Originally posted by sjeg
On sins, I'd say what happened to venal and mortal etc.? I think there are grades of sin.
You won't find such classifications in the Bible. What you will find is that liars, drunkards,
homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and so forth are constantly lumped
together. Jesus makes clear that the sin is not merely in action, but intent; if you get
angry at your brother, you murder him in your heart.
Both St Paul (see Romans above) and St John state that there is no such thing as a just man,
that we are all sinners. We all choose to sin. So, where is the boycotting of politicians
who run our countries, given the lying that goes on there, and to the detriment of an enormous
number of people? Where are the protesters to the tax legislation which cuts welfare (Jesus
wasn't interested in what is 'fair' for the world, that those who have should give unconditionally
to those who have not)? Where are the Christian opponents to tax benefits to corporations and
wealthy, many of whom do not pay living wages to their employees?
Puerile, but this is the way I see it: permit this analogy. It's like lies. There are white lies, medium lies, and black lies.
If you were in Germany in the 1940s and were housing Jews in your attic and a Nazi rang your
doorbell and asked, 'Any Jews in here?' and you lied, do you think you did wrong? Well, yes and
no. You lied, and that's forbidden, and there is no equivocation about this in the Bible. But, you
did the right thing, because in lying you were brother to people who needed you.
So what's God going to do? Throw you in hell for lying? I just don't see a just God doing such a
thing. I think God is going to say something like, 'Look, you know what I meant. You did the
right thing even though you disobeyed my explicit command, because you sowed love where there
was hate. You protected the weak, you comforted the afflicted.
Similarly, do you think that two men can't love each other, purely and unconditionally? Do you
think that the prohibition on homosexuality -- a term which referred to cultic, blithely uninhibited,
wild-and-crazy Greco-Roman homosexuality -- ought to apply to a pair of like-gendered individuals
who complete each other, who inspire each other, who comfort and support each other?
To quote Bishop John Shelby Spong, such a prohibition is morally incompetent; the prohibition in
question was made in reference to a practice which does not resemble homosexuality of today, or
even the liberal, pink-triangle free love of the 1980s. Our scientific understanding of homosexuality
(widely accepted, although not universal) indicates that orientation is an inseparable from an
individual as their personalities. Both the hetero- and homosexual can express their sexuality in
constructive and destructive ways, both can have healthy and unhealthy relationships, both can be
harmful and healing. Do you really think that one is always ugly in the sight of God? Or do you
think that it is more probably that the Biblical prohibitions were reactions to the homosexuality
that the writers experienced (be it the aforementioned or the cultic practices of the Babylonians,
when the Levitical Code was written)? I think it is the latter.
But that's a good question on divorcées... No man should come between a man and his wife, certainly, as that's Gospel. But if a woman divorces on other grounds, then dating her for me would be a goer (divorcées tend to be well up-for-it, in my experience- I met a 25y.o. one this summer... Modesty was not the order of the day for her... but she WAS from the Flanders. I digress.)
But personally, I believe in the sanctity of marriage, so that's something to be done once anyway.
When Reverend Phelps protests at court houses that 'enable' divorces or at churches which marry
divorced people, then he will at least be consistent. Right now, he's just endorsing his primal,
savage, animal side in preying on a minority group and using the Bible as justification for hate.
Nemesio
Originally posted by 7ate9So why was rape OK then? Are you admiting that the laws were incorrect or are you implying that some things that are considered totally unaceptable today (like rape to obtain a wife) would have been perfectly OK and unsinfull if committed circa 1000BC?
The point is a lot of those Old Testament laws were made for then(whatever then means), and not now.
Originally posted by twhiteheadRead above 😠(and get your facts straight!).
So why was rape OK then? Are you admiting that the laws were incorrect or are you implying that some things that are considered totally unaceptable today (like rape to obtain a wife) would have been perfectly OK and unsinfull if committed circa 1000BC?
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with most of that. Will get back to you.
Originally posted by sjeg
[b]On sins, I'd say what happened to venal and mortal etc.? I think there are grades of sin.
You won't find such classifications in the Bible. What you will find is that liars, drunkards,
homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and so forth are constantly lumped
together. Jesus makes clear that ...[text shortened]... on a minority group and using the Bible as justification for hate.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by sjegIt was 7ate9 who got the facts wrong. However my point still stands. He belives that some old testament laws however cruel were acceptable at the time but are no longer so. I just wanted to know how the morality of it all changed.
Read above 😠(and get your facts straight!).
Originally posted by NemesioYou could also refuse to speak and trust in the Lord that you will be protected. Are you implying that it is OK to lie for the greater good? I know a lot of politicians that use that excuse. Are you saying that one sin is OK if it counteracts a greater sin? How do you measure these sins?
