Our cultural elites are worried not about how the film is "anti," but how the film is "pro." They know how this film has the potential to light a fire under traditional Christianity in America and around the world.
crusades and inquisitions began because of those four words....
Typical liberal response when it comes to religion. Point out the negative and imply it is the norm. You know, that is how Satan wants people to see Christianity.
[me] In that, you're starting to sound brainwashed, Jethro.
[Jethro] Is that judgment there?
No, it's my impression of how you're receiving your opinions. However, I certainly don't think God would hold it against you that you're prone to brainswashing.
[me] None of the gays that I know have ever tried to talk me or anybody else out of being straight.
[Jethro] I didn't say they did.
You said that they are "attempting to persuade others to live a life of sin."
What I am saying is that by wanting marriage they are wanting society to accept the sin.
Wait a minute. Their "sin," according to you, is having sex with each other. How would their getting married change that? Is there a special "sin" in married people having sex? Or do you mean that society should punish them for their supposed sin by barring them from making the same kind of lifelong committments that all the rest of us sinners get to make?
I think God wants an end to homosexual behavior.
Well, God sent us his son to tell us what he wants, and his son didn't say anything about "homosexual behavior." He did, however, have quite a bit to say about our human failing of acting holier than thou and passing moral judgment on others. You do care about Jesus' teachings, don't you, Jethro?
One of Jesus purposes was to show how Judaism was being misdirected. In doing so he pointed to those things in which it was being misdirected. Now if he thought homosexuality was okay don't you think he would have made an issue of the fact that the Jews disapproved of it?
The ways in which Judaism was being misdirected, according to Jesus, was in its rigid legalism, it's eagerness to judge oneself above others, and its religious purity laws that excluded people for being "sinners" or unclean.
I disagree that is what Jesus taught. He taught that there was one way, and that being the case, he rejected other ways.
Love God with everything you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. That's the way. Yes, it is hard.
[me] 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? Â Â
[Jethro] It amazes me that you do not see the judgment that Christ said was going to occur in those lines.
Yes, this kind of judgment: For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in, naked and ye clothed me not, sick and in prison, and ye visited me not.
It's all about how we treat each other -- and not one word about sex, Jethro.
I suppose it is all right for Jesus to tell you how to be saved but no one else should help guide you in that direction?
Jesus was the human face of God. People who can speak to me in the spirit of Jesus can, and sometimes do, guide me.
If so, what were the apostles for?
To help him get the Good News out. (Got that, Jethro? Good News.)
You accuse me of adhering to positions on subjects that we have not discussed.
Where?
Homosexuality has never been approved by Judeo Christian tradition.
The Judeo Christian tradition is a mix of God and man.
Christ did not approve of it. I know you don't want to face that but it is true
Christ never said so.
Instead you direct attention from the topic to other things.
I direct you to what actually he did say, particularly on the subject of judging others. It's quite relevant to this discussion, Jethro.
[me] 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.
[Jethro] The sin needs to be rebuked not accepted as not being sin.
That goes for all our sins, right? For your daily sinning, my daily sinning, and the 6 billion others who aren't perfect. That's a lot of rebuking.
But being a good little liberal you, because you disagree, must attempt to paint me as evil.
I disagree as a Christian, and I don't consider you evil.
I do not accept it and society should not accept gay marriage.
Since you can't stop consenting adults from having sex with each other, you are not going to put an end to the practice by locking them out of marriage. Marriage is about much more than sex, you know.
[me] Persecuting an entire group of people within your own culture is evil.
[Jethro] I am not persecuting anyone. You are painting me as evil. I thought you were supposed to accept those that disagree with you? Haven't you been saying that you should even respect them?
Jethro, I said that the persecution of gays is an evil. I did not say that I consider YOU evil, and I'm sorry if you got the impression that I'm trying to paint you that way. I don't consider you evil. When I talk about societal persecution I'm hoping that you will begin to comprehend the cruelty that the larger society has visited on these people, day in and day out, by treating them as different, as outsiders, as lesser beings. Have you ever wondered how it feels to them?
But, of course, being a liberal you do not practice what you preach. It is a mighty big log in your eye, sister, but apparently you don't see it.
Sheesh, I don't claim to be perfect. I make mistakes, I sin every damn day of my life. I have absolutely no perfection of my own from which to judge you, just as you have no perfection from which to judge homosexuals.
I don't treat them differently. Maybe you should consider whether Satan may be working within you to say these baseless things.
I'm glad to hear that you don't treat them differently from other people.
