"a new ideology of evil"

[Dreadsox]

Oh but I can cite 10 million Bible passages giving me the authority to say that, while I ignore all the passages on divorce and "Judge not, lest ye be judged," "He who is without sin, cast the first stone," and:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10

Of course, St. Paul was probably high on the hashish, so we clearly must ignore the fact that he clearly and explicitly repeals all laws in the Bible, except Jesus' commandment to "love one another."

So it is YOU that has the problem! Repent or God will smite you! Because I said so!

Melon

Thank you Melon.....for helping me see the light with your righteousness.

I shall repent......

And sin no more.

 

[deep]

Fullon

I'll ask again?

There is about 10-20 times more in the bible about divorce.

Therefore, anyone who divorces and remarrys is guilty of adultry and breaking one of the commandments.

So do you have as much of a problem with these people?

 

[FullonEdge2]

It's just not allowable to question the part about homosexuality? Why?

It's easier to throw out sacraficing birds.....because it seems silly to us today?

....those homosexuals, clearly in Leviticus it says.....

Like I said, Jesus basically tossed the ceremonial law.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

melon.

However, that doesn't give homosexuals the freedom to commit adultery.

Commit adultery? How are a monogamous homosexual couple committing adultery?

Originally posted by FullonEdge2
As long as they repent, it should all be good.

But if they don't see it as wrong, they never will repent (nor should they need to, in my humble opinion, because they aren't doing anything wrong). So basically they'll be punished because they refuse to apologize for what they see as something good, simply because some other people don't see it as fine, never mind the fact that what homosexuals are doing isn't hurting a single person...that seems a bit screwed up to me.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

Deep,

Only if they coninue to live in sin. See, if they do not act on their impulse to get married they are nor sinning. So if they repent, divorce their second wife, and never ever marry or have relations with a womn again, they are not a problem.

 

[Dreadsox]

Like I said, Jesus basically tossed the ceremonial law.

But not the rest of it?

I have a passage in mind that clearly states he did not come to abolish the law.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Fullon

I'll ask again?

Yeah, I actually do. You should only divorce someone if they were unfaithful to you.

 

[melon]

Really? in the Greek? That is interesting, and I'll ask some Greek expert I know about that.

Catholic Bibles have footnotes on scholarly context. Here's what they say about 1 Corinthians 6 (things in [brackets] are my comments):

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes [frequently mistranslated as "effeminate"--Greek "malakos"] may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites [still a mistranslation here, but frequently mistranslated as "homosexuals"--Greek "arsenokoitai"] refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

So there you go. Bible scholars link Romans ("lusting passions for each other") and 1 Timothy (almost identical to 1 Corinthians in text) to temple prostitution, which I have maintained for the past four years.

Melon

 

[deep]

and never remarry or have relations?

 

[FullonEdge2]

melon.



Commit adultery? How are a monogamous homosexual couple committing adultery?



But if they don't see it as wrong, they never will repent (nor should they need to, in my humble opinion, because they aren't doing anything wrong). So basically they'll be punished because they refuse to apologize for what they see as something good, simply because some other people don't see it as fine, never mind the fact that what homosexuals are doing isn't hurting a single person...that seems a bit screwed up to me.

Angela

I see what you're saying. That's one of the biggest problems with Christianity I think. People just don't like to think that people are condemned just because they didn't know any better. I would say they probably do know better, because they're consciences probably warn them, but I can't speak for them because I'm not them.




I feel like I'm being attacked by a bunch of bandits. HELP

 

[FullonEdge2]

But not the rest of it?

I have a passage in mind that clearly states he did not come to abolish the law.

post the passage please

 

[melon]

Like I said, Jesus basically tossed the ceremonial law.

And Acts 15 and Romans 15 both repeal Mosaic Law completely.

Do tell...which passage does Jesus supposedly say this? If you quote from the Gospel of Matthew, I'll have to proverbially slap you on the wrist.

"The law and the prophets" is a Pauline code phrase for "love one another." Want further proof?

"Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:12

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."[/Q]

Melon...I will quote it....

this must be another passage that we can pick and choose...hehe

 

[FullonEdge2]

melon, thanks for the explanation. I'm still not convinced that the explanation is sure of what it's talking about, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Dreadsox]

I wonder if the Pope read that page?

 

[FullonEdge2]

And Acts 15 and Romans 15 both repeal Mosaic Law completely.

Do tell...which passage does Jesus supposedly say this? If you quote from the Gospel of Matthew, I'll have to proverbially slap you on the wrist.

"The law and the prophets" is a Pauline code phrase for "love one another." Want further proof?

"Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:12

Melon

I wish I had a reference but I don't. I'm talking about the account of Jesus allowing his disciples to walk through the fields on the Sabbath day.

 

[melon]

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Oh there you go posting my least favorite and most misunderstood passage of the Gospel of Matthew--which is explained in Matthew 7. "The Law and the Prophets" is "Love one another," not the Mosaic Law.

