When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
crabgrass
Distrust those that actually read the Bible? A tinge of bigotry, crabs?
a tinge of distrust of people who think they KNOW that which is not knowable. Believe what you like, but know that when you present your beliefs as knowledge, you will not be trusted.
as for bigotry...you don't see your own bigotry toward those who don't believe the same things you do?
no...they are both time and place issues. This is what the superintednet said: "My concern is, Can a kindergarten child discern the difference between a friend's opinion about religion and that it wasn't coming from the school or the teacher?" That crabs is content based restricition. If you are going to insist in ignoring the facts, as admitted by the superintendent, what is your point in posting, crabs?
I don't want kids to be passing out any liturature to anyone in school.
Not that anyone gives a damn what you want. The first amendment says that you can.
so, you think it's okay to pass out God pamphets but you don't want Satan pamphets but you want to be fair? See you don't read very well. I wouldn't approve of the satanic pamplets but if the law is be applied as it has been set out by the Court it needs to be applied evenly. But you don't really believe in fairness, do you crabs?
"My concern is, Can a kindergarten child discern the difference between a friend's opinion about religion and that it wasn't coming from the school or the teacher?"That crabs is content based restricition. Â Â
Now if it were a brochures from the american heart association would that superintiendent have that problem? No, he clearly made it about Chritianity and that is content restricition.
and just how "free" is the speech if it's said in such a was as to be coming from somewhere it isn't coming from? Huh? If you mean what I think you mean there was no evidence of edorsement by the school. You can't get around the free speech issue by saying oh they may be confused who is giving the message when there is zero evidence to support that assertion. You are making things up again.
is a child free to pass out Satanic Verse with "this verse brought to you by jethro bodine" at the bottom of it? No because that would be saying that I supported it. There is no evidence showing that the school supported the message.
"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln
History records Abe saying the following as he was departing Spriongfield, Illionis for Washingon D.C. in 1861
"Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young man to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or weather ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being...I cannot succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail...To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell."
Oh I get the point. Your point is that since everyone sins it is okay to sin.
No, Jethro, my point is that since everyone sins, no one is free of sin, no one is "above" others, and no one is in a position to make moral judgment on others. It's the same point that Jesus made when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
You misinterpret the Bible to assuage your guilt and others.
No, I actually read the Bible closely to understand what Jesus wants of me. He wants me (and you) to resist the temptation of placing ourselves in the high-and-mighty role of judge over others. What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others. He has reasons, and if he is who we believe he is, then we owe it to ourselves and to God to figure out what those reasons are.
But the the truth is that people should judge others by their actions.
According to Jesus, we should not judge others. He stated this repeatedly. To counter this, you quote the almost identical passages in Matthew and Luke where Jesus dicusses how to handle disputes between two individuals. He's talking in those passages about what to do if you feel somone has "sinned against YOU," that is: hurt you, harmed you. Those passages are about conflict resolution, not about making blanket judgments on others.
I satnd by my statement. If one does not engage is sex one is not sexual. Of course, they may have desires but if no action is taken there is no sex.
[me] I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities.
That is you definition.
No, that's Jesus' definition: Matthew 5:27-28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Now consider that passage. If you read scripture in flat, two-dimensional, motor vehicle code book fashion, you could find yourself quite convicted by the above passage (unless you've never lusted after a woman other than your wife). But if you want to get deeper into the reality that Jesus was pointing to, you might think about all the things that go on in your heart and soul and consider that it is there that we sin. I started to explain to you yesterday that Jesus addresses the inner person: who you are inside. But the above passage might help you see that more clearly.
Perhaps it will also help you, Jethro, if you realize that the word "sin" referred to errors that separate us from God. Sin is not a mortal strike against us by a punitive God so much as a mistake that we can rectify by returning to God. Most of us lust in our hearts; therefore, according to Jesus, most of us have broken one of the 10 commandments. How can anyone assume a position of extreme self-righteousness and judgmentalism in light of that?
If he does not engage in homosexual acts he is not homosexual. The act itself is definitive.
If he lusts for other men, he is gay. And if you and I lust for someone of the opposite sex, we are adulterous. Who is to judge whom? Jesus says: neither.
God knows that people think sinful thoughts.
And according to Jesus, our thoughts matter.
But if one commits the sin and does not repent they are lost.
What is sin? Sin is a state of separation from God. To "repent" is to return to God. The meaning of this goes way, way beyond a simple list of dos and don'ts. The "bad boy who did a naughty thing and went to hell" paradigm is too small to fit the reality of a relationship with God.
[me] Jesus brought something new into the world; he was trying to show us how to change ourselves from within.
But you don't want to change. From your statements you want to accept the sin.
You have accepted the sin. That is your choice.