[me] 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 any such thing. They are free to participate just like everyone else.
They are not free to marry and live in families "just like everyone else."
But that doesn't me we should accept the sin as not being sin.
Allowing them to form family units has nothing to do with "accepting the sin."
Are you proposing that they should revel in their sin and force society to accept it as not being sin?
Marriage is not exactly "revelling." Do you think that all of us sinners that canget married are thereby forcing society to accept our sins? Not very logical, is it?
But let me tell you that I don't because I am not correcting anyone. I don even attempt to do so. I point out what is wrong. If someone wants to change their behavior that is their choice.
But you said that they should be "rebuked."
Those that promote gay marriage are advocating society accepting their sin as not being sin. I say that is wrong.
You seem to think that the only way to "reject their sin" is to enforce laws that set them apart and deny them the comfort of permanent legal committment and family. This is a form of persecution, like it or not.
[me] 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.
[Jethro] So you doubt my sincerity. How Christian of you!
Hmmm. First, I can doubt your sincerity and still be a Christian. Second, that's not what I said. I'm sure you are VERY sincere in your opinion that gays should not be allowed to marry, but your explanation thus far convinces me that "sin" is not the real reason, since you aren't advocating that other "sinners" should be denied the right to full inclusion in our culture. There are so many ways to sin, and we all do it. Jesus pointed out numerous sins without once mentioning homosexuality; indeed, he didn't bring up sexuality at all, mentioning it only when asked. That homosexuals are getting such extremetreatment in the light of that tells me that it's not a matter of "sin." It's something else.
They ARE treated like everyone else. They wanted to be treated differently based only on what they want.
How would letting them get married be treating them "differently?" Marriage is the norm, Jethro.
In no way would gay marriage be a benefit to society.
To the extent that marriage between two single adults of the opposite sex is a benefit to society, marriage between two single adults of the same sex would benefit society. Marriage is marriage, regardless of the particular organs people have between their legs. Marriage is about stability. It's about long term committments where people look after one another. It relieves loneliness and encourages responsible behavior. It places sick people in the hands of those who love them. It gives children a sense of security. It takes care of inheritance problems. If these things benefit society, then we should be encouraging gay couples to get married.
Instead it would a further step away from morality and God.
According to Jesus, we step away from God when we place anyone or anything above him and when we neglect to love others as ourselves.
I don't see those that advocate coveting or making false idols asking for society's official recognition.
Actually, large corporations that inundate the American public with extremely covetous and materialistic messages, 24 hours a day, enjoy a very special place in our society. In fact, they control a goodly portion of it.
That would be a recognition that the sin was not sinful.Is there a special "sin" in married people having sex? No. But having sex outside of marriage is.Or do you mean that society should punish them for their supposed sin by barring them from making the same kind of lifelong commitments that all the rest of us sinners get to make? They can make any comment they want. Why is it punishment if society does not recognize their arrangement as legitimate?
Actually, large corporations that inundate the American public with extremely covetous and materialistic messages, 24 hours a day, enjoy a very special place in our society. In fact, they control a goodly portion of it.
I know that is what the extreme left wing things, but in most cases, it just isn't true. I think it is another example of pointing to the aberrant and saying it is the norm. Which of course would be the case if gay marriage is allowed.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of heaven." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
the Bible is basically a reinterpreted regurgitated piece of classic patriarchal misogynistic mythmaking that says exactly what the church rewrote it to say
[me] Actually, large corporations that inundate the American public with extremely covetous and materialistic messages, 24 hours a day, enjoy a very special place in our society. In fact, they control a goodly portion of it.
[Jethro] I know that is what the extreme left wing things, but in most cases, it just isn't true. I think it is another example of pointing to the aberrant and saying it is the norm. Which of course would be the case if gay marriage is allowed.
So the constant blanketing of our culture with covetous and materialistic messages doesn't bother you, Jethro? You can't get worked up about the ten commandments and what Jesus actually taught the way you can about preventing gay men and women from finding comfort in secure, committed relationships? I'll bet that if the advertising media were shoving homosexuality at us as hard as they've pushed materialism, greed, and competition for the past sixty years, you wouldn't be feeling so blase about it.
It's a matter of priorities. We make our choices. The only parts of the Bible that mention homosexuality are the parts that are not based on Jesus' life and teachings. The only human behaviors that caused Jesus to become violently angry were the inclusion of money-making and profiteering in religion and the cold, legalistic Scribes and Pharisees.
