Kurt Cobain Meets Jesus Christ...?
Joy
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-joseph102502.asp
====================
<Guest Comment on NRO>
October 25, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
KURT COBAIN MEETS JESUS CHRIST
-The Lifehouse package
By Mark Joseph
For at least the past 30 years, it has been largely taboo for rock musicians
to claim roots in an orthodox church of any kind. (Anyone who doubts this
should ask Ed and Dean Roland of Collective Soul, who have spent their
entire careers downplaying the fact that their father is a Baptist
minister.) While R&B artists typically played up their roots in church -
where many of them had first learned to perform - and were unashamed of that
heritage, rock has not taken kindly to such associations. From John Lennon
to Mick Jagger, Elton John to Nirvana, rock has long been dominated by
people who, when not expressing utter contempt for the Christian faith, were
in no mood to embrace or associate with it in any way. Even when they had a
past in a church, they were certainly not going to announce it.
To be sure, the feelings were mutual. Rather than trying to understand the
new sounds of rock and perhaps co-opt it with their own messages, early on
anyway, most ministers instead chose to embrace elaborate conspiratorial
theories of rock's evil origins in the drums of Africa. Others ventured that
the whole genre was a Marxist plot to indoctrinate America's youth.
Whatever the complex sociological reasons, white rock stars distanced
themselves from Christianity and, if they did have any connection to it,
either hid it or else embraced Old Scratch to the point that nobody would
think to ask what church they attended.
But rock headquarters apparently forgot to send the memo to Jason Wade, of
the band Lifehouse. For Lifehouse, which the 22-year-old singer leads, has
more than just a Christian heritage. Wade has been an active member of his
church, the Malibu Vineyard, and is still known to take the stage to lead
its congregation in worshipping God.
Wade's Christian heritage took him around the world to distant outposts like
Hong Kong, where his parents once served as missionaries. Upon returning to
the United States, the teenager's parents broke up, and the young Wade - who
had grown up listening to his mother's Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith
records - discovered Kurt Cobain and Nirvana.
It's an open secret that mainstream rock is now flooded with devout
Christians. From Lenny Kravitz (who sports a tattoo that declares "My Heart
Belongs To Jesus Christ") to rap-rockers P.O.D. to the crowd-pleasing
Creed - as well as a new generation of artists like Sixpence None the
Richer, Dashboard Confessional, Nickel Creek, Blindside, Chevelle, and Pedro
the Lion - young and devout Christians who once had politely confined
themselves to the Christian rock industry have now joined the cultural
mainstream. (When Lifehouse's "Hanging On A Moment" became 2001's hottest
single, most fans probably didn't realize they were listening to a song that
had first been played at the Malibu Vineyard.)
Wade is not from Seattle, but it's impossible to listen to the band's
sophomore record, Stanley Climbfall, and not think of the enormous cultural
impact Kurt Cobain has had. Cobain died when Wade was in his early teens;
nevertheless, musically anyway, he is Cobain-haunted. Which is a nice
counter-balance - since, lyrically, he is clearly Christ-haunted. One could
do worse than to have one's music described as a cross between Jesus Christ
and Kurt Cobain.
Wade's voice is often compared to those of Scott Stapp of Creed or Eddie
Vedder of Pearl Jam. But it is Cobain that truly informs his music. The
growl is unmistakably Cobain, and so are the flashes of rage, which seem to
leap off the record. Both certainly had things to be angry about. Cobain had
had a Ritalin-ridden, rootless childhood, and faced a hopeless future. Wade
had to face hypocrisy - in the form of both the divorce of his missionary
parents and the reactions of fellow believers to his father's fall from
grace.
Still, listening to Stanley Climbfall, one can't help wishing Cobain had
tapped into the power Wade has found in his faith in God. That faith is no
guarantee that bad things will never happen, of course. But listening to
Lifehouse's music, one realizes that, while never fully erasing the pain of
life, it nonetheless can help to soothe the wounded and allow them to go on.
Yes, Stanley Climbfall is about pain - but it's a pain that has been
enveloped in the kind of hope Cobain never found.
It would be simplistic to suggest that only by embracing God can one produce
music that is hopeful. After all, Dave Grohl - though a fellow member of
Nirvana and not apparently devout - has produced an array of upbeat and
spiritual songs like "Learn To Fly."
Still, Grohl seems to have a naturally sunny disposition, whereas Wade more
resembles a younger brother to Cobain - a younger brother who, in embracing
God, found a reason to go on with life.
All of which makes Lifehouse's second record a great listen. There are
things to be angry about in the world, and Wade's voice betrays his anger.
But it's an anger leavened by the hope that the wrongs will one day be
righted, that marriages will be made whole, and that the wounds will be not
just bound up, but actually healed. Wade may be angry but he is never
consumed by his anger.
From the hook-laden opening track "Spin" to the worshipful "Rain," Wade &
co. serve up a brand of compelling, pop-influenced rock that makes the
listener want whatever amazing grace Wade is selling.
The only downside to Stanley Climbfall is what isn't on the album, but is
apparently coming soon: Wade has reportedly saved some of his more overt
spiritual material (the ones that mention the Deity by name, no doubt) for a
so-called "worship record" which he intends to release under a different
band moniker.