Christ changed my life radically. Before I accepted Christ, I was judgmental and rejected people because they did things that I considered wrong (I was especially hard on liars, cheaters, and thieves). I was even harder on myself, constantly questioning my own motives, my moral failings. After accepting Christ, God's love for me, and his grace in my life, I began seeing others with more compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. And, yeah, I still slip into anger and judgmentalism way too often. But not as often as I used to.
[me] Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower.
Again you are wrong. Sin must be recognized for what it is and an attempt must be made to overcome it. See Luke 17.
You are right that we must deal with our own sins. Sin is separation from God. It's bad enough that we all turn from him on occasion, but if we were to try to shake someone else's faith or in any way alienate them from God (such as making him out to be a cold, ruthless punitive judge) then, that is a SERIOUS wrong. Agreed: that is BAD stuff.
[me] So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in.
That, my dear, is not Christianity. They must be willing to repent their sins not revel in them.
[me] It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening.
No it is absurd.
Jethro, Christianity is all about lowliness, humility, accepting others warts and all, loving everyone as yourself, and loving God. It is NOT about scrutinizing the failings of others, castigating them for their imperfections and presuming to sit in judgement over them. Judgment is for God, not for man. To presume otherwise is to commit the worst sin, the sin of Pride.
[me] No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
Again you are totally wrong. See Luke 17....So Christ expected judgment. He expected it because you are your brothers keeper and he expects you to help your brother find his way. Christ did not want you to accept the sin in yourself or others.
He told us over and over and over againNOT to judge others. One of the charges against him was that he hung out with tax collectors, sinners and prostitutes. The people who leveled those charges seem to have their modern-day counterparts.
I know you want to ignore the sin. I know it can be hard to follow the Christian teaching, but you are not even trying. You have capitulated to the evil. But, of course, there is still time.
You know nothing of my private life, Jethro and yet you are so eager to set yourself up as the judge of others that you are now judging me -- only you have nothing to judge me on except for my friendship with and acceptance of gays. As I noted above, one of the charges against Jesus was that he hung out with tax collectors, sinners and prostitutes.
Yes, I know how hard it is to follow the Christian teaching: I found it very difficult to let go of my scrupulousness and to accept people into my heart without judgment. I still find it difficult at times.
[me] When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
He said in Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;" So it is clear the sin must be condemned.
The KJV reads thus: Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Regardless of which version you use, the context makes it clear that the passage is about how one should respond to someone who personally offends you. Jethro, you are twisting the meaning of this passage in order to give yourself license to disregard what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1 and 7:3, Luke 6:37, Matthew 18:10-14, John 8:7
You have good points Susan, but I somehow can't see Christ condoning homosexuality.
THX, Jesus rarely addressed the subject of sex, and when he did, it was in response to direct questions on the part of others. (His most extensive mention of it was that it's better to be celibate, but then he acknowledged that not everyone is able do this. This too is food for thought, and I've pondered it quite a bit.) However, he brought up many other subjects of his own accord and addressed them at some length. His favorite topics seemed to have to do with the kingdom of God (and these are mainly expressed in tantalizing, mind-boggling, meditation-worthy parables), the importance of having faith, and how we are to treat each other. On the latter, the big push is for generosity, sharing, helping, loving, non-judgmentalism, caritas. So it's unlikely that sex was foremost on his mind. Surely there were homosexuals in his culture, but we have no record of his ever having bothered to mention them, so it's doubtful that they stood out for him.
You need to do more reading.He wants me (and you) to resist the temptation of placing ourselves in the high-and-mighty role of judge over others. He wants you to advocate morality and try to guide the wayward back to the correct path. That doesn't happen by accepting the sin.What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others. He said if your brother sins against you rebuke him.
THX, Jesus rarely addressed the subject of sex, and when he did, it was in response to direct questions on the part of others. Jesus was Jewish and he followed the Jewish teachings on this subject.
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
you are trying to live by a rather severely outdated book of rules.
You are dense, crabs. I wonder if you comprehend anything that I have written. I have been saying that when Christ said, to paraphrase, those without sin cast the first stone, He meant that the penalty outweighed the crime and that stoning was wrong. Since that is what I believe, then obviously I can't be "trying to live by a rather severely outdated book of rules."
LONDON — The former drummer for heavy metal band Judas Priest was jailed Friday for eight years for the attempted rape of a teenager while giving him drum lessons.
David Holland was convicted last month of one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the 17-year-old youth, who has learning difficulties, at the drummer's rural English home in 2002.
Sentencing Holland in Northampton Crown Court, Judge Charles Wide said the drummer had planned the abuse and must never again be allowed to work with children.
Holland, 55, denied the charges.
Wide said that Holland had misrepresented himself to the boy's parents as a beneficial influence and won favor with the teenager by giving him cigarettes, alcohol and pornography.