Are you familiar with C. S. Lewis' classic work of Chrisitan faith, Mere Christianity? Here is the concluding paragraph of his chapter on "Sexual Morality":
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far closer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of heaven." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
sorry, dan, but these are notthe words of christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
[11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
[12] "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.
[13] "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food" -- and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
[14] And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
[15] Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
[16] Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."
[17] But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
[18] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.
[19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
[20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
As I said Jesus was Jewish and he did not take issue with that law. It is the teachings of Christianity. That is fact.The only human behaviors that caused Jesus to become violently angry were the inclusion of money-making and profiteering in religion and the cold, legalistic Scribes and Pharisees. So it is only violent anger that shows disapproval?
ares wrote: sorry, dan, but these are not the words of Christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
How nice. And some say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. But of course everyone sins and can turn away from them. That is not promoting the sin and advocating the acceptance of it by others. It is the turning away from the sin and condemning, not the persons that engage in those acts, but the acts themselves. And it doesn't mean that people can promote the sinful acts and entice others into sin.
an Episcopalian bishop did, probably 10 years ago.
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
uh no. and in retrospect, it was probably 15 years. long before the ordination of an openly gay bishop ever became an issue.
No. Did you not notice that "merely" was italicized? But of course some may say they were divinely inspired.
of course i noticed it was italicised. did you not notice the italicisation of not in my original post? sorry, jethro, but divinely inspired does not equate, under any definition, to christ's words. ever notice those nice bibles where the first 5 books of the new testament are printed in red? those would be the words of christ.
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
ares: uh no. and in retrospect, it was probably 15 years. long before the ordination of an openly gay bishop ever became an issue.
Do you understand much of what I write? You don't seem to. I didn't say the legitimizing of the ordination of a homosexual bishop. I wrote the legitimizing of homosexuality.
No. Did you not notice that "merely" was italicized? But of course some may say they were divinely inspired.
of course i noticed it was italicized. did you not notice the italicisation of not in my original post? Yes I noticed it. But by using the word merely you seem to dismiss Paul.sorry, jethro, but divinely inspired does not equate, under any definition, to christ's words. Considering that Jesus didn't write those words that are attributed to him himself then I think it does. Because history seems to indicate that what was attributed to Jesus's preachings was written long after the fact.ever notice those nice bibles where the first 5 books of the new testament are printed in red? those would be the words of christ. Again did Christ actually write them? No. As I said those were written sometime after they were spoken, therefore they were divinely inspired.
googling "apostle paul" and "closet homosexual" came up with this.
Did you read the entire link? There is a good statement in the bottom half regarding how the author of "paul was a closet homosexual" was full of crap.
tell you what, jethro. produce evidence of christ condemning homosexuality. a book (matthew, mark, luke, or john), chapter, and verse will suffice.
I will point out to you what I pointed out to susan. Jesus was Jewish. Jewish law condemned, I guess it still does, homosexuality. Jesus, in general, supported Jewish law but pointed out those areas where it was being misdirected or mislead. Now homosexuality was not one of the issues that Jesus took issue with. Now I do not know the original words used or how it was transalted but adultery and adulterate seem to have the same base. Therefore, the commandment against adultery could have included homosexuality not just impure relations between man and woman.
This is what Christianity teaches. You can keep denying it but it is true.
That's what Paul taught. Paul was an amazing person all right, but he wasn't Christ.
Upthread you also quote Paul to justify your emphasis on the body. This conveniently ignores what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 21-28. Jesus says that sinning is as much a matter of the heart as the body. He states that anger without cause is as bad as murder and anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Okay, assuming the "lust" can go for either sex: this makes us all sinners, doesn't it? Is it easier now to understand what he means by judging others?
I will point out to you what I pointed out to susan. Jesus was Jewish. Jewish law condemned, I guess it still does, homosexuality. Jesus, in general, supported Jewish law but pointed out those areas where it was being misdirected or mislead.
All the laws that he himself either broke or rejected involved the Jewish notion of "purity" (the source of the many bans in Leviticus against such self-polluting activities as eating shellfish, having homosexual sex, touching a menstruating woman, wearing clothes made from mixed fibers, etc.). Of note is the fact that he rejected the tradition of exclusion and judgmentalism toward those who broke the laws. If you honestly think Jesus is God, then it behooves you to try to understand what these laws have in common, why Jesus rejected them, and why he warned against judgmentalism.
Now I do not know the original words used or how it was transalted but adultery and adulterate seem to have the same base. Therefore, the commandment against adultery could have included homosexuality not just impure relations between man and woman.