There are many reasons why this should be reconsidered - not least of which
is that it can and often does kill otherwise flourishing careers (country
superstar Garth Brooks ham-handedly released a pop/rock record under the
name Chris Gaines). More importantly, though, now that bands like King's X,
Lenny Kravitz, and Stryper have by sheer force of will torn down the
ridiculous wall that separated rock and religion, any move by Lifehouse to
keep more explicit material off its records could only be seen as a
concession to critics - like Nick Tosches and Edna Gunderson - who have a
history of sneering at the very notion that rock and orthodox Christianity
can coexist artfully.
Release Lifehouse records with vague but comforting messages to the unknown
God, while sending explicit songs that name the Name to fellow Christians
under a different name? For fans who prefer their rock and their religion
all mixed up, this smacks of a frightening return to the schizophrenic
dualism that would leave the world divided into "sacred" and "secular."
Somebody should tell Wade that though artists like Sam Cooke and Aretha
Franklin once were forced to release separate records - one for believers,
chock full of annoying Christian doctrine, and one for the pagans, with
groovy shout-outs to love and sex - those days are long gone.
Rock fans deserve to hear Wade's unvarnished spiritual longings on a
Lifehouse record. With any luck, two or three of these will show up on the
next Lifehouse record. Until then, fans can still enjoy Stanley Climbfall,
and get a small taste of what might have been had Kurt Cobain touched the
face of God and found just one reason to live.
====================
Josh Spencer
> From: "Joy" <queen_y...@THIShotmail.com>
> <Guest Comment on NRO>
>
> October 25, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
> KURT COBAIN MEETS JESUS CHRIST
> -The Lifehouse package
>
> By Mark Joseph
> Cobain died when Wade was in his early teens;
> nevertheless, musically anyway, he is Cobain-haunted. Which is a nice
> counter-balance - since, lyrically, he is clearly Christ-haunted. One could
> do worse than to have one's music described as a cross between Jesus Christ
> and Kurt Cobain.
A month or two ago we had a thread on here about the integrity of journalism
(specifically, music journalism). I claimed it was mostly dishonest and all
about spin. This article, particularly this absurd assertion above, is a
perfect example of my point.
> Rock fans deserve to hear Wade's unvarnished spiritual longings on a
> Lifehouse record. With any luck, two or three of these will show up on the
> next Lifehouse record. Until then, fans can still enjoy Stanley Climbfall,
> and get a small taste of what might have been had Kurt Cobain touched the
> face of God and found just one reason to live.
If that's what would have happened to Nirvana if Cobain had been saved --
i.e. they'd sound like Lifehouse -- THANK GOD he kicked out early! That
would have been a much greater tragedy, driving music-lovers the world over
into depression and suicide.
I jest, but I'm serious.
josh
lifesabirch
thought. Their latest is dropping faster than you can say Ice Ice
Baby.
Thanks for the link, joy.
Jeff Edwards
> Lifehouse record. With any luck, two or three of these will show up on the
> next Lifehouse record. Until then, fans can still enjoy Stanley Climbfall,
> and get a small taste of what might have been had Kurt Cobain touched the
> face of God and found just one reason to live.
"Unvarnished spiritual longings". Hmm...maybe, dunno. I can say with some
certainty, though, that the music itself is too heavily varnished with
production, predictable hooks and radio-ready cheese.
I don't really even care one way or the other about the spiritual leanings
of Lifehouse, and I'm not the biggest Nirvana fan in the world, but
comparing the two musically is offensive to most anyone with ears.
-Jeff
paranoi...@attbi.com
Don Lowe
news:191C91BDFE8ED411B844...@pfs21.ex.nus.edu.sg...
> It's an open secret that mainstream rock is now flooded with devout
> Christians. From Lenny Kravitz (who sports a tattoo that declares "My
Heart
> Belongs To Jesus Christ") to rap-rockers P.O.D. to the crowd-pleasing
> Creed - as well as a new generation of artists like Sixpence None the
> Richer, Dashboard Confessional, Nickel Creek, Blindside, Chevelle, and
Pedro
> the Lion - young and devout Christians who once had politely confined
> themselves to the Christian rock industry have now joined the cultural
> mainstream. (When Lifehouse's "Hanging On A Moment" became 2001's hottest
> single, most fans probably didn't realize they were listening to a song
that
> had first been played at the Malibu Vineyard.)
The members of Creed are not devout Christians, and have said as much.
Their lyrics, though, show more Christian elements than most Christian bands
today.
I read an article in Guitar World (can't remember which, I can go find it)
that said that Jason wrote "Hanging By A Moment" the song and lyrics in the
studio in five minutes, and then they recorded it. His background with
Malibu Vineyard is known, but from the above reference I wouldn't think that
he would have performed it first in church.
Joy
> "Joy" wrote:
> > (When Lifehouse's "Hanging On A Moment" became
> > 2001's hottest single, most fans probably didn't realize
> > they were listening to a song that had first been played
> > at the Malibu Vineyard.)
> I read an article in Guitar World (can't remember which,
> I can go find it) that said that Jason wrote "Hanging By
> A Moment" the song and lyrics in the studio in five minutes,
> and then they recorded it. His background with Malibu
> Vineyard is known, but from the above reference I wouldn't
> think that he would have performed it first in church.
What do you mean "from the above reference"? I don't understand your
statement.
