ADN

Yea I do know that but most people don't look on the inside beauty. That's what I try to look at in everyone but I know others don't do the same thing. That's what I was trying to get at but didn't quite say

So does a person's inner beauty for you see what religion they follow?

Their inner beauty has nothing to do with what religion they are. There are some great people out there who are screwed up with or without a religion.

I might be wrong but this is the same shit that has us where we are today.... This passage says nothing about christians or any other religions. It clearly says "UNBELIEVERS"....... Is she related to Paul?


14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[c]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[d]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."[

That part of 2 Corinthians 6:14, says:

ginomai me heterozugeo apistos

It MEANS:

ginomai - "be, become, to come into existence"
me - "not" (negative participle)
heterozugeo - NOT A WORD *see below*
apistos - "they who are not trusted, not worthy of trust, or loyalty" *see below*

heterozugeo is a combination of two words, a practice that is similar to compound words. The two words joined together are:

Heteros †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬¦¢¢¬…œof uncertain affinity, together†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬? (not by marriage nor family, but similarity)
Zugos †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬¦¢¢¬…œa yoke of bondage†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬? a metaphor for slavery, a balance or scales, a burdensome religious law.

i.e. The conveyance of this passage is ABSOLUTELY NOT RELATED TO MARRIAGE, NOR MAN AND WOMAN.

It is saying "a true Believer (of the Gospel) would not adhere to the Laws of Moses, because it is by his Iesu ALONE that he is redeemed.

Furthermore, a casual look at Corinthians will show you that these people were converts to Christianity who were still trying to follow the Jewish "Law of Moses."

The author of the letter felt that the emerging Christianity was incompatible and furthermore antithetical to Judiasm, which has nothing to do with belief, but simple adherence to a code of conduct.


And nowhere in the bible does it say:

ginomai me gameo hamartolos.

so, marrying those who sin, and yet refuse iesu is not expressly forbidden.

vertical,
raum

and if you don't believe me, you can ASK HIM YOURSELF.

So if it does mean "a true Believer (of the Gospel) would not adhere to the Laws of Moses, because it is by his Iesu ALONE that he is redeemed," then why was it translated the way it was?

well first, it is important to remember, that monogamy, marriage of ONE WOMAN TO ONE MAN is a pagan idea.

Adam wasn't monogamous, though only his marriage to his wife heva (Eve) survived... mainly because he was forbidden to marry his daughters or grand-daughters. and by that time anyone else was old enough to be married, he was dead.

Greeks and Romans influenced Monogamy, especially through pre-Hellenistic thought.

In fact, the vow of chasitity before marriage was only applicable to women in the early church; the most logical reason being that most of the early members were converts.

From there, Protestantism was especially explicit about marrying "NON-CATHOLICS", but strangely, there is no forbiddance to marrying non-christians, which is why the controversy of marrying indigenous women in colonized lands was never really resolved.

at best, the church could muster that "if they don't believe in your god, how can His presence at the wedding give the proper solemn sincerity to their vows?" but that is, at most, a soctratic argument that entered during the sophistication of the Ecclesia as regards the text of Dueteronomy, and is not part of the original church teachings.

I didn't realize that Adam and Eve were "married" either...

damn! adam and eve had bills????