"Could have included." Nice try, Jethro. No, adultery, 'moichas,' was as much as a civic as a moral matter for the Jews. It was specific to behavior among married people, and, typical of the culture, it gave men more leeway then women. There's no way homosexuals could commit adultery because, ahem, they couldn't get married. You might check out the discussion of biblical words at http://www.christiankeys.ca/OriginalWordsNotesA.html
And homosexuality and adultery are sins of the heart as well as the body.He states that anger without cause is as bad as murder and anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Okay, assuming the "lust" can go for either sex: this makes us all sinners, doesn't it? Is it easier now to understand what he means by judging others? I am judging the actions. As should society. Because without judgment of the morality or immorality of actions, would make all actions equal, which in turn would diminish the distinction between moral and immoral conduct. In other words, there would not be any guidance for proper behavior and immoral behavior would be considered the same as moral behavior. Now we know Jesus did not believe this.
so, you want to make laws against everyone who won't inherit the Kingdom of God accorcing you YOUR book?
got news for you....the laws in your imagined Kingdom aren't the laws here on earth where we have decided to NOT live under a theocracy.
America had the sense to prohibit the establishment of a theocracy.
You want to live by some chosen "higher" laws...go right the fuck ahead....but here amongst mortal men, we are using "common" laws that only protects us from screwing with your individual rights...and don't protect you from screwing up with some "God", imagined or otherwise.
besides, to try to enforce your "higher" laws with mortal man's system of "common" laws is to cheapen your religion.
good rule of thmb..."common" laws seek to prevent someone from either breaking my leg or picking my pocket.
higher laws seek to prevent you from breaking some "God's" law, regardless of the fact that you are neither breaking someone's leg or picking their pocket.
You really ought not have mortal men poking around with other men's souls and higher laws.
sorry, dan, but these are not the words of christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
I never said they were Christ's words. They are New Testament words from one of the apostles though. I think that someone who actually walked and talked with Jesus would know better than you or I what the facts are.
As for the alleged stuff, a lot of things are alleged. Proving them is another story. I think that Crabs would argue that the entire bible is alleged.
While the raw power demonstrated by four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandating same-sex "marriage" is a form of tyranny because it prevents citizens from deciding the matter, the courts are made up of men and women who increasingly reflect societal indifference to the higher and moral things. (Remember morals? Ask your grandparents.) Who has the political will and moral courage today to tell someone his or her behavior is wrong?
Judgment exists in life and it is normal. If you someone says that you are judgmental tell them that they are judgmental calling you judgmental. We all judge. There is good and bad judgment. The word "judgment" nearly always is interpreted in a negative manner. Judgment is equated with punishment. Judgment, however, can also mean acquittal. In Greek, to "judge" really means to "distinguish” "select" or "determine". Instead of using the word "judgment", the misinterpretation may be avoided by speaking of discernment.
Common sense would tell us that some judgments and conditions are necessary from a practical aspect. If no one can "make judgments," then Miss Oregon could not have been "judged" to be our newest Miss America. We could not have a jury system because members of the jury would be "judgmental" about someone's guilt or innocence. Judges could not exist for their very jobs are to be "judge-mental." There could be no surgery for that would involve medical judgments; there could be no educational system whereby teachers "judge" essay papers or test results; there could be no parental judgment involving discipline; and no marital judgments could be made as to the definition of spousal misconduct. We could not even have traffic laws for they involve someone's judgment that determines who stops or yields or who can or cannot make a U-turn. Our involvement in Iraq would not happen because we would be judgmental. Judgments and conditions are necessary for behaving in a marriage, raising and teaching children, conducting a business, seeking or providing medical care, having strangers in the home, dating, loaning out your car or money, buying a house, voting in an election or a host of other situations common to daily living in the human condition. There is no salvation without judgment. There is, however, judgment without salvation. The judgment of God is offered as redemptive and restorative until it is too late.
The scriptures require righteous judgment. "Righteous judgment is judgment which is based on the teaching of the scriptures. There are many instances of justified judgment seen in the scriptures. Lydia asked Paul to judge her to determine her faithfulness. Paul did not say, "Lydia, we must not judge!" Paul urged the Christians at Rome to judge. Paul himself rendered judgment in the case of the fornicator being in sin and encouraged the church at Corinth to do the same. Christians are commanded to judge in cases of alleged abuses and mistreatments one of another. Keep in mind however the judgment is righteous judgment. The facts in a given situation must be known and the correct standard must be used – the word of God.