-joy
Joy
> Lifehouse might just get to make that worship record
> sooner than they thought. Their latest is dropping faster
> than you can say Ice Ice Baby.
Hey, Vanilla Ice was *very* cool... for a while. Ha!!
> Thanks for the link, joy.
You're welcome.
-joy
TroutHound
rock scene was much more interesting:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-karnick100102.asp
dt
--
Virtuosity
Spiritual Progressive Rock Reviews
http://home.att.net/~virtuosity
"Joy" <queen_y...@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:191C91BDFE8ED411B844...@pfs21.ex.nus.edu.sg...
snail
>"lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lifehouse might just get to make that worship record
>> sooner than they thought. Their latest is dropping faster
>> than you can say Ice Ice Baby.
>Hey, Vanilla Ice was *very* cool... for a while. Ha!!
Um...No. Though he was nicely sent up in _Fear of A Black Hat_.
--
snail @ careless net | What's behind the sky ? | http://www.zip.com.au/~vvsnail
Joy
> Joy wrote:
>
> >Hey, Vanilla Ice was *very* cool... for a while. Ha!!
>
> Um...No.
Shut up! I was only 7 yrs old!! :o)
-joy
Jeff Edwards
news:slrnatpmbo...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
> >Hey, Vanilla Ice was *very* cool... for a while. Ha!!
>
> Um...No. Though he was nicely sent up in _Fear of A Black Hat_.
Heh!!! That was one of the funniest movies ever. True, it was kind of a
hip-hop ripoff of Spinal Tap, but really funny. Sad that my local video
stores do not seem to carry it.
snail
Ah, you matured late :)
Don Lowe
news:191C91BDFE8ED411B844...@pfs21.ex.nus.edu.sg...
Well, if Jason wrote it in the studio, they definitely first played it in
the studio as a band, and it would make sense that the band would have
played it first in concert, not at Vineyard. But I don't know/
Don
Josh Spencer
> From: "TroutHound" <trout...@hotmail.com>
> Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:47:31 GMT
> Subject: Re: Kurt Cobain Meets Jesus Christ...?
>
> I thought this article in National Review on Christians in the progressive
> rock scene was much more interesting:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-karnick100102.asp
>
More interesting maybe, but still misleading. The opening paragraph:
"The dirty little secret about contemporary music is that almost none of the
industry people, broadcasters, and music critics actually know anything
about music. Rock criticism has always extolled lyrics, artistic personae,
emotional directness, and visual presentation because those are things a
writer can observe without having studied music. This ignorance is the main
reason the biggest critic-driven trends of the past four decades ã folk,
punk, disco, and then, simultaneously in the past decade, grunge, rap,
metal, industrial, and Lilith folk ã have been based on these things rather
than music."
First statement, true. Second and third statements, false. Critics don't
just extol what they can observe without knowing music -- they recognize
that most people (i.e. music buyers) don't know music either, so they write
on the same level. I've read reviews written by musicians, and they're
boring for the average music-lover. That's what Guitar Player and Drummer
magazines are for. And the idea that musical trends have anything to do
with critics is laughable -- the percentage of people who read music reviews
is so minimal in this country as to make rock criticism irrelevant to music
sales. Marketing is what drives musical trends. BUT, even marketing
doesn't work unless the music is easy on the ears. Which prog ain't -- and
besides, if the main thesis of the article above were correct, all musicians
would love and listen to prog. Of the several dozen I know, NONE of them
like prog.
Don't know why I care, but I guess it's been awhile since I did much
complaining online. And isn't that what newsgroups are all about? :-)
josh
Jay
>rock scene was much more interesting:
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-karnick100102.asp
Nice article. Neal and SB have been the topic of more than one thread over on
the King's X message board. Many people were quite upset that Neal left Spock's
Beard because he felt that was the direction God was leading him. Boy were
those interesting discussions.
Jay
Make me a wish, mind over matter
________________________________________
www.underheaven.com
TroutHound
next few months. I read an interview where he was working on a Christian
prog epic piece. I think he could have reached more people staying in
Spock's Beard, but if God was leading him out, who am I to judge?
Dave
--
Virtuosity
Spiritual Progressive Rock Reviews
http://home.att.net/~virtuosity
"Jay" <rog...@aol.comKingsX> wrote in message
news:20021122021225...@mb-fw.aol.com...
BubbCoop
(specifically, music journalism). I claimed it was mostly dishonest and all
about spin. This article, particularly this absurd assertion above, is a
perfect example of my point.>>
at least as absurd is writing that Lenny Kravitz and Creed are Christians, or
King's X is a Christian band, with a gay bass player.
Josh Spencer
> From: bubb...@aol.com (BubbCoop)
Not really, unless you define Christian as "morally, theologically, and
politically perfect." Otherwise, it's just a word used to identify those
who say they believe in Jesus. Period. Most of the Christians in the NT
that Paul was writing to had far more issues than those you mention above,
yet they were still considered believers. Ditto for musicians in the
Christian industry. And you and me. So I don't think it's dishonest
journalism to apply the Savior's name to those who openly agree they need
saving.
josh
Breezy
> Not really, unless you define Christian as "morally, theologically, and
> politically perfect." Otherwise, it's just a word used to identify those
> who say they believe in Jesus. Period. Most of the Christians in the NT
> that Paul was writing to had far more issues than those you mention above,
> yet they were still considered believers. Ditto for musicians in the
> Christian industry. And you and me.