So what's God going to do? Throw you in hell for lying? I just don't see a just God doing such a
thing. I think God is going to say something like, 'Look, you know what I meant. You did the
right thing even though you disobeyed my explicit command, because you sowed love where there
was hate. You protected the weak, you comforted the afflicted.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere is it written, even in the Old Testament, where there is lots of gruesome stuff, that rape is ok?
So why was rape OK then? Are you admiting that the laws were incorrect or are you implying that some things that are considered totally unaceptable today (like rape to obtain a wife) would have been perfectly OK and unsinfull if committed circa 1000BC?
Fine, the religions of the Book share the O.T., but please don't place the ball of some particularly abhorrent Moslem doctrine in the Christian court.
Originally posted by NemesioWell said Nemesio.
There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there
is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are
worthless; there is not one who does good, even one. Romans 10b-12.
...
...Why isn't there a group called 'God Hate Men Who Marry Divorced Women?'
Why aren't they picketting at weddings, too?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhere are the protesters to the tax legislation which cuts welfare (Jesus wasn't interested in what is 'fair' for the world, that those who have should give unconditionally to those who have not)?
Originally posted by sjeg
On sins, I'd say what happened to venal and mortal etc.? I think there are grades of sin.
You won't find such classifications in the Bible. What you will find is that liars, drunkards,
homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and so forth are constantly lumped
together. Jesus makes clear that the ...[text shortened]... on a minority group and using the Bible as justification for hate.
Nemesio[/b]
Not exactly. While He clearly gave His followers a view of what the heart was supposed to look like, by no means was that condition meant to be foisted upon unbelievers, let alone corporate bodies. For believers to expect unbelievers to follow the dictums of their beliefs (or worse, governments to help propogate those beliefs) is not only perposterous, it is forbidden.
You lied, and that's forbidden, and there is no equivocation about this in the Bible.
Not exactly. James 2:25:
"In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"
Similarly, do you think that two men can't love each other, purely and unconditionally?
Absolutely: two men can love each other purely and unconditionally. I have several examples from my own life: my relationships with my father, brothers, and now my sons; my relationships with a few close friends. Of course, there is nothing unnatural about these relationships, thus the 'pure' aspect. The Bible clearly describes homosexuality as unnatural... as unnatural as other deviations of a sexual nature, including the wanton acts of sexual debauchery between man and woman.
To quote Bishop John Shelby Spong, such a prohibition is morally incompetent...
Between the Bible and the bishop, I'd daresay the good bishop is dead wrong.
the prohibition in question was made in reference to a practice which does not resemble homosexuality of today
Oh, sure. When Paul said:
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God,"
he meant only the giddy and promiscuous homosexuals. And that is clearly not what is happening today, now is it?
Our scientific understanding of homosexuality (widely accepted, although not universal)...
There you go again, trotting out the fashionable scientific theory position again. Of course, what was fashionable today is tomorrow's joke, but don't let that bother you.
Right now, he's just endorsing his primal, savage, animal side in preying on a minority group and using the Bible as justification for hate.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not exactly. While He clearly gave His followers a view of what the heart was supposed to look like, by no means was that condition meant to be foisted upon unbelievers, let alone corporate bodies.
Well, if Phelps Klux Klan is asserting that they are believers, and they
are picketting the actions of so-called unbelievers, why do they choose
this particular (small) subset of unbelievers and not the larger
subsets which have a more dramatic impact on society as a whole?
For believers to expect unbelievers to follow the dictums of their beliefs (or worse, governments to help propogate those beliefs) is not only perposterous, it is forbidden.
I'm glad to hear the you support gay marriage.
Not exactly. James 2:25:
"In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"
Her noble actions in housing Joshua's spies did not negate her sins
as a prostitute, or do you subscribe to a treasury of merit notion of
salvation? (Rhetorical question)
Her harlotry is not absolved by her housing of the spies. She was
still a sinner (as per the Romans quote I cited above).
Absolutely: two men can love each other purely and unconditionally. I have several examples from my own life: my relationships with my father, brothers, and now my sons; my relationships with a few close friends. Of course, there is nothing unnatural about these relationships, thus the 'pure' aspect. The Bible clearly describes homosexuality as unnatural... as unnatural as other deviations of a sexual nature, including the wanton acts of sexual debauchery between man and woman.
You like to hear yourself talk, don't you? You know what my question
entailed and you answered another question altogether. If you deny
that two men (or women) can love each other completely (including
sexually), then you assert to know what is in their hearts.
Between the Bible and the bishop, I'd daresay the good bishop is dead wrong.
This comes as no shock to me.