Just as the scriptures require the proper judgment, the scriptures condemn the wrong judgment. Jesus condemned judgment when the ones judging are worse than the ones being judged. Appreciate the fact, though, that Jesus said, "...first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you can see clearly enough to cast out the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” We must face the fact that we cannot please God without rendering judgment. But we must invite judgment on ourselves first. Jesus invited judgment, so must we.
I think God wants an end to homosexual behavior.
so, you are for anti-sodomy laws?
do you also want to outlaw coveting? how about making false idols? if you aren't for outlawing them, you must be accepting them, right?
The firmness behind 'The Passion'
Our cultural elites are worried not about how the film is "anti," but how the film is "pro." They know how this film has the potential to light a fire under traditional Christianity in America and around the world.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20040218.shtml
I think God wants an end to homosexual behavior.
"I think God wants....."
crusades and inquisitions began because of those four words....
"I think God wants....."
crusades and inquisitions began because of those four words....
Typical liberal response when it comes to religion. Point out the negative and imply it is the norm. You know, that is how Satan wants people to see Christianity.
so, you are for anti-sodomy laws?
That should be for each state to decide.
do you also want to outlaw coveting? how about making false idols? if you aren't for outlawing them, you must be accepting them, right?
I don't see those that advocate coveting or making false idols asking for society's official recognition.
No, it's my impression of how you're receiving your opinions. However, I certainly don't think God would hold it against you that you're prone to brainswashing.
You said that they are "attempting to persuade others to live a life of sin."
Wait a minute. Their "sin," according to you, is having sex with each other. How would their getting married change that? Is there a special "sin" in married people having sex? Or do you mean that society should punish them for their supposed sin by barring them from making the same kind of lifelong committments that all the rest of us sinners get to make?
Well, God sent us his son to tell us what he wants, and his son didn't say anything about "homosexual behavior." He did, however, have quite a bit to say about our human failing of acting holier than thou and passing moral judgment on others. You do care about Jesus' teachings, don't you, Jethro?
The ways in which Judaism was being misdirected, according to Jesus, was in its rigid legalism, it's eagerness to judge oneself above others, and its religious purity laws that excluded people for being "sinners" or unclean.
Love God with everything you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. That's the way. Yes, it is hard.
Yes, this kind of judgment: For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in, naked and ye clothed me not, sick and in prison, and ye visited me not.
It's all about how we treat each other -- and not one word about sex, Jethro.
Jesus was the human face of God. People who can speak to me in the spirit of Jesus can, and sometimes do, guide me.
To help him get the Good News out. (Got that, Jethro? Good News.)
Where?
The Judeo Christian tradition is a mix of God and man.
Christ never said so.
I direct you to what actually he did say, particularly on the subject of judging others. It's quite relevant to this discussion, Jethro.
That goes for all our sins, right? For your daily sinning, my daily sinning, and the 6 billion others who aren't perfect. That's a lot of rebuking.
I disagree as a Christian, and I don't consider you evil.
Since you can't stop consenting adults from having sex with each other, you are not going to put an end to the practice by locking them out of marriage. Marriage is about much more than sex, you know.
Jethro, I said that the persecution of gays is an evil. I did not say that I consider YOU evil, and I'm sorry if you got the impression that I'm trying to paint you that way. I don't consider you evil. When I talk about societal persecution I'm hoping that you will begin to comprehend the cruelty that the larger society has visited on these people, day in and day out, by treating them as different, as outsiders, as lesser beings. Have you ever wondered how it feels to them?
Sheesh, I don't claim to be perfect. I make mistakes, I sin every damn day of my life. I have absolutely no perfection of my own from which to judge you, just as you have no perfection from which to judge homosexuals.
I'm glad to hear that you don't treat them differently from other people.
They are not free to marry and live in families "just like everyone else."
Allowing them to form family units has nothing to do with "accepting the sin."
Marriage is not exactly "revelling." Do you think that all of us sinners that canget married are thereby forcing society to accept our sins? Not very logical, is it?
But you said that they should be "rebuked."
You seem to think that the only way to "reject their sin" is to enforce laws that set them apart and deny them the comfort of permanent legal committment and family. This is a form of persecution, like it or not.
Hmmm. First, I can doubt your sincerity and still be a Christian. Second, that's not what I said. I'm sure you are VERY sincere in your opinion that gays should not be allowed to marry, but your explanation thus far convinces me that "sin" is not the real reason, since you aren't advocating that other "sinners" should be denied the right to full inclusion in our culture. There are so many ways to sin, and we all do it. Jesus pointed out numerous sins without once mentioning homosexuality; indeed, he didn't bring up sexuality at all, mentioning it only when asked. That homosexuals are getting such extremetreatment in the light of that tells me that it's not a matter of "sin." It's something else.
