it's His followers I could live without

[A_Wanderer]

So how are gluttony, addiction, or drunkeness defined?

A good time?

 

[AEON]

It's disheartening to see how this thread has gone. I know there's a lot of anger at Christians over this subject. It seems like this thread throws more logs on the fire.

Here's where I struggle with this whole conversation: context. No discussion of scripture can be divorced from interpretation, for interpretation is all we have. We don't know the specific issues the Corinthian church faced, since we don't have the letters they wrote to Paul asking for his guidance. Therefore, Melon's arguments, as radical as they may be when compared to more conservative interpretations, are certainly no more or less valid than those of 80s, AEON, or whatever. All interpretation is valid of its own accord -- this is the beauty of having a Bible we can actually read and interpret for ourselves. (A relatively new phenomenon, that.)

However, interpretation is ultimately justified or not based on its role in a larger context. It's the larger context of this issue of sexuality as it applies to the entire Bible that seems to be getting lost here. If -- and I say if, since not everyone on this thread believes God was the author of the Bible, writing through man -- but let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's so -- then you have look at the holistic treatment of sexuality throughout the entire scripture. When you do, it seems pretty clear that one man/one woman is the promoted ideal. (God's choice at creation, Jesus' first miracle being performed at a wedding, Paul's advice against other sexual practices in Romans and 1 Corinthians, the picture in Ephesians of Christ and the church being reflected in the husband/wife relationship). Arguing that silence on an issue gives license for that issue is a mistake, as there are a host of social issues we have to grapple with today that aren't dealt with explicitly in the Bible, but which when the principle is applied. (Is God for or against the mass production and distribution of assault weapons? I don't know, but I do know "thou shalt not murder" and "turn the other cheek" are good places to start.) It's the principle of the thing that seems most important, and when scriptures repeatedly endorse the idea of marriage as one man/one woman, for the sake of order, it seems like you have to work pretty hard and do a lot of reinvention to shoe-horn other interpretations to fit.

To address martha's and BVS' comment, you have to do the same thing with the role of women and female leadership. Given the prominence that women enjoy in both Old and New Testaments -- Ruth, Esther, Deborah, Rachel, off the top of my head in the OT; Priscilla, Lidia, Euodia, Syntyche, John Mark's mother Mary (who bankrolled the early church), Dorcas (who was raised from the dead), Mary, the mother of Jesus, to name just a few -- to take Paul's advice to a group of disruptive women in the Corinthian church and say that it applies to all churches is a gross distortion of scripture, given the prominent female leaders Paul worked with and the role of female deacons and prophetesses he himself endorsed. This seems to show a much more nuanced role of women in the church than casual stereotypes might allow... one that ultra-conservative Christians should probably take into consideration.

Fantastic, articulate post '77.

 

[AEON]

And that's where I cite the wisdom of Romans 13, which I shall repeat again for simplicity's sake:

"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

I'm sorry - I do find it somewhat ironic that you started this thread with the notion that you could "do without" Christians. That doesn’t quite seem like a very loving attitude to me.

If this is the foundational rule (which it is) - and you don't seem to give it little more than “conveniently placed quoting” status when a theological argument doesn’t seem to be going your way – then how can we take everything else you have asserted on this issue that was built upon your vaporous foundation seriously?

The fact that you quoted Romans 13:8-10, in THIS thread that you started of all places, only demonstrates to me that I think you are playing a game of smoke and mirrors in order to convince a sympathetic public that the Bible in fact justifies your behavior when in actuality - it does nothing of the sort.

 

[yolland]

Just to clarify--melon did NOT start this thread. It was split off from another thread at the thread starter's request, and I titled it myself by lifting a phrase from the initial post. That all should be evident from the twelfth post in this thread.

 

[AEON]

Just to clarify--melon did NOT start this thread. It was split off from another thread at the thread starter's request, and I titled it myself by lifting a phrase from the initial post. That all should be evident from the twelfth post in this thread.

My mistake.

This is the first post of this thread, and it is by Melon -


"I love God. It's His followers I could live without."

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just to clarify--melon did NOT start this thread. It was split off from another thread at the thread starter's request, and I titled it myself by lifting a phrase from the initial post. That all should be evident from the twelfth post in this thread.

However, the thread it was in was originally a rant against God, and melon's post "I love God, it's his follower's I could live without" was the first post that was not on topic at all, and was unprovoked in that thread.

 

[yolland]

My pastor was wearing a T-shirt today while speaking that said "Save me Jesus...from the people following you."