Amen! If some of the "great" Bible characters (even Paul himself, not just
those he wrote to) were to put out "christian music" today, they'd get
jumped on from every direction for their "lifestyles."
Christian artists deal with the same sorts of things everyone else deals
with. It's just that when Joe Schmoe finds out that the members of a band
are sinners like him, he has a crisis of the heart in wondering if they're
really "christians" or not.
-Breezy
Jay
>or
>> King's X is a Christian band, with a gay bass player.
>
>Not really, unless you define Christian as "morally, theologically, and
>politically perfect." Otherwise, it's just a word used to identify those
>who say they believe in Jesus. Period. Most of the Christians in the NT
>that Paul was writing to had far more issues than those you mention above,
>yet they were still considered believers. Ditto for musicians in the
>Christian industry. And you and me. So I don't think it's dishonest
>journalism to apply the Savior's name to those who openly agree they need
>saving.
King's X never wanted to be known as a Christian band. Ever. Doug does not even
consider himself a Christian at this point in his life. He has stated
repeatedly that he's not even sure he believes there is a God.
Don Lowe
> >> at least as absurd is writing that Lenny Kravitz and Creed are
Christians,
> >or
> >> King's X is a Christian band, with a gay bass player.
> >
> >Not really, unless you define Christian as "morally, theologically, and
> >politically perfect." Otherwise, it's just a word used to identify those
> >who say they believe in Jesus. Period. Most of the Christians in the NT
> >that Paul was writing to had far more issues than those you mention
above,
> >yet they were still considered believers. Ditto for musicians in the
> >Christian industry. And you and me. So I don't think it's dishonest
> >journalism to apply the Savior's name to those who openly agree they need
> >saving.
>
> King's X never wanted to be known as a Christian band. Ever. Doug does not
even
> consider himself a Christian at this point in his life. He has stated
> repeatedly that he's not even sure he believes there is a God.
Exactly. Christian music is a misnomer, since music can't be born-again.
You can have Christian bands, but that describes the band members, and not
necessarily their music. Scott Stapp of Creed, who writes the lyrics, says
he is NOT a Christian, and none of the other band members are. That said, I
think Stapp writes lyrics on Christian themes better than nearly all
Christian artists today.
Don
TroutHound
dt
--
Virtuosity
Spiritual Progressive Rock Reviews
http://home.att.net/~virtuosity
"Josh Spencer" <jca...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:BA064A4A.B504%jca...@adelphia.net...
TroutHound
believes in Jesus Christ. He has said the Creed is not a Christian band,
though. But I agree with you about his lyrics. Powerful stuff, and I don't
even like Creed much.
dt
--
Virtuosity
Spiritual Progressive Rock Reviews
http://home.att.net/~virtuosity
"Don Lowe" <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote in message . Scott
lifesabirch
> You can have Christian bands, but that describes the band members, and not
> necessarily their music. Scott Stapp of Creed, who writes the lyrics, says
> he is NOT a Christian, and none of the other band members are. That said, I
> think Stapp writes lyrics on Christian themes better than nearly all
> Christian artists today.
Seems to me that Scott of Creed and Doug of King's X are great people
who understand what Christian means alot more than those who claim
they are. How refreshing. They proabably just don't want to be
associated with the loud mouths of x-tianity of today. Or what one
thinks a x-tian is today. Who would?
If one has to question these guys for supposed moral reasons, maybe he
should examine where their morality is really coming from. These bands
and Lenny are only mentioned because they are some spiritual content.
Yet, they are not dogmatic. They don't need to fit into anyone's ideal
of right or wrong.
Thank God. She's wonderful ain't she? ;)
lifesabirch
> consider himself a Christian at this point in his life. He has stated
> repeatedly that he's not even sure he believes there is a God.
Good for him. It's a beautiful thing to hear someone question things
they've been taught that might be quite faulty. Life is bigger than
the xtian box.
Don Lowe
news:5XlE9.24535$vM1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Actually, I've read a couple of interviews where Stapp outright says he
> believes in Jesus Christ. He has said the Creed is not a Christian band,
> though. But I agree with you about his lyrics. Powerful stuff, and I
don't
> even like Creed much.
I don't like Creed's music, but I've read his lyrics, and they ARE really
powerful, like I said, better than nearly all Christian music lyrics written
today.
And for all of you commenting about judging "Christians" on their actions,
you are right, actions alone doesn't make a Christian. At the same time, if
one continuously and unashamedly acts in ways contrary to the bible, one has
reason to doubt one's testimony.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor
drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I
Cor. 6:9-10.
These refer to people whose lives are characterized by sin, and thus are
obviously not regenerate Christians. All have sinned and continue to sin,
but those who unabashedly continue in sin have not been saved.
I once read a thread about whether Creed was Christian or not (at the time I
didn't really know), and one person posted a message that said, "Of course
they are! Read the lyrics!" The problem with that understanding is the
fact that is writing Christian-themed lyrics does not necessarily make one a
Christian. Unfortunately, we live in an age where if any musical artist
says, "God" or "Jesus," our Christian music radars start humming.