"You deliberately and calculatedly planned and executed a strategy of abusing a boy who you knew to be exceptionally vulnerable," Wide said.
Prosecutors said during the trial that the teenager, who had sometimes stayed overnight at Holland's house while taking lessons, wrote a letter to his parents in December 2002 describing the abuse.
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and stayed for a decade, through its most successful period. The hard-rocking British band churned out a string of heavy-metal classics, including "You've Got Another Thing Coming," "Living After Midnight" and "Hell Bent for Leather."
But if you could keep up you would know that susan advocates no judgments about anything.
I believe she said a good deal more than that about it...and she wasn't trying to say she believed it (I'm sure she does), she was making the point that this is what Jesus taught...over and over again.
I said, "What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others." You replied,
He said if your brother sins against you rebuke him.
First you ignore something that, if you are a Christian, should interest you: why does Jesus tell us over and over not to be judgmental? Why does he continually advise us to not think we are better than other people? Jethro, if you care about him, think on these things.
Second, you bring up, for the fourth or fifth time, "if your brother sins against you,rebuke him." Against YOU, Jethro. As I pointed out yesterday and the day before, he's talking about interpersonal conflict. But every time people got high and mighty and thought they could judge others who weren't harming them, Jesus said, "stop it."
Sorry, you are wrong. If that were the case there would be no Christianity because everything people do would be just fine and dandy.
Jesus didn't come here to point out all the little ways we don't measure up; there was already the strict set of Jewish laws for that. God doesn't hate us. He loves us: that's why he gave us Jesus. Jesus brought a direct conduit to the kingdom of God. He gave the world a reason to be happy and uplifted, not threatened and worried. He taught us how to orient ourselves in life so that we can be open to God. It happens internally. You lower yourself (you try to stash your ego), you place yourself in God's hands (that's faith) and quite worrying about society and material things. You lower your internal barriers against others, especially those whom society and established religion find unacceptable.
It is easy to make accusations of others selfrighteousness. Isn't that itself a judgment? Aren't you doing exactly what you believe Christ told you not to do?
So far, I don't think I'm judging you, Jethro. I'm trying to explain something to you. I'm certainly not shunning you or advocating that you be condemned or punished -- or denied a full and satisfying life, as some are advocating for gay couples who want to marry.
Again you are wrong. You are picking out the part you want and ignoring that that does not fit your world view.
I try to understand the whole message, to put it all together. I look at all of it: his teachings, his parables, the choices he made in his life.
I said, "What is sin? Sin is a state of separation from God." You replied,
Sin is a violation of the rules of God. They are rules that allow people to live together in, more or less harmony, therefore man has a right to point out when they are broken.
Are the "rules of God" the hundreds of Hebrew laws encoded in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers? Are they, Jethro? Well, Jesus said the whole of the law can be summed up thus: love God with your entire being and love your neighbor as yourself. When asked who our neighbor is, he told a story of someone who was injured and left by the roadside to die. According to the Hebrew scriptures, a person in that condition was considered unclean and impure. So the righteous people, priests and religously respectable people, walked around him and refused to help. Then an outsider, someone not considered respectable to Jews, picked this hapless fellow up and took him to a safe place, treated his wounds, and spent money to make sure that he would be safe and well fed.
The whole of the law, Jethro.
I said, "Christ changed my life radically. Before I accepted Christ, I was judgmental and rejected people because they did things that I considered wrong (I was especially hard on liars, cheaters, and thieves)." You replied,
As well you should be. Christ doesn't want you or anyone else to accept the sin. He wants people to reject the sin.
So you think I was a better person before Christ entered my life and softened my heart? You think God would prefer that I tighten all my bodily orifices, pinch my nose, gaze distainfully upon all those "sinners" out there and then get in their face and "rebuke" the heck out of them?
I said, "Jethro, Christianity is all about lowliness, humility, accepting others warts and all, loving everyone as yourself, and loving God." You replied,
It is NOT about accepting the sin.
You don't have to worry about "accepting the sin" if you do the best you can with your own life, ask God to help you where it's difficult, and, when it comes to other people, bypass moral judgment althogether and just love them, warts and all. God doesn't ask you to go around scolding others and correcting their behavior. Jesus didn't scold people for their weaknesses. He scolded the high and mighty religious types, the legalistic ones, the scribes and Pharisees, for their self-righteousness and hypocricy.
What you advocate, whether you realize it or not, is to accept the sin. That the sin is okay because everyone does it.
No, I advocate accepting others, not placing myself above them, and letting God do the judging. God reaches people through love. That's how he reached me.
Jesus was Jewish and he followed the Jewish teachings on this subject.