How would letting them get married be treating them "differently?" Marriage is the norm, Jethro.
To the extent that marriage between two single adults of the opposite sex is a benefit to society, marriage between two single adults of the same sex would benefit society. Marriage is marriage, regardless of the particular organs people have between their legs. Marriage is about stability. It's about long term committments where people look after one another. It relieves loneliness and encourages responsible behavior. It places sick people in the hands of those who love them. It gives children a sense of security. It takes care of inheritance problems. If these things benefit society, then we should be encouraging gay couples to get married.
According to Jesus, we step away from God when we place anyone or anything above him and when we neglect to love others as ourselves.
Actually, large corporations that inundate the American public with extremely covetous and materialistic messages, 24 hours a day, enjoy a very special place in our society. In fact, they control a goodly portion of it.
That would be a recognition that the sin was not sinful.Is there a special "sin" in married people having sex? No. But having sex outside of marriage is.Or do you mean that society should punish them for their supposed sin by barring them from making the same kind of lifelong commitments that all the rest of us sinners get to make? They can make any comment they want. Why is it punishment if society does not recognize their arrangement as legitimate?
Actually, large corporations that inundate the American public with extremely covetous and materialistic messages, 24 hours a day, enjoy a very special place in our society. In fact, they control a goodly portion of it.
I know that is what the extreme left wing things, but in most cases, it just isn't true. I think it is another example of pointing to the aberrant and saying it is the norm. Which of course would be the case if gay marriage is allowed.
this doesn't answer the question.
do youadvocate anti-sodomy laws?
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of heaven." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
So the constant blanketing of our culture with covetous and materialistic messages doesn't bother you, Jethro? You can't get worked up about the ten commandments and what Jesus actually taught the way you can about preventing gay men and women from finding comfort in secure, committed relationships? I'll bet that if the advertising media were shoving homosexuality at us as hard as they've pushed materialism, greed, and competition for the past sixty years, you wouldn't be feeling so blase about it.
It's a matter of priorities. We make our choices. The only parts of the Bible that mention homosexuality are the parts that are not based on Jesus' life and teachings. The only human behaviors that caused Jesus to become violently angry were the inclusion of money-making and profiteering in religion and the cold, legalistic Scribes and Pharisees.
Are you familiar with C. S. Lewis' classic work of Chrisitan faith, Mere Christianity? Here is the concluding paragraph of his chapter on "Sexual Morality":
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far closer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.
As if one sin were better or worse than another.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites will inherit the kingdom of heaven." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11).
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).
sorry, dan, but these are notthe words of christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
Who's alleged that? I've never heard that before.
1Cor.6:
[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
[10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
[11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
[12] "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything.
[13] "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food" -- and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
[14] And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
[15] Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
[16] Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."
[17] But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
[18] Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.
[19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
[20] you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
As I said Jesus was Jewish and he did not take issue with that law. It is the teachings of Christianity. That is fact.The only human behaviors that caused Jesus to become violently angry were the inclusion of money-making and profiteering in religion and the cold, legalistic Scribes and Pharisees. So it is only violent anger that shows disapproval?
ares wrote: sorry, dan, but these are not the words of Christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
How nice. And some say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. But of course everyone sins and can turn away from them. That is not promoting the sin and advocating the acceptance of it by others. It is the turning away from the sin and condemning, not the persons that engage in those acts, but the acts themselves. And it doesn't mean that people can promote the sinful acts and entice others into sin.
Who's alleged that? I've never heard that before.
an episcopalian bishop did, probably 10 years ago.
googling "apostle paul" and "closet homosexual" came up with this.
How nice.
trying to allege that god himself wrote those letters?
an Episcopalian bishop did, probably 10 years ago.
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
trying to allege that god himself wrote those letters?
No. Did you not notice that
"merely" was italicized? But of course some may say they were divinely inspired.
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
uh no. and in retrospect, it was probably 15 years. long before the ordination of an openly gay bishop ever became an issue.
No. Did you not notice that "merely" was italicized? But of course some may say they were divinely inspired.
of course i noticed it was italicised. did you not notice the italicisation of not in my original post? sorry, jethro, but divinely inspired does not equate, under any definition, to christ's words. ever notice those nice bibles where the first 5 books of the new testament are printed in red? those would be the words of christ.