So ... I don't know for sure whether or not Scott Stapp is saved. The
interviews I've read said that the lyrics reflect his Pentecostal
upbringing, and that he would like to believe, but he still has issues with
Christianity. He sounds more like a seeker. The interviews with the other
band members have said something like "we're not Christian, Stapp was just
force-fed Christianity when he was younger." I hope Scott does come to
believe though.
I can't find my Scott Stapp interview ... if you find one where he gives a
credible profession of faith, let me know, I'd be interested to see that.
Don
Breezy
> "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
> not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
> nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy
nor
> drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I
> Cor. 6:9-10.
>
> These refer to people whose lives are characterized by sin, and thus are
> obviously not regenerate Christians. All have sinned and continue to sin,
> but those who unabashedly continue in sin have not been saved.
Actually, Paul wrote this letter to people who *were* continuing
"unabashedly" in various types of sins. He called them "saints" at the
beginning of his letter, and his purpose was to tell them that since they
*are* in Christ, then to stop doing all those things since people who do
those things don't inherit the kingdom. He didn't say that their
"in-Christ" status was questionable. Since they are in Christ, they *will*
inherit the kindgom... so they should stop living like those who won't.
Just my take. :)
-Breezy
lifesabirch
> And for all of you commenting about judging "Christians" on their actions,
> you are right, actions alone doesn't make a Christian. At the same time, if
> one continuously and unashamedly acts in ways contrary to the bible, one has
> reason to doubt one's testimony.
I'd say worry about yourself and don't speculate on another's
salvation or actions.
>
> "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
> not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
> nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor
> drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I
> Cor. 6:9-10.
>
> These refer to people whose lives are characterized by sin, and thus are
> obviously not regenerate Christians. All have sinned and continue to sin,
> but those who unabashedly continue in sin have not been saved.
Since you brought up the most overused passage to use against people,
not to mention the grossly misinterpreted NIV, I'll comment. Why do
people even bring up this passage that no one can define what alot of
these things are. For one thing Paul was talking to a specific group
of people in Corinth, not us. It is impossible to know what he
completely meant.
What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
definition is different now. Unless it is to treat your partner
abusively. Idolatry? Does that even apply today? Even Bhuddists and
Hindus don't WORSHIP their idols. Well, I suppose one could include
Bible worshippers like yourself - so see ya in hell, I guess. Better
shut off that tv - American Idol, ya know. All those kiddies aren't
makin' it to heaven.
Adulterers? Their idea of this was alot different than todays. Male
prostitutes? Hey, what about those female ones? And why is this so
bad?? Homo offenders? The worst translation of them all. I mean
look at any bible translation of this - they are all different. There
were a few Greek words that meant homo. Paul didn't use them. Instead
it was ambiguous. All other known uses of this word, arsenokoit:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm Plus, it doesn't make any
sense. One chooses to be homo as much as one chooses to be hetero.
Every other "sin" here is chosen. Including which religion or brand of
x-tianity. Plus homo relationships can be beneficial just like hetero
ones. Ooh, big sin there.
Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
Greedy? Creed makes millions. My dad always has to have that last
piece of cake - greedy, huh. Drunkards. Understandable. They do hurt
themselves and others around them, but deserving of eternal
punishment? hmm Slanderers? Well, you're kinda doing this by quoting
the NIV, which is incorrect, to use against innocents. And finally,
swindlers. Boy, that is open for interpretation. Yet never used
against anyone. Unlike homo, ya know.
Breezy
> Your point of view seems to beg the question if there's anything a
> saint can do to disinherit themselves. Is this an example of "once
> saved, always saved"?
Begs the question, but doesn't necessarily imply what it's asking. :) But
it's a good question in reply to my comments. Below I provided a random
sampling of verses that talk about how one is saved, and how one is not
saved. Quick summary: *By* grace through faith, and *not by* deeds. Since
it's -not- works that saves a person, then it's not works that "disinherits"
them. And since it's through faith, then the one who would "lose" salvation
(if that's possible) is the one who would no loner have "faith." In one
place, Paul said that those who had "fallen from grace" are those who had
gone back to trusting in works rather than grace for salvation. "You have
been estranged (severed, alienated) from Christ," he said. Not because of
their sinful deeds, but because they were trying to earn salvation by their
deeds. (Gal 5:4). In another place he said that those who have not
submitted to God's righteousness are those who have tried to establish their
"own" righteousness by the works of the law. (Rom 10:3,4). In both cases,
it was "good works" that kept them from God and it was trust in His grace
alone that was actually needed.
We're "created in Christ Jesus for good works," so it makes sense that Paul
would exhort them to stop living the lives they lived, even though they
remained "saved."
-Breezy
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from
the deeds of the law.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is
no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise
work is no longer work.
Gal 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes
through the law, then Christ died in vain.
Gal 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be
justified by the law; you have fallen from grace.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
John Persons
news:261120021525034149%ethan...@spammail.com:
> In article <UUOE9.126681$WL3.60448@rwcrnsc54>, Breezy
> So we're created in Christ Jesus for good works, but good works keep
> us from God? Huh?
>
<breezy>
Not the works themselves, but trusting in good works.
</breezy>
Breezy
> > So we're created in Christ Jesus for good works, but good works keep
> > us from God? Huh?
> >
> <breezy>
> Not the works themselves, but trusting in good works.
> </breezy>
'xactly. :)
-Breezy
Breezy
> So we're created in Christ Jesus for good works, but good works keep us
> from God? Huh?