Oh, sure. When Paul said:
"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God,"
he meant only the giddy and promiscuous homosexuals. And that is clearly not what is happening today, now is it?
According to St Paul, we are ALL promiscuous, thieving, greedy,
murdering people, because it is (as Jesus said) what is in our hearts
that matters. Or have you plucked out your eyes and cut of your
hands and feet? (Rhetorical question)
There you go again, trotting out the fashionable scientific theory position again. Of course, what was fashionable today is tomorrow's joke, but don't let that bother you.
Sigh. This attitude allows you to pick and choose amongst science's
finds -- whatever concords with your predetermined conclusion is
right, whatever doesn't, well, that's just 'bad science.' Very convenient.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
Kyrie eleison.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiowhy do they choose this particular (small) subset of unbelievers and not the larger subsets which have a more dramatic impact on society as a whole?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not exactly. While He clearly gave His followers a view of what the heart was supposed to look like, by no means was that condition meant to be foisted upon unbelievers, let alone corporate bodies.
Well, if Phelps Klux Klan is asserting that they are believers, and they
are picketting the actions of so-called u ...[text shortened]... t.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
Kyrie eleison.
Nemesio[/b]
For one, I certainly can't defend the group's actions. For whatever reason, they feel that their pet issue is the one causing the most harm on society. Self-righteous legalism has a way of blinding its adherants.
I'm glad to hear the you support gay marriage.
I certainly do not, but not on spiritual grounds.
You like to hear yourself talk, don't you?
Well, it's more along the lines of enjoying reading my eloquent prose, but I'll go with you on this one.
If you deny that two men (or women) can love each other completely (including sexually), then you assert to know what is in their hearts.
Don't mean to take anything bringing you joy away from you, but... of you're asking my opinion, sex is the monopoly of monogamy, and marriage is designed between a man and a woman.
Kyrie eleison.
He sure do.
Originally posted by Nemesio"You won't find such classifications in the Bible."
Originally posted by sjeg
[b]On sins, I'd say what happened to venal and mortal etc.? I think there are grades of sin.
You won't find such classifications in the Bible. What you will find is that liars, drunkards,
homosexuals, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, and so forth are constantly lumped
together. Jesus makes clear that ...[text shortened]... on a minority group and using the Bible as justification for hate.
Nemesio[/b]
Is that a reason to dismiss them?- they have +thousand years of theology and philospohy behind them. Otherwise, good points.
"If you were in Germany in the 1940s and were housing Jews in your attic and a Nazi rang your
doorbell and asked, 'Any Jews in here?' and you lied, do you think you did wrong?"
I'd say, yes Fritz, I've rounded them up for you in the attic- the small one's diary is quite a larf- you should have a read and a chuckle (Of course I agree with you).
"Similarly, do you think that two men can't love each other, purely and unconditionally?"
Certainly, but fraternally, or amicably, but not sexually, as it is by nature a perversion. God can be as understanding, yet not approve of certain things, can He not? I would say so.
The problem is 1) this is a sin, so theologically speaking morally wrong 2) this is unnatural, so naturally wrong. Does that mean God hates homosexuals? I certainly doubt that- God loves us all, and we all sin.
However, just becasue Western Society has changed in the last 30 or so years, and now accepts homosexuality by and large, does not mean you can change the facts, or mean that the Church, 2,000 years old, should change Her stance, or mean that god might have reconsidered either.
Personally, I'm for a permissive attitude to this subject, once it harms none- so if one wishes to lead this lifestyle, that is their choice, and they should be free to do so.
However, what's so much more moral about today's 'scene' and what it was in ancient Greece (or Rome)? Homosexuals are highly promiscuous by nature (with exceptions, of course, but as a general rule). The idea of the sweetheart couple staying together to death is pretty rare (though of course, can be the case) from what I've seen of it. It's not a moral lifestyle, and by and large, seemingly not a very happy lifestyle either, despite the misnomer. It's a tough world.
Of course, a heterosexual can lead such an existence too, by choice, or a homosexual be monogamous from their first sexual relationship... That's fine.
It's still not natural or moral, in my opinion, but that is simply that, my opinion.
"(be it the aforementioned or the cultic practices of the Babylonians,
when the Levitical Code was written)".
I'd consider Leviticus largely irrelevant in comparison to the Gospels- would Jesus have loved/love a homosexual? Certainly. Jesus loved/loves us all.
Would Jesus have loved an adulterer. Of course.
Does that make adultery morally acceptable? Certainly not.
There is a moral code to follow, I would argue, and that remains, even as we and our societies change.
"When Reverend Phelps protests at court houses..."
(Who is Rev.Phelps? Is he the head of this outfit? Sorry, I've never heard of him. I've seen them on the telly, but never heard of him.)
Ciao
sjeg