One of the complaints against Jesus was that he regularly broke the Jewish laws. He healed on the Sabbath, disregarded the strict dietary laws, associated with the impure and the unclean.
you bring up, for the fourth or fifth time, "if your brother sins against you, rebuke him." Against YOU, Jethro. As I pointed out yesterday and the day before, he's talking about interpersonal conflict.
that jethro cites this "if a brother sins against you" deal in the context of discussing homosexuality
he thinks the act is a sin and he cites his judging this sin with a passage that says he should because "if your brother sins against you" you should judge...
now, did someone sin (an act of homosexuality) against jethro? is that why he feels justified to judge?
Just to set the record straight, the percentage of gays in the population is more like one to four percent, not 10%.
well, if you are using the definition jethro uses, that one is only a hetrosexual or homosexual when they are acually engaged in sex, the percentage of people who are sexual at all at any one time drops to a very small percentage
if we say that it's anyone who has ever engaged in a sex act, the percentage of bisexuals soars.
Maybe so but recognizing that others have lost their way and are living a life of sin, promoting sin and attempting to persuade others to live a life of sin is not thinking "one is better."
Maybe so but recognizing that others have lost their way and are living a life of sin, promoting sin and attempting to persuade others to live a life of sin is not thinking "one is better."
In that, you're starting to sound brainwashed, Jethro. None of the gays that I know have ever tried to talk me or anybody else out of being straight. We accept each others' sexual orientation as a given and relate about the meaningful and interesting things that we have in common. Gays have cares and concerns, hopes and dreams, families, worries, friends, hobbies like anyone else, you know? It may interest you that every Sunday at my church we pray for "an end to discrimination based on age, religion, race, gender, ethnicity and orientation."To us, discrimination against gays is wrong, and every Sunday we ask God to put an end to it.
I find it curious that you confine your judgmentalism to homosexuals, to people whom Jesus never spoke against. Why don't you protest the same behaviors that Jesus protested? How about protesting the pervasive message that our culture provides about "success" being a matter getting rich? What did Jesus have to say about rich people? Or how about protesting against religious judgmentalism in our society? Jesus had a big problem with that. Do you ever protest against the lack of charity, of feeding the hungry, taking in the stranger, visiting prison inmates? Remember what he said about these things in Mat 25:35-46? That's even got a little bit of fire and brimstone for you. Do you go around admonishing others to love their neighbors as themelves? More to the point, do you advocate that society publicly rebuke and refuse to accept all the people who commit these errors? Because that's pretty much the majority.
We are not talking about LITTLE ways.
On the contrary, Jethro: if homosexuality is a sin (and I don't think it is), it is certainly NOT one of the biggies. Yet, it appears that for you it is the be-all and end-all. You seem willing to tolerate all sorts of things except for the existence of homosexuals in our culture. The fact that they are such a tiny minority of the population and that they are as law-abiding, kind, caring, and decent as the heterosexual population leads me to suspect that the current hulabaloo about them signals a particular kind of social pathology in which the dominant group seeks out minorities for exclusion and/or persecution. We saw this happen in Europe during the the period of pograms against the Jews and also in our own country during the Salem witch trials and the treatment of Blacks. Now, you want to talk about evil? Persecuting an entire group of people within your own culture is evil. Don't give in to brainwashing messages that urge you to treat these people differently from others. Be your best self, Jethro: if for some reason you don't like homosexuals, then avoid them, but don't advocate that they be denied full participation in our society.
I am not advocating the condemnation of gays. I am saying that that behavior is a sin and should not be accepted as being proper behavior.
Really? What, then, shall we do with all those folks out there who covet what others have? I mean, coveting even made it into the Ten Commandments (unlike homosexuality.) Does the fact that you don't go around "correcting" people for their covetousness mean that you "accept" it? You see, I don't buy your explanation that the reason for your extreme focus on gays is merely a product of your opinion that they are "sinners," because as we all know, sinners are dime a dozen. We're all sinners. Yet our society lets us hold jobs, buy homes, have friends, run for office, choose our associates, raise our families, etc. A civilized society does not select out a particular group of law abiding citizens for exclusion from the standard benefits that everyone else enjoys.
Gays should be treated like anyone else. They are no better and no worse than anyone else.
I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea that someone can think that a person doesn't have a sexual oreintation unless they are actively engaged in a sexual act.
I don't hear bodine pointing out the sin we all live in here in this capitalistic society. As a matter of fact, he strikes me as the sort of fellow would would call a less capitalistic society "godless"
I don't hear bodine pointing out the sin we all live in here in this capitalistic society. As a matter of fact, he strikes me as the sort of fellow would would call a less capitalistic society "godless".
Capitalism isn't coveting.
You can want material posessions simply because you want them, not because someone else has them and you're envious.