Well we know about some Episcopalians now don't we. Don't you think the allegations was made for the purpose of attempting to legitimize homosexuality?
ares: uh no. and in retrospect, it was probably 15 years. long before the ordination of an openly gay bishop ever became an issue.
Do you understand much of what I write? You don't seem to. I didn't say the legitimizing of the ordination of a homosexual bishop. I wrote the legitimizing of homosexuality.
No. Did you not notice that "merely" was italicized? But of course some may say they were divinely inspired.
of course i noticed it was italicized. did you not notice the italicisation of not in my original post? Yes I noticed it. But by using the word merely you seem to dismiss Paul.sorry, jethro, but divinely inspired does not equate, under any definition, to christ's words. Considering that Jesus didn't write those words that are attributed to him himself then I think it does. Because history seems to indicate that what was attributed to Jesus's preachings was written long after the fact.ever notice those nice bibles where the first 5 books of the new testament are printed in red? those would be the words of christ. Again did Christ actually write them? No. As I said those were written sometime after they were spoken, therefore they were divinely inspired.
tell you what, jethro. produce evidence of christ condemning homosexuality. a book (matthew, mark, luke, or john), chapter, and verse will suffice.
googling "apostle paul" and "closet homosexual" came up with this.
I didn't read the whole thing, but keep paging down.
If you don't, you miss the important part.
produce evidence of christ condemning homosexuality.
I can't produce evidence of Christ condemning eating babies.
:-)
googling "apostle paul" and "closet homosexual" came up with this.
Did you read the entire link? There is a good statement in the bottom half regarding how the author of "paul was a closet homosexual" was full of crap.
tell you what, jethro. produce evidence of christ condemning homosexuality. a book (matthew, mark, luke, or john), chapter, and verse will suffice.
I will point out to you what I pointed out to susan. Jesus was Jewish. Jewish law condemned, I guess it still does, homosexuality. Jesus, in general, supported Jewish law but pointed out those areas where it was being misdirected or mislead. Now homosexuality was not one of the issues that Jesus took issue with. Now I do not know the original words used or how it was transalted but adultery and adulterate seem to have the same base. Therefore, the commandment against adultery could have included homosexuality not just impure relations between man and woman.
That's what Paul taught. Paul was an amazing person all right, but he wasn't Christ.
Upthread you also quote Paul to justify your emphasis on the body. This conveniently ignores what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 21-28. Jesus says that sinning is as much a matter of the heart as the body. He states that anger without cause is as bad as murder and anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Okay, assuming the "lust" can go for either sex: this makes us all sinners, doesn't it? Is it easier now to understand what he means by judging others?
All the laws that he himself either broke or rejected involved the Jewish notion of "purity" (the source of the many bans in Leviticus against such self-polluting activities as eating shellfish, having homosexual sex, touching a menstruating woman, wearing clothes made from mixed fibers, etc.). Of note is the fact that he rejected the tradition of exclusion and judgmentalism toward those who broke the laws. If you honestly think Jesus is God, then it behooves you to try to understand what these laws have in common, why Jesus rejected them, and why he warned against judgmentalism.
"Could have included." Nice try, Jethro. No, adultery, 'moichas,' was as much as a civic as a moral matter for the Jews. It was specific to behavior among married people, and, typical of the culture, it gave men more leeway then women. There's no way homosexuals could commit adultery because, ahem, they couldn't get married. You might check out the discussion of biblical words at http://www.christiankeys.ca/OriginalWordsNotesA.html
I just want to say that I don't care if Jethro is gay or not.
And homosexuality and adultery are sins of the heart as well as the body.He states that anger without cause is as bad as murder and anyone who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Okay, assuming the "lust" can go for either sex: this makes us all sinners, doesn't it? Is it easier now to understand what he means by judging others? I am judging the actions. As should society. Because without judgment of the morality or immorality of actions, would make all actions equal, which in turn would diminish the distinction between moral and immoral conduct. In other words, there would not be any guidance for proper behavior and immoral behavior would be considered the same as moral behavior. Now we know Jesus did not believe this.
Oh gee thanks, JT. I don't care if you are gay either!
Oh gee thanks, JT. I don't care if you are gay either!
LOL!
Oh man, that was funny!
so, you want to make laws against everyone who won't inherit the Kingdom of God accorcing you YOUR book?
got news for you....the laws in your imagined Kingdom aren't the laws here on earth where we have decided to NOT live under a theocracy.
America had the sense to prohibit the establishment of a theocracy.