I mentioned this before. Biblical scholars note that the Gospel of Matthew has at least two authors, the first being Jewish Christian and the second being Gentile Christian. Jewish Christians believed you had to live up to every last law of the Mosaic Law (including prohibitions of mixing different kind of clothing fibers), while Gentile Christians believed solely in "love one another." Quoting anything from the Gospel of Matthew will come across as a mish-mash of contradictions, because these two original Christian sects hated each other.

When Jewish Christianity was obliterated by the second century A.D., something tells me Gentile Christians (and that's where we come from!) edited the gospel to include their theology before the NT canon was closed in A.D. 395.

Melon

 

[sallycinnamon78]

what an asshole.

Me or the Pope?

 

[Dreadsox]

Mark 2:23-28

 

[Dreadsox]

Oh there you go posting my least favorite and most misunderstood passage of the Gospel of Matthew--which is explained in Matthew 7. "The Law and the Prophets" is "Love one another," not the Mosaic Law.

I mentioned this before. Biblical scholars note that the Gospel of Matthew has at least two authors, the first being Jewish Christian and the second being Gentile Christian. Jewish Christians believed you had to live up to every last law of the Mosaic Law (including prohibitions of mixing different kind of clothing fibers), while Gentile Christians believed solely in "love one another." Quoting anything from the Gospel of Matthew will come across as a mish-mash of contradictions, because these two original Christian sects hated each other.

When Jewish Christianity was obliterated by the second century A.D., something tells me Gentile Christians (and that's where we come from!) edited the gospel to include their theology before the NT canon was closed in A.D. 395.

Melon

Sorry, I could not resist.....

peace my friend.....

I was wondering what else we were going to pick and choose.

 

[Dreadsox]

As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain.
24
At this the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?"
25
He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?
26
How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?"
27
Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

 

[earthshell]

Me or the Pope?

the pope. the priest of white trash.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I see what you're saying. That's one of the biggest problems with Christianity I think. People just don't like to think that people are condemned just because they didn't know any better.

Yeah...if you're not aware that what you're doing is wrong, it'd seem awfully strange to punish you for what you did.

Originally posted by FullonEdge2
I would say they probably do know better, because they're consciences probably warn them, but I can't speak for them because I'm not them.

Or, maybe they do know that the Bible condemns it, but they either don't care or don't agree, feeling that just because a book says something is wrong, it doesn't automatically mean it is (which is how I feel, too). And maybe their consciences don't warn them that what they're doing is bad. Maybe they fully believe, with their head and their heart, that they are in the right here.

Angela

 

[FullonEdge2]

Yeah, using that passage, you can say that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law.

Well I'll be back to try to explain myself a little more, but you guys have exhausted me.

 

[melon]

I wonder if the Pope read that page?

Catholic homophobia is not Biblically-based. It's based on "natural law" pseudotheology from the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. This was the same theology that was grossly anti-sex, called women spawns of Satan (in different words), and told married couples that it was a sin to have an orgasm or to look lustfully on their spouse. This was also the same theology that maintained that men were not to feel any emotion at all (hence, the term "stoic"), while women, due to their inherent sinfulness for being female, were allowed to cry.

Catholics are downright being misled on this issue. "Natural law" is being unfairly targeted to homosexuals, when most heterosexual "natural law" arguments (minus their hatred of birth control) were repealed leading up to Vatican II.

For shame.

Melon

 

[earthshell]

told married couples that it was a sin to have an orgasm or to look lustfully on their spouse.

brilliant.

 

[melon]

Well, to clarify, men were to have orgasms without lust, because it served a function (in their eyes, men had "little people" and women just had the incubating waters; it served to demean women by saying that men were the sole creators of life). Women, however, were not to even look happy to be having sex.

Melon

 

[melon]

Yeah, I actually do. You should only divorce someone if they were unfaithful to you.

That's a blatant mistranslation of a passage in Matthew that originated from the KJV. The verse in question used to justify divorce is a mistranslation of "porneia," or "blood mixing." The so-called "exception clause" refers to incest, not "unfaithfulness."

Something tells me an unscrupulous British royal to justify the Church of England's permission of divorce (after all, Henry VIII created the Church of England solely to allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon) made that mistranslation on purpose.

Melon

 

[melon]

Anyway, I apologize if I lost my cool a bit when I started writing in this thread today.

If I made any inadvertent personal attacks, I didn't mean them, and I apologize. These threads just really get to me after a while. We wouldn't tolerate racism or anti-Semitism, yet homophobia is perfectly fine.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Anyway, I apologize if I lost my cool a bit when I started writing in this thread today.

If I made any inadvertent personal attacks, I didn't mean them, and I apologize. These threads just really get to me after a while. We wouldn't tolerate racism or anti-Semitism, yet homophobia is perfectly fine.

Melon

peace my friend.