I've said before, being rich in itself is not a sin.
a tinge of distrust of people who think they KNOW that which is not knowable. Believe what you like, but know that when you present your beliefs as knowledge, you will not be trusted.
as for bigotry...you don't see your own bigotry toward those who don't believe the same things you do?
no...they are both time and place issues. This is what the superintednet said: "My concern is, Can a kindergarten child discern the difference between a friend's opinion about religion and that it wasn't coming from the school or the teacher?" That crabs is content based restricition. If you are going to insist in ignoring the facts, as admitted by the superintendent, what is your point in posting, crabs?
I don't want kids to be passing out any liturature to anyone in school.
Not that anyone gives a damn what you want. The first amendment says that you can.
so, you think it's okay to pass out God pamphets but you don't want Satan pamphets but you want to be fair? See you don't read very well. I wouldn't approve of the satanic pamplets but if the law is be applied as it has been set out by the Court it needs to be applied evenly. But you don't really believe in fairness, do you crabs?
Believe what you like, but know that when you present your beliefs as knowledge, you will not be trusted.
like science? it is mostly hypotheses that get revised quite often.
from a school or a teacher....time and place.
exactly like science...science is all about not trusting.
that's exactly why it is constantly questioning and changing that which is believed and presented as knowledge.
it's how we learn.
without the distrust of science, we would still believe we lived on the flat center of the universe.
and just how "free" is the speech if it's said in such a was as to be coming from somewhere it isn't coming from?
is a child free to pass out Satanic Verse with "this verse brought to you by jethro bodine" at the bottom of it?
Now if it were a brochures from the american heart association would that superintiendent have that problem? No, he clearly made it about Chritianity and that is content restricition.
and just how "free" is the speech if it's said in such a was as to be coming from somewhere it isn't coming from? Huh? If you mean what I think you mean there was no evidence of edorsement by the school. You can't get around the free speech issue by saying oh they may be confused who is giving the message when there is zero evidence to support that assertion. You are making things up again.
is a child free to pass out Satanic Verse with "this verse brought to you by jethro bodine" at the bottom of it? No because that would be saying that I supported it. There is no evidence showing that the school supported the message.
from a crabs post:
History records Abe saying the following as he was departing Spriongfield, Illionis for Washingon D.C. in 1861
So the question is which one isn't true? Both?
I fail to see where Abe so much as mentioned Christianity in your quote.
so both, absolutely.
and if you read the first quote, you would see that he didn't say he didn't have any religion, just the it wasn't Christianity.
that's the problem with you Christians, you think you are the only ones who can believe in a Divine being.
No, Jethro, my point is that since everyone sins, no one is free of sin, no one is "above" others, and no one is in a position to make moral judgment on others. It's the same point that Jesus made when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
No, I actually read the Bible closely to understand what Jesus wants of me. He wants me (and you) to resist the temptation of placing ourselves in the high-and-mighty role of judge over others. What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others. He has reasons, and if he is who we believe he is, then we owe it to ourselves and to God to figure out what those reasons are.
According to Jesus, we should not judge others. He stated this repeatedly. To counter this, you quote the almost identical passages in Matthew and Luke where Jesus dicusses how to handle disputes between two individuals. He's talking in those passages about what to do if you feel somone has "sinned against YOU," that is: hurt you, harmed you. Those passages are about conflict resolution, not about making blanket judgments on others.
[me] I was trying to point out to you that "sexual" covers a lot more than physical activities.
No, that's Jesus' definition: Matthew 5:27-28 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Now consider that passage. If you read scripture in flat, two-dimensional, motor vehicle code book fashion, you could find yourself quite convicted by the above passage (unless you've never lusted after a woman other than your wife). But if you want to get deeper into the reality that Jesus was pointing to, you might think about all the things that go on in your heart and soul and consider that it is there that we sin. I started to explain to you yesterday that Jesus addresses the inner person: who you are inside. But the above passage might help you see that more clearly.
Perhaps it will also help you, Jethro, if you realize that the word "sin" referred to errors that separate us from God. Sin is not a mortal strike against us by a punitive God so much as a mistake that we can rectify by returning to God. Most of us lust in our hearts; therefore, according to Jesus, most of us have broken one of the 10 commandments. How can anyone assume a position of extreme self-righteousness and judgmentalism in light of that?
If he lusts for other men, he is gay. And if you and I lust for someone of the opposite sex, we are adulterous. Who is to judge whom? Jesus says: neither.
And according to Jesus, our thoughts matter.
What is sin? Sin is a state of separation from God. To "repent" is to return to God. The meaning of this goes way, way beyond a simple list of dos and don'ts. The "bad boy who did a naughty thing and went to hell" paradigm is too small to fit the reality of a relationship with God.
[me] Jesus brought something new into the world; he was trying to show us how to change ourselves from within.