To try and clarify: If a person is saved by grace apart from works, then
the good works a person does will get them no closer to God, and in fact
keep them just as far away from God as any and all of their sins. The
people Paul was talking about were trusting in their good deeds as a means
of saving themselves and/or keeping themselves saved. That kept them from
God. The "good works" for which we are "created in Christ Jesus," are _not_
works that are done by us to obtain or maintain salvation. Being created in
Christ Jesus *for* good works is much different than doing good works in
order to get created in Christ Jesus.
-Breezy
Don Lowe
news:103a5b9.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > And for all of you commenting about judging "Christians" on their
actions,
> > you are right, actions alone doesn't make a Christian. At the same
time, if
> > one continuously and unashamedly acts in ways contrary to the bible, one
has
> > reason to doubt one's testimony.
> I'd say worry about yourself and don't speculate on another's
> salvation or actions.
I think it's healthy to speculate on another's salvation as well as
ourselves. Shouldn't a parent be concerned about their children's
salvation, or a pastor about the members of his congregation? Should I
listen to a preacher if I'm not sure whether he is saved? How about
listening to a musician? I think it's healthy to a certain degree to
speculate on whether others are Christians as well as ourselves.
> > "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do
> > not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers
> > nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy
nor
> > drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
I
> > Cor. 6:9-10.
> >
> > These refer to people whose lives are characterized by sin, and thus are
> > obviously not regenerate Christians. All have sinned and continue to
sin,
> > but those who unabashedly continue in sin have not been saved.
>
> Since you brought up the most overused passage to use against people,
> not to mention the grossly misinterpreted NIV, I'll comment. Why do
> people even bring up this passage that no one can define what alot of
> these things are. For one thing Paul was talking to a specific group
> of people in Corinth, not us. It is impossible to know what he
> completely meant.
Impossible to know exactly what was meant? Perhaps. But everything in
scripture is Godbreathed, usel for teaching, etc. II Timothy 3:16, so
therefore I think it is our moral obligation to try to understand this
passage. I would also be wary of many saying certain passages are
impossible to understand, because that is often an excuse to ignore whatever
passage they would rather not believe.
> What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
> definition is different now. Unless it is to treat your partner
They probably understood it the same way it was understood under the Mosaic
law, which is the way we understand it today.
> abusively. Idolatry? Does that even apply today? Even Bhuddists and
> Hindus don't WORSHIP their idols. Well, I suppose one could include
> Bible worshippers like yourself - so see ya in hell, I guess. Better
> shut off that tv - American Idol, ya know. All those kiddies aren't
> makin' it to heaven.
Idolatry is often portrayed in conjunction with bowing down to an object.
Christians don't bow down and worship bibles. In what way can you possibly
twist the word "worship" such that you think Christians worship the bible
and Buddhists and Hindus don't worship their idols?
> Adulterers? Their idea of this was alot different than todays. Male
It was? How do you know? A lot of people argue that "things were
different" when the bible was written, but do so without any evidence to
that effect, but make it their basic assumption.
> prostitutes? Hey, what about those female ones? And why is this so
> bad?? Homo offenders? The worst translation of them all. I mean
> look at any bible translation of this - they are all different. There
> were a few Greek words that meant homo. Paul didn't use them. Instead
> it was ambiguous. All other known uses of this word, arsenokoit:
> http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm Plus, it doesn't make any
> sense. One chooses to be homo as much as one chooses to be hetero.
> Every other "sin" here is chosen. Including which religion or brand of
> x-tianity. Plus homo relationships can be beneficial just like hetero
> ones. Ooh, big sin there.
I agree it is a bad translation, but it is a hard thing to translate.
According to the NET Bible translator's notes, the translation of those two
words, translated "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" are the
active and passive partners in a homosexual relationship.
http://www.netbible.com/netbible/index.htm
> Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
Jesus says to pay your taxes. It's not thievery. Unless you're referring
to something I'm not thinking of.
> Greedy? Creed makes millions. My dad always has to have that last
> piece of cake - greedy, huh. Drunkards. Understandable. They do hurt
> themselves and others around them, but deserving of eternal
> punishment? hmm Slanderers? Well, you're kinda doing this by quoting
> the NIV, which is incorrect, to use against innocents. And finally,
> swindlers. Boy, that is open for interpretation. Yet never used
> against anyone. Unlike homo, ya know.
Everyone is deserving of eternal punishment, and therefore there is no
"innocents."
My point is simply that the unrepentant sinners are not Christians and will
not be saved.
Christians struggle with and will always struggle with sin. Struggling is
not the same as being unrepentant. Non-Christians are unrepentant sinners.
Don
Alvin
It is interesting that you can see the emotional spiritual journey of
KingsX by the release of their records. The first 3 album were often
bright and spiritually positive. Even "Over my Head" could be seen as
a gospel song. Their 3rd album even preached against the horrors of
abortion.
After these albums, I noticed that KingsX was a lot more darker. I
really hate to hear that Doug has lost his faith.
lifesabirch
> > King's X never wanted to be known as a Christian band. Ever. Doug does not even
> > consider himself a Christian at this point in his life. He has stated
> > repeatedly that he's not even sure he believes there is a God.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > Make me a wish, mind over matter
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > www.underheaven.com
>
>
> It is interesting that you can see the emotional spiritual journey of
> KingsX by the release of their records. The first 3 album were often
> bright and spiritually positive. Even "Over my Head" could be seen as
> a gospel song. Their 3rd album even preached against the horrors of
> abortion.
