BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
WRONG....
The Evangelicals I went to college with would classify Catholics as not being true Christians and going to hell.
It's been stated in here a couple of times.
Dreadsox said:
WRONG....
The Evangelicals I went to college with would classify Catholics as not being true Christians and going to hell.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'd have to look up which translation for it's been awhile, but the scripture states male should not lay with another man in Leviticus and then uses references to sodomy later in scripture(which is a ridiculous translation) both of which don't even touch upon homosexual females. And since lesbian sex doesn't involve intercouse in it's true definition I've heard many say scripture doesn't say anything about lesbianism.
Another inconsistancy I find troubling.
AEON said:
After this he returned to his hermitage. About 1049, during the pontificate of Pope Leo IX Peter published a scathing treatise on the vices of the clergy, Liber Gomorrhianus, dedicating it to the pope. In this "Book of Gomorrha" Pietro Damiani made an attack on homosexual practices and even masturbation, as subversive disruptions against the moral order occasioned by the madness associated with an excess of lust. It caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author. Even the pope, who had at first praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated and his coldness drew from Damian a vigorous letter of protest. Meanwhile the question arose as to the validity of the ordinations of simoniacal clerics. Peter Damiani wrote (about 1053) a treatise, the Liber Gratissimus, in favour of their validity, a work which, though much combatted at the time, was potent in deciding the question in their favour before the end of the twelfth century.
When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem. They were symbolically reaching out toward the Jewish and Christian God, whom they were committed to worshipping, and turning their back on the paganism of Arabia. Muhammad never believed that he was founding a new religion that canceled out the previous faiths. He was convinced that he was simply bringing the old religion of the One God to the Arabs, who had never been sent a prophet before.
Consequently, the Koran, the inspired scripture that Muhammad brought to the Arabs, venerates the great prophets of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It speaks of Solomon's "great place of prayer" in Jerusalem, which the first Muslims called City of the Temple. Only after the Jews of Medina rejected Muhammad did he switch orientation and instruct his adherents to pray facing Mecca, whose ancient shrine, the Kabah, was thought by locals to have been built by Abraham and his son Ishmael, the father of the Arabs.
80sU2isBest said:
Melon, Romans 2:1-3 is plainly referring to people who judge someone for something they themselves are doing, and is not some generic command not to judge certain actions as sin.
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things . But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Wait, a sin isn't a sin? These "same things" isn't it all sin?
80sU2isBest said:However, if we were not to judge anything anyone does as sin, then there is no moral basis for any of our laws. Therefore, it is not sin to murder. It is not sin to cheat on your spouse. It is not sin to steal.
80sU2isBest said:And there is no evidence that Paul "reviled" Jewish Christians. He opposed the Judaisers who taught that you had to keep the law in order to be saved, but I would hardly call opposition "revile". Not only that, but not all Jewish Christians were Judaisers.
As For Romans 1 being "flame bait", that's a nice spin, but where is your proof of that?
80sU2isBest said:I do agree with you that if someone commits a certain sin, he has no business judging that action as sin for someone else.
80sU2isBest said:
Lesbian relations are indeed mentioned in the New Testament:
Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
80sU2isBest said:
He was referring to specific sins. Read them; they are in Romans 1: 18-31.
I do agree with you that if someone commits a certain sin, he has no business judging that action as sin for someone else.
However, if we were not to judge anything anyone does as sin, then there is no moral basis for any of our laws. Therefore, it is not sin to murder. It is not sin to cheat on your spouse. It is not sin to steal.
Do you think that God would have us not call sin "sin"?
80sU2isBest said:He was referring to specific sins. Read them; they are in Romans 1: 18-31.
Ormus said:
We can quote Bible passages back and forth (and, trust me, I've studied all of them much the same way you have, I'm sure), but the logic still stands that the Bible could not and did not refer to modern understanding of sexuality.
Score one for rational minds, in the absence of theology rationalism has a chance of prevailing.martha said:
Assuming laws are based on the concept of "sin" and not on the non-Biblical concept of causing harm to someone else.
AEON said:And this is the very essence of our disagreement. I do not see how you can come to this conclusion – that Paul and the other writers in the Bible would not have been aware that it was possible for homosexuals to have monogamous, cherishing relationships. Certainly humans have not changed all that much – that is what makes the Bible timeless.
AEON said:
And I certainly do not see any evidence to assume that Christ, Paul, Moses, or any other writer in the Bible would somehow be left in the dark about this “unique” homosexual experience that you are claiming. At our core, there is nothing “modern” about the condition of the human heart. The only thing “new” occurs when Christ enters it and begins the transformation process. What seems as new to us (modern psychology giving a behavior a new name or change of status) was not new to Christ or Paul.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Paul couldn't even see women as being worthy of teaching in the church, is that timeless?
I've asked before, do you uphold Paul's "command"?
BonoVoxSupastar said:Paul couldn't even see women as being worthy of teaching in the church, is that timeless?
I've asked before, do you uphold Paul's "command"?
martha said:
Keep asking.
Although I'm kind of afraid of the answer.
nathan1977 said: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.)
Ormus said:I believe that all of these works are part of the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit, who I believe still works today to lift the veil of this last major prejudice amongst Christians. That is ultimately my enduring prayer for humanity.
nathan1977 said:
Here's where I struggle with this whole conversation: context.
Ormus said:
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
There are many issues that we will encounter in life that were not issues within the Bible, and there are many issues within the Bible that are no longer issues in today's society (true idolatry in any form amongst Judeo-Christians, for instance, has long not been an issue).
I believe that the concept of same-sex love and unions are one of those issues that the Bible was not meant to address specifically, if only because it could not be fathomed in the narrow culture that formed the Bible. However, through the lens of love, I feel that the Bible does not even need to address it. "Love does no evil to the neighbor. Love is the fulfillment of the law."
As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men. Looks like centuries of female teachers in co-ed or personal tutor environments will be rotting in hell!
I believe that all of these works are part of the continuing fruits of the Holy Spirit, who I believe still works today to lift the veil of this last major prejudice amongst Christians. That is ultimately my enduring prayer for humanity.
Ormus said:
As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men. Looks like centuries of female teachers in co-ed or personal tutor environments will be rotting in hell!
80sU2isBest said:
Lesbian relations are indeed mentioned in the New Testament:
nathan1977 said:
("All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.")
nathan1977 said:At the same time, 1 Cor does make it clear that sexual sins are different from others ("All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."). We don't have to look far to see religious people with sexual brokenness (addiction, abusiveness, pedophilia, etc), so at the very least we have to deal with sexuality, because it's so central to our identity as human beings. I'm not saying there's an easy answers, but to say, "what's the big deal about sex?", seems to undercut the idea that sex -- no matter your take on it -- is a big deal, whether you accept the passage in 1 Cor, Freud's analysis, or what we see on the news...
Ormus said:
As such, I think it is quite unfortunate that many modern Christians cannot lift their veil of traditional prejudice against homosexuality, much in the same way that they have been able to lift it to no longer justify slavery, anti-Semitism, and the oppression of women. All three offenses are clearly violations against Jesus' law of love, regardless of the fact that the Old Testament allows for slavery or whether Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Or whether Paul believes that women should never teach over men.
BorderGirl said:"How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot........what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world and lastly in the modern world".
This offfers good perspective of what Paul was dealing with. Paste link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
AEON said:
I already discussed this months ago -