Christ changed my life radically. Before I accepted Christ, I was judgmental and rejected people because they did things that I considered wrong (I was especially hard on liars, cheaters, and thieves). I was even harder on myself, constantly questioning my own motives, my moral failings. After accepting Christ, God's love for me, and his grace in my life, I began seeing others with more compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. And, yeah, I still slip into anger and judgmentalism way too often. But not as often as I used to.
[me] Part of that change is a humility and a fellow-feeling for others that does not make distinctions of good and bad or higher and lower.
You are right that we must deal with our own sins. Sin is separation from God. It's bad enough that we all turn from him on occasion, but if we were to try to shake someone else's faith or in any way alienate them from God (such as making him out to be a cold, ruthless punitive judge) then, that is a SERIOUS wrong. Agreed: that is BAD stuff.
[me] So rather than drawing up barriers, letting some people in and keeping others out, you drop the barriers and let everyone in.
[me] It's quite leveling, and for that reason, it is strange and frightening.
Jethro, Christianity is all about lowliness, humility, accepting others warts and all, loving everyone as yourself, and loving God. It is NOT about scrutinizing the failings of others, castigating them for their imperfections and presuming to sit in judgement over them. Judgment is for God, not for man. To presume otherwise is to commit the worst sin, the sin of Pride.
[me] No, he hung out with sinners, he didn't judge them, and he told others not to either.
He told us over and over and over againNOT to judge others. One of the charges against him was that he hung out with tax collectors, sinners and prostitutes. The people who leveled those charges seem to have their modern-day counterparts.
You know nothing of my private life, Jethro and yet you are so eager to set yourself up as the judge of others that you are now judging me -- only you have nothing to judge me on except for my friendship with and acceptance of gays. As I noted above, one of the charges against Jesus was that he hung out with tax collectors, sinners and prostitutes.
Yes, I know how hard it is to follow the Christian teaching: I found it very difficult to let go of my scrupulousness and to accept people into my heart without judgment. I still find it difficult at times.
[me] When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he didn't say to judge them to be worthy of your love before doing so. He said: love them. Just do it.
The KJV reads thus: Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Regardless of which version you use, the context makes it clear that the passage is about how one should respond to someone who personally offends you. Jethro, you are twisting the meaning of this passage in order to give yourself license to disregard what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1 and 7:3, Luke 6:37, Matthew 18:10-14, John 8:7
Anyone who spends his or her time worrying about what other people are doing in bed is "hung up" on sex.
You have good points Susan, but I somehow can't see Christ condoning homosexuality.
THX, Jesus rarely addressed the subject of sex, and when he did, it was in response to direct questions on the part of others. (His most extensive mention of it was that it's better to be celibate, but then he acknowledged that not everyone is able do this. This too is food for thought, and I've pondered it quite a bit.) However, he brought up many other subjects of his own accord and addressed them at some length. His favorite topics seemed to have to do with the kingdom of God (and these are mainly expressed in tantalizing, mind-boggling, meditation-worthy parables), the importance of having faith, and how we are to treat each other. On the latter, the big push is for generosity, sharing, helping, loving, non-judgmentalism, caritas. So it's unlikely that sex was foremost on his mind. Surely there were homosexuals in his culture, but we have no record of his ever having bothered to mention them, so it's doubtful that they stood out for him.
You need to do more reading.He wants me (and you) to resist the temptation of placing ourselves in the high-and-mighty role of judge over others. He wants you to advocate morality and try to guide the wayward back to the correct path. That doesn't happen by accepting the sin.What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others. He said if your brother sins against you rebuke him.
THX, Jesus rarely addressed the subject of sex, and when he did, it was in response to direct questions on the part of others. Jesus was Jewish and he followed the Jewish teachings on this subject.
when you say "engage in sex", what do you mean?
hold hands? kiss? make out? fondle? what exactly?
and are you saying that you are not a hetrosexual?
Romans 1
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.
so lesbians are okay?
so, as long as they feel no shame, it's not a shameful act?
what exactly are these "shameful acts"?
the Bible also says that adultery should be punished by stoning...no...wait...let he who is without sin cast the first one.
doesn't it say something about stoning the disobediant children too?
you are trying to live by a rather severly outdated book of rules.
so lesbians are okay?
I guess some people can't read: "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations...."
you are trying to live by a rather severely outdated book of rules.
You are dense, crabs. I wonder if you comprehend anything that I have written. I have been saying that when Christ said, to paraphrase, those without sin cast the first stone, He meant that the penalty outweighed the crime and that stoning was wrong. Since that is what I believe, then obviously I can't be "trying to live by a rather severely outdated book of rules."
and you define "natural" how exactly?
Ex-Judas Priest Drummer Jailed
LONDON — The former drummer for heavy metal band Judas Priest was jailed Friday for eight years for the attempted rape of a teenager while giving him drum lessons.