So, does this mean nathan's pastor is unworthy to quote Romans 13 to anyone?

the thread it was in was originally a rant against God

I took it as an expression of anguish over the sufferings of an innocent child.

 

[BVS]

The fact that you quoted Romans 13:8-10, in THIS thread that you started of all places, only demonstrates to me that I think you are playing a game of smoke and mirrors in order to convince a sympathetic public that the Bible in fact justifies your behavior when in actuality - it does nothing of the sort.

AEON, do you honestly find this constructive?

 

[AEON]

So, does this mean nathan's pastor is unworthy to quote Romans 13 to anyone?

I personally wouldn't wear a shirt like this. And I probably wouldn't seek out a pastor with this sort of attitude toward his flock.

 

[AEON]

AEON, do you honestly find this constructive?

I think there is value is pointing out contradictions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I took it as an expression of anguish over the sufferings of an innocent child.

"Rant" was a poor choice of words, and I apologize.

It was an expression of anguish over the sufferings of an innocent child.. It was the name-calling part that seemed rather "rantish" to me, but now that I actually look up the word "rant" and see that it usually has to do with craziness, I see that it doesn't apply.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I personally wouldn't wear a shirt like this. And I probably wouldn't seek out a pastor with this sort of attitude toward his flock.

Neither would I, Aeon.

 

[AEON]

But are there pictures? I mean just mentioning it is not good for me...I am a visual learner.

okay - this was funny...

 

[BVS]

I think there is value is pointing out contradictions.

Well absolutely, contradictions is one thing, but calling someone disingenuous by saying they are playing a game of smoke and mirrors is uncalled for. I've pointed out plenty of contradictions from your posts and others, but I would never call you insincere.

 

[BostonAnne]

However, the thread it was in was originally a rant against God, and melon's post "I love God, it's his follower's I could live without" was the first post that was not on topic at all, and was unprovoked in that thread.

If people condemned me because of who I am, I would by angry. I'm angry that some Christians condemn gay people. I have asked earlier in this thread - why? Why spend so much time being right when it only hurts people. Where is the love? Take away all this nitty gritty detail of what one passage that has different wording in different Bible versions and look at the big picture. The story of Jesus meeting the woman at the well (John 4) is a perfect example of loving thy neighbor. Live your life the way you see fit, but don't tell someone else they aren't as equal as you in God's eyes.

Why keep a battle going that limits another's right to live in a loving, harmless way.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If people condemned me because of who I am, I would by angry. I'm angry that some Christians condemn gay people. I have asked earlier in this thread - why?

And I have pointed out that none of us here are condemning anyone. We are condemning a certain action as sin. We have said that we sin, also.

Live your life the way you see fit, but don't tell someone else they aren't as equal as you in God's eyes.

Who did that? Give me an example.

Why keep a battle going that limits another's right to live in a loving, harmless way.

Most of us do not start threads against Gays. We simply defend ourselves when others make accusations and throw insuts at us.

 

[BVS]

And I have pointed out that none of us here are condemning anyone.

This is your opinion, one I don't share.

 

[AEON]

Well absolutely, contradictions is one thing, but calling someone disingenuous by saying they are playing a game of smoke and mirrors is uncalled for. I've pointed out plenty of contradictions from your posts and others, but I would never call you insincere.

Then please help me understand what is going here. This is how I am seeing the flow of Melon's posts:

- In one post Melon states FOUR times "Love is the fulfillment of the law” in his response to criticism about his liberal interpretation of specific Bible verses.

- This is followed by his quotation of Romans 13:8-10 – where Melon is inferring that unless we are motivated by love, essentially any conclusions we come to about Scripture is going to be self seeking (a concept I completely agree with).

It is difficult for me to see that someone who despises Christians can at the same time quote these passages to defend his view that we must be motivated by love in order to accept his interpretation. He has proven his own argument false in this very thread. Here is a summary of his argument and the conclusion that necessarily follows:

1) If you are not motivated by love – then your interpretation and application of Scripture is self seeking.
2) Melon admits that he can’t stand Christians (Hence, he is not motivated by love – but anger)
3) Therefore, Melon’s interpretation and application of Scripture is self seeking.

 

[BostonAnne]

AEON, I think it is pretty clear that Melon himself is a Christian and he hates that he isn't accepted equally as one. Please rethink your post to Melon and address it to all of us that agree with him and cannot be labeled by you as "self-seeking".

 

[VintagePunk]

It seems to me that according to some, all Christians are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Thank goodness this seems to be a minority view.

 

[AEON]

AEON, I think it is pretty clear that Melon himself is a Christian and he hates that he isn't accepted equally as one. Please rethink your post to Melon and address it to all of us that agree with him and cannot be labeled by you as "self-seeking".