You want to live by some chosen "higher" laws...go right the fuck ahead....but here amongst mortal men, we are using "common" laws that only protects us from screwing with your individual rights...and don't protect you from screwing up with some "God", imagined or otherwise.
besides, to try to enforce your "higher" laws with mortal man's system of "common" laws is to cheapen your religion.
good rule of thmb..."common" laws seek to prevent someone from either breaking my leg or picking my pocket.
higher laws seek to prevent you from breaking some "God's" law, regardless of the fact that you are neither breaking someone's leg or picking their pocket.
You really ought not have mortal men poking around with other men's souls and higher laws.
so, you would accept his sin?
sorry, dan, but these are not the words of christ, but rather, merely, those of paul, who has actually been alleged to be a closet homosexual.
I never said they were Christ's words. They are New Testament words from one of the apostles though. I think that someone who actually walked and talked with Jesus would know better than you or I what the facts are.
As for the alleged stuff, a lot of things are alleged. Proving them is another story. I think that Crabs would argue that the entire bible is alleged.
Crabs, do you recognize "civil law" as legitimate?
While the raw power demonstrated by four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandating same-sex "marriage" is a form of tyranny because it prevents citizens from deciding the matter, the courts are made up of men and women who increasingly reflect societal indifference to the higher and moral things. (Remember morals? Ask your grandparents.) Who has the political will and moral courage today to tell someone his or her behavior is wrong?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20040219.shtml
Ah yes, moral courage!
Why is it that militant gays can impose their "morality" on society but society can't impose its on them?
are militant straights currently imposing their morality on us?
are militant straights currently imposing their morality on us?
there are no militant straights. but thank you for admiting the hypocrisy of liberals.
you are a militant straight.
what hypocricy is that?
Judgment exists in life and it is normal. If you someone says that you are judgmental tell them that they are judgmental calling you judgmental. We all judge. There is good and bad judgment. The word "judgment" nearly always is interpreted in a negative manner. Judgment is equated with punishment. Judgment, however, can also mean acquittal. In Greek, to "judge" really means to "distinguish” "select" or "determine". Instead of using the word "judgment", the misinterpretation may be avoided by speaking of discernment.
Common sense would tell us that some judgments and conditions are necessary from a practical aspect. If no one can "make judgments," then Miss Oregon could not have been "judged" to be our newest Miss America. We could not have a jury system because members of the jury would be "judgmental" about someone's guilt or innocence. Judges could not exist for their very jobs are to be "judge-mental." There could be no surgery for that would involve medical judgments; there could be no educational system whereby teachers "judge" essay papers or test results; there could be no parental judgment involving discipline; and no marital judgments could be made as to the definition of spousal misconduct. We could not even have traffic laws for they involve someone's judgment that determines who stops or yields or who can or cannot make a U-turn. Our involvement in Iraq would not happen because we would be judgmental. Judgments and conditions are necessary for behaving in a marriage, raising and teaching children, conducting a business, seeking or providing medical care, having strangers in the home, dating, loaning out your car or money, buying a house, voting in an election or a host of other situations common to daily living in the human condition. There is no salvation without judgment. There is, however, judgment without salvation. The judgment of God is offered as redemptive and restorative until it is too late.
The scriptures require righteous judgment. "Righteous judgment is judgment which is based on the teaching of the scriptures. There are many instances of justified judgment seen in the scriptures. Lydia asked Paul to judge her to determine her faithfulness. Paul did not say, "Lydia, we must not judge!" Paul urged the Christians at Rome to judge. Paul himself rendered judgment in the case of the fornicator being in sin and encouraged the church at Corinth to do the same. Christians are commanded to judge in cases of alleged abuses and mistreatments one of another. Keep in mind however the judgment is righteous judgment. The facts in a given situation must be known and the correct standard must be used – the word of God.
Just as the scriptures require the proper judgment, the scriptures condemn the wrong judgment. Jesus condemned judgment when the ones judging are worse than the ones being judged. Appreciate the fact, though, that Jesus said, "...first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then you can see clearly enough to cast out the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” We must face the fact that we cannot please God without rendering judgment. But we must invite judgment on ourselves first. Jesus invited judgment, so must we.
http://www.stmarktx.org/Sermons/Sermon%20April%206%2C%202003.htm
Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you." John 5:14
Jesus of Nazareth - Not A Teacher of Love Without Judgment
Have you ever heard anyone say Jesus taught love but not judgment?
http://www.gjcoc.com/HYH/014_Jesus_Not_Love_Without_Judgment.htm