David Holland was convicted last month of one charge of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on the 17-year-old youth, who has learning difficulties, at the drummer's rural English home in 2002.
Sentencing Holland in Northampton Crown Court, Judge Charles Wide said the drummer had planned the abuse and must never again be allowed to work with children.
Holland, 55, denied the charges.
Wide said that Holland had misrepresented himself to the boy's parents as a beneficial influence and won favor with the teenager by giving him cigarettes, alcohol and pornography.
"You deliberately and calculatedly planned and executed a strategy of abusing a boy who you knew to be exceptionally vulnerable," Wide said.
Prosecutors said during the trial that the teenager, who had sometimes stayed overnight at Holland's house while taking lessons, wrote a letter to his parents in December 2002 describing the abuse.
Holland joined Judas Priest in 1979 and stayed for a decade, through its most successful period. The hard-rocking British band churned out a string of heavy-metal classics, including "You've Got Another Thing Coming," "Living After Midnight" and "Hell Bent for Leather."
Holland left the group in 1989.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111392,00.html
Question should the person not be judged? Or should we be nonjudgmental and set him free?
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense." - Robert A. Heinlein
just fine and dandy, crabs. But if you could keep up you would know that susan advocates no judgments about anything.
I believe she said a good deal more than that about it...and she wasn't trying to say she believed it (I'm sure she does), she was making the point that this is what Jesus taught...over and over again.
I said, "What's interesting to me is WHY he asked us over and over NOT to judge others." You replied,
First you ignore something that, if you are a Christian, should interest you: why does Jesus tell us over and over not to be judgmental? Why does he continually advise us to not think we are better than other people? Jethro, if you care about him, think on these things.
Second, you bring up, for the fourth or fifth time, "if your brother sins against you,rebuke him." Against YOU, Jethro. As I pointed out yesterday and the day before, he's talking about interpersonal conflict. But every time people got high and mighty and thought they could judge others who weren't harming them, Jesus said, "stop it."
Jesus didn't come here to point out all the little ways we don't measure up; there was already the strict set of Jewish laws for that. God doesn't hate us. He loves us: that's why he gave us Jesus. Jesus brought a direct conduit to the kingdom of God. He gave the world a reason to be happy and uplifted, not threatened and worried. He taught us how to orient ourselves in life so that we can be open to God. It happens internally. You lower yourself (you try to stash your ego), you place yourself in God's hands (that's faith) and quite worrying about society and material things. You lower your internal barriers against others, especially those whom society and established religion find unacceptable.
So far, I don't think I'm judging you, Jethro. I'm trying to explain something to you. I'm certainly not shunning you or advocating that you be condemned or punished -- or denied a full and satisfying life, as some are advocating for gay couples who want to marry.
I try to understand the whole message, to put it all together. I look at all of it: his teachings, his parables, the choices he made in his life.
I said, "What is sin? Sin is a state of separation from God." You replied,
Are the "rules of God" the hundreds of Hebrew laws encoded in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers? Are they, Jethro? Well, Jesus said the whole of the law can be summed up thus: love God with your entire being and love your neighbor as yourself. When asked who our neighbor is, he told a story of someone who was injured and left by the roadside to die. According to the Hebrew scriptures, a person in that condition was considered unclean and impure. So the righteous people, priests and religously respectable people, walked around him and refused to help. Then an outsider, someone not considered respectable to Jews, picked this hapless fellow up and took him to a safe place, treated his wounds, and spent money to make sure that he would be safe and well fed.
The whole of the law, Jethro.
I said, "Christ changed my life radically. Before I accepted Christ, I was judgmental and rejected people because they did things that I considered wrong (I was especially hard on liars, cheaters, and thieves)." You replied,
So you think I was a better person before Christ entered my life and softened my heart? You think God would prefer that I tighten all my bodily orifices, pinch my nose, gaze distainfully upon all those "sinners" out there and then get in their face and "rebuke" the heck out of them?
I said, "Jethro, Christianity is all about lowliness, humility, accepting others warts and all, loving everyone as yourself, and loving God." You replied,
You don't have to worry about "accepting the sin" if you do the best you can with your own life, ask God to help you where it's difficult, and, when it comes to other people, bypass moral judgment althogether and just love them, warts and all. God doesn't ask you to go around scolding others and correcting their behavior. Jesus didn't scold people for their weaknesses. He scolded the high and mighty religious types, the legalistic ones, the scribes and Pharisees, for their self-righteousness and hypocricy.
No, I advocate accepting others, not placing myself above them, and letting God do the judging. God reaches people through love. That's how he reached me.