Who in the world ever said Melon wasn't an "equal" Christian?
Man, the conclusions that get reached is astounding...and alarming...

If you in fact agree with all of Melon's posts on this subject, then by all means explain the contradictions I pointed out.

 

[BostonAnne]

Who in the world ever said Melon wasn't an "equal" Christian?
Man, the conclusions that get reached is astounding...and alarming...

If you in fact agree with all of Melon's posts on this subject, then by all means explain the contradictions I pointed out.

I am the one saying that Melon isn't being viewed as an "equal" Christian. The fact that a homosexual is committing a "sin" that a heterosexual isn't committing by loving someone makes things unequal in my eyes. If someone is heterosexual, they automatically have one less sin to make in our world. This is unequal.

You are blowing out all of Melon's arguments because he is angry about not being thought of as an equal Christian (in my definition here as such) and saying he is self seeking. You seem to agree with his points, but make them invalid because he is self seeking and contradicting himself. I am saying to you that I agree with Melon and I am angry too that he is being thought of as a “sinner” and I will also say that "Love is the fulfillment of the law”. I have been making that point exactly in this thread. I am heterosexual - I am not self seeking. What do you think of his points made by someone who is not "self seeking"?

 

[BostonAnne]

And I have pointed out that none of us here are condemning anyone. We are condemning a certain action as sin. We have said that we sin, also.



Who did that? Give me an example.



Most of us do not start threads against Gays. We simply defend ourselves when others make accusations and throw insuts at us.

As I just posted, I am the one saying that calling Melon a sinner for being homosexual is condemning and I believe I just explained in my last post on viewing him as unequal.

You may think you are defending yourselves, but in my view - Melon is defending himself in his desire to be treated equally. I think a lot of people here feel that calling homosexuals "sinners" is where the accusations and insults start and thus you are on the offence in this constant debate.

 

[redhotswami]

It seems to me that according to some, all Christians are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Thank goodness this seems to be a minority view.

Don't tell Jerry Falwell he is a minority!

 

[BVS]

1) If you are not motivated by love – then your interpretation and application of Scripture is self seeking.
2) Melon admits that he can’t stand Christians (Hence, he is not motivated by love – but anger)
3) Therefore, Melon’s interpretation and application of Scripture is self seeking.

I can point out the same contradictions in your posts, 80's post(as I have to both), my posts, etc. the point is no one Christian is perfect.

Do you honestly not see the exageration in Melon's post when he says "he can't stand Christians"? If not, you've missed the whole point of the thread by miles.

 

[80sU2isBest]

As I just posted, I am the one saying that calling Melon a sinner for being homosexual is condemning and I believe I just explained in my last post on viewing him as unequal.

You may think you are defending yourselves, but in my view - Melon is defending himself in his desire to be treated equally. I think a lot of people here feel that calling homosexuals "sinners" is where the accusations and insults start and thus you are on the offence in this constant debate.

Boston Anne, so your issue is that Christians call someone a sinner?

Christians say that everyone, including themselves, sins.

 

[BostonAnne]

No, my issue is Christians believing that simply being a homosexual is sinning.

You can obey all of God's commandments - but because you love a person of the same sex instead of the opposite sex as your partner for life - you are sinning.

All of us, heterosexuals and homosexuals, can participate in sex in a lustful way and sin. But when you fall in love and have an intimate relationship with someone, including people of the same sex, it just can't logically be called a sin to me. I can't see the ultimate law of love in believing this to be a sin.

 

[80sU2isBest]

No, my issue is Christians believing that simply being a homosexual is sinning.

You can obey all of God's commandments - but because you love a person of the same sex instead of the opposite sex as your partner for life - you are sinning.

All of us, heterosexuals and homosexuals, can participate in sex in a lustful way and sin. But when you fall in love and have an intimate relationship with someone, including people of the same sex, it just can't logically be called a sin to me. I can't see the ultimate law of love in believing this to be a sin.

Anything that is used in the opposite way than what God intended is sin. If you agree that God created humans, either through direct creation or even evolution, doesn't it seem that he intended man and women to be the ones who have sexual relations, since they are built that way? Isn't homsexual sex unnatural, biologically speaking?

 

[Dreadsox]

My issue is clearly this.....

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.

I believe that SIN is something we choose to do.

 

[BVS]

My issue is clearly this.....

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice.

I believe that SIN is something we choose to do.

Couldn't have said it better. I think anyone who thinks they CHOSE their sexuality either needs to look up the word choose, or need to re-evaluate their bedroom.