>
> After these albums, I noticed that KingsX was a lot more darker. I
> really hate to hear that Doug has lost his faith.
In my estimation, he is finding something better and more realistic.
TroutHound
buddy? I've met Doug and used to correspond with him a lot, and personally I
don't consider him better off these days. But he is a cool guy, and at least
he's honest enough to admit that Christianity and homosexuality cannot
peacefully co-exist in an individual. Hot or cold, yeah, but lukewarm is
putrid. Now he needs to quit grinding his axe, like it is somehow other
Christians fault that he feels guilty, and get on with his life. It's funny,
listening to him, he rails against Christianity, but give him a few drinks,
get him on stage, let him sing a few refrains of Over My Head, and he starts
preaching anyway. God's calling is truly irrevokable.
"lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103a5b9.02120...@posting.google.com...
lifesabirch
> I think it's healthy to speculate on another's salvation as well as
> ourselves. Shouldn't a parent be concerned about their children's
> salvation, or a pastor about the members of his congregation? Should I
> listen to a preacher if I'm not sure whether he is saved? How about
> listening to a musician? I think it's healthy to a certain degree to
> speculate on whether others are Christians as well as ourselves.
I suppose so. This is but one thing wrong with Christianity. Butting
into another's business to see if they are "saved" or not. Altho, I do
understand where you're coming from. How this lines up with "They'll
know you are Christians by your love" I don't get. Love the song -
rarely see it lived out by professing Christians. I know, I know -
telling people they are going to hell if they don't bow to Jesus and
live a certain way according to your interpretation Is showing love,
right? No matter if they are directly hurting someone or not.
> Impossible to know exactly what was meant? Perhaps. But everything in
> scripture is Godbreathed, usel for teaching, etc. II Timothy 3:16, so
> therefore I think it is our moral obligation to try to understand this
> passage. I would also be wary of many saying certain passages are
> impossible to understand, because that is often an excuse to ignore whatever
> passage they would rather not believe.
Paul was talking about the Todah. Not his letters being god-breathed.
I find it funny that people should believe someone who oversaw
killings. If it was today, he'd be writing in jail somewhere and most
today people wouldn't exactly trust a convict. Guess most Jews didn't
then either. Not to mention him believing Jesus was coming back in
his lifetime or shortly thereafter - so most should be celibate, only
to marry to avoid temptation - nothing to do with love. And thinking
it's unnatural for a man to cut his hair or a woman to have no
authority or speak in church. And those slaves - follow what your
master tells you to do... He may have had some good things to say,
but sorry, I have to question a guy like this.
Do you follow these passages/commands or ignore them and make
excuses...
> Exodus 20:21-25 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (so much for turn the
other cheek)
Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear
women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged
to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does
not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they
discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and
bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to
the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not
obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of
his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among
you.
Leviticus 19:27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or
clip off the edges of your beard.
28 " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on
yourselves. I am the LORD .
29 " 'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the
land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. "
(Say what??)
Psalm 137:8 " O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."
1 Corinthians 14:34 - 'As in all the
congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
the Law says.'
Leviticus 20:9 - 'If anyone curses his father or
mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his
mother, and his blood will be on his own head.'
Leviticus 25:44 - 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the
nations
around you; from them you may buy slaves.' and Ephesians 6:5
'Slaves,
obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of
heart, just as you would obey Christ.'
Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except
for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits
adultery." (Almost half of America, then, continues in adultery.)
Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God." ( Most Americans are quite rich)
1 Timothy 2:11 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;
she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam
was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became
a sinner. 15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if
they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Nice
perspective from God - or is that an ancient man bound by his time)
I suppose you would say Jesus came to cover these laws right? Why is
that? They were all FROM God in the first place. Or isn't the bible
innerant?
> > What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
> > definition is different now. Unless it is to treat your partner
>
> They probably understood it the same way it was understood under the Mosaic
> law, which is the way we understand it today.
Most sexually immoral references were concerning idolatry
(fornication) and taking of property (women).
> Idolatry is often portrayed in conjunction with bowing down to an object.
> Christians don't bow down and worship bibles. In what way can you possibly
> twist the word "worship" such that you think Christians worship the bible
> and Buddhists and Hindus don't worship their idols?
I'd say worship involves what you adhere to most in your life. Not
just what or whom you bow to.
>
> > Adulterers? Their idea of this was alot different than todays. Male
>
> It was? How do you know? A lot of people argue that "things were
> different" when the bible was written, but do so without any evidence to
> that effect, but make it their basic assumption.
There is plenty of evidence.
>
> I agree it is a bad translation, but it is a hard thing to translate.
> According to the NET Bible translator's notes, the translation of those two
> words, translated "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" are the
> active and passive partners in a homosexual relationship.
>
> http://www.netbible.com/netbible/index.htm
And of course, the net bible commentators are correct. Even they say
"it is possible" - so obviously they don't know either. The first word
literally means "soft". Since it's in a "sin list", there is no clear
context (unlike what the biased commentators say). So who knows what
it means. It is found in other Greek literature meaning morally weak
with no homo reference at all. It is also found in the Gospels
referring to clothing.
