which largely explains the various Christian denominations. Thank God they don't lob bombs at each other.