One of the complaints against Jesus was that he regularly broke the Jewish laws. He healed on the Sabbath, disregarded the strict dietary laws, associated with the impure and the unclean.
that jethro cites this "if a brother sins against you" deal in the context of discussing homosexuality
Well, private relationships among gay men are not sins against Jethro.
he thinks the act is a sin and he cites his judging this sin with a passage that says he should because "if your brother sins against you" you should judge...
now, did someone sin (an act of homosexuality) against jethro? is that why he feels justified to judge?
and of course all this revolves around my accepting the rules of his book.
will he return the favor and respect the rules of my book?
somehow I doubt it.
Just to set the record straight, the percentage of gays in the population is more like one to four percent, not 10%.
well, if you are using the definition jethro uses, that one is only a hetrosexual or homosexual when they are acually engaged in sex, the percentage of people who are sexual at all at any one time drops to a very small percentage
if we say that it's anyone who has ever engaged in a sex act, the percentage of bisexuals soars.
it's all in how you define it.
now we could have a discussion about what sexuality actually is if you like, we might even learn something.
We are not talking about LITTLE ways.
it's mearly presumptious.
who are youto say what another person's "way" is?
In that, you're starting to sound brainwashed, Jethro. None of the gays that I know have ever tried to talk me or anybody else out of being straight. We accept each others' sexual orientation as a given and relate about the meaningful and interesting things that we have in common. Gays have cares and concerns, hopes and dreams, families, worries, friends, hobbies like anyone else, you know? It may interest you that every Sunday at my church we pray for "an end to discrimination based on age, religion, race, gender, ethnicity and orientation."To us, discrimination against gays is wrong, and every Sunday we ask God to put an end to it.
I find it curious that you confine your judgmentalism to homosexuals, to people whom Jesus never spoke against. Why don't you protest the same behaviors that Jesus protested? How about protesting the pervasive message that our culture provides about "success" being a matter getting rich? What did Jesus have to say about rich people? Or how about protesting against religious judgmentalism in our society? Jesus had a big problem with that. Do you ever protest against the lack of charity, of feeding the hungry, taking in the stranger, visiting prison inmates? Remember what he said about these things in Mat 25:35-46? That's even got a little bit of fire and brimstone for you. Do you go around admonishing others to love their neighbors as themelves? More to the point, do you advocate that society publicly rebuke and refuse to accept all the people who commit these errors? Because that's pretty much the majority.
On the contrary, Jethro: if homosexuality is a sin (and I don't think it is), it is certainly NOT one of the biggies. Yet, it appears that for you it is the be-all and end-all. You seem willing to tolerate all sorts of things except for the existence of homosexuals in our culture. The fact that they are such a tiny minority of the population and that they are as law-abiding, kind, caring, and decent as the heterosexual population leads me to suspect that the current hulabaloo about them signals a particular kind of social pathology in which the dominant group seeks out minorities for exclusion and/or persecution. We saw this happen in Europe during the the period of pograms against the Jews and also in our own country during the Salem witch trials and the treatment of Blacks. Now, you want to talk about evil? Persecuting an entire group of people within your own culture is evil. Don't give in to brainwashing messages that urge you to treat these people differently from others. Be your best self, Jethro: if for some reason you don't like homosexuals, then avoid them, but don't advocate that they be denied full participation in our society.
Really? What, then, shall we do with all those folks out there who covet what others have? I mean, coveting even made it into the Ten Commandments (unlike homosexuality.) Does the fact that you don't go around "correcting" people for their covetousness mean that you "accept" it? You see, I don't buy your explanation that the reason for your extreme focus on gays is merely a product of your opinion that they are "sinners," because as we all know, sinners are dime a dozen. We're all sinners. Yet our society lets us hold jobs, buy homes, have friends, run for office, choose our associates, raise our families, etc. A civilized society does not select out a particular group of law abiding citizens for exclusion from the standard benefits that everyone else enjoys.
Gays should be treated like anyone else. They are no better and no worse than anyone else.
I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea that someone can think that a person doesn't have a sexual oreintation unless they are actively engaged in a sexual act.
our entire capitalistic society runs on coveting shit.
our entire capitalistic society runs on coveting shit.
And therefore it's ok.
apparently not, according to the Bible.
I don't hear bodine pointing out the sin we all live in here in this capitalistic society. As a matter of fact, he strikes me as the sort of fellow would would call a less capitalistic society "godless"
Time to end it all, crabs.
Gay pride day. Gay pride parades. But heaven forbid a student should wear a straight pride t-shirt to school.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Quit stalking me - crabgrass.
Quit lurking - crabgrass.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
apparently not, according to the Bible.
I don't hear bodine pointing out the sin we all live in here in this capitalistic society. As a matter of fact, he strikes me as the sort of fellow would would call a less capitalistic society "godless".
Capitalism isn't coveting.
You can want material posessions simply because you want them, not because someone else has them and you're envious.
I've said before, being rich in itself is not a sin.