The second word is literally "male" "bed" - and more than likely
refers to an aggressor/abuser that involves males and sex when seen in
other references of the time. Quite possibly pedarastry or masters in
the homo sex slave trade that was common in Greek culture. NOT
condemning all homo acts or relationships at all. That's like
condemning hetero based on the abuse of it. Am I justifying? I don't
know. But it is quite questionable and debatable. Not to mention
ridiculous when we now know today it is an orientation - not a choice.
It is intrinsic and immutable as much as hetero. And is just plain
cruel and ignorant to tell gays to be celibate or turn hetero.
The writers probably thought homo acts were unnatural anyway since it
didn't help in propogating "the Jewish (or X-tian) nation". But they
didn't address any mutual consenting, loving homo relatinships. So we
don't know for sure.
>
> > Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
>
> Jesus says to pay your taxes. It's not thievery. Unless you're referring
> to something I'm not thinking of.
I wonder if he'd say that about Iraq or Afganistan today.
> Everyone is deserving of eternal punishment, and therefore there is no
> "innocents."
How is it that humans deserve never ending torture for finite sins of
about 75 years? What an evil doctrine. I know - you didn't think of it
- you're just following what the bible says. Take it up with God,
right? I have. The Great Spirit said don't believe everything you
read.
>
> My point is simply that the unrepentant sinners are not Christians and will
> not be saved.
>
> Christians struggle with and will always struggle with sin. Struggling is
> not the same as being unrepentant. Non-Christians are unrepentant sinners.
You're entitled to your opinion. But you might want to look into
repenting from teaching false doctrine. Don't believe everything your
pastor or teacher says. Unbiased (hard to find) scholars versed in
Greek and Aramaic are the most reliable. But still no one knows
exactly what things meant - we weren't there. Do your own research and
weigh it.
Breezy
> I suppose you would say Jesus came to cover these laws right? Why is
> that? They were all FROM God in the first place. Or isn't the bible
> innerant?
Several things you've said here I agree with, and then of course we have our
already known disagreements, but I just wanted to comment on this little
section. Mostly because it's stuff a lot of *christians* don't seem to
comprehend about the difference between the Old and the New Covenants. For
example they try to keep homosexual believers under the law, but when it
comes to the laws that *they* don't keep, it suddenly turns around to "I'm
not under the law," as you point out. More than once in rmc I've done the
same as you did, listed a bunch of laws and commands to point out that
people keep some but ignore others. If I recall, each time has been in
"defense" of homosexual christians. In other words, to point out that when
people point out certain biblical laws that *other* people are breaking,
they stand equally as guilty of breaking other laws and therefore have no
right to condemn others.
The doctrine, as Paul put it, is that "whatever the law says, it says to
those who are under the law..." and "Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness for *everyone* who believes..." If any aspect of any of God's
laws are meant for anyone, they are meant only for those who are under the
law. And those are people who have not believed in Christ. So what is the
purpose of the law? As Paul puts it in Galatians, "It was added because of
transgressions, *till* the Seed should come to whom the promise was made..."
(see Galatians 3 for further context).
The law *had* it's purpose, and yes, it was from God. But as the NT further
explains no one could even keep the laws, which is why Jesus came in the
first place. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law..." So the
point of all this is that God gave the law for a certain purpose, and once a
person is "in Christ," that purpose has been served and *no* believer is
under the law.
Didn't mean to butt in Birch, and I didn't reply here because *you* said
what you said, but rather simply because your comments are worthy of
discussion, especially among Christians.
-Breezy
Don Lowe
> > I think it's healthy to speculate on another's salvation as well as
> > ourselves. Shouldn't a parent be concerned about their children's
> > salvation, or a pastor about the members of his congregation? Should I
> > listen to a preacher if I'm not sure whether he is saved? How about
> > listening to a musician? I think it's healthy to a certain degree to
> > speculate on whether others are Christians as well as ourselves.
> I suppose so. This is but one thing wrong with Christianity. Butting
> into another's business to see if they are "saved" or not. Altho, I do
> understand where you're coming from. How this lines up with "They'll
> know you are Christians by your love" I don't get. Love the song -
> rarely see it lived out by professing Christians. I know, I know -
> telling people they are going to hell if they don't bow to Jesus and
> live a certain way according to your interpretation Is showing love,
> right? No matter if they are directly hurting someone or not.
It always strikes me as odd when non-Christians criticize Christians on
moral grounds, i.e. "This is but one thing WRONG with Christianity." I
assume most non-Christians I encounter on these discussions are either
atheists or moral relativists. In either case ... "wrong" simply has no
meaning.
Whereas from a Christian view, if you KNOW that someone is in complete
rebellion against their God, and that their punishment will be everlasting
separation from Him, you KNOW that it is best to tell those people that,
about how their sins are separating them from a holy God, and that by
trusting in His promises through Jesus, that they can be rescued. If you
are a Christian, this IS showing love.
> > Impossible to know exactly what was meant? Perhaps. But everything in
> > scripture is Godbreathed, usel for teaching, etc. II Timothy 3:16, so
> > therefore I think it is our moral obligation to try to understand this
> > passage. I would also be wary of many saying certain passages are
> > impossible to understand, because that is often an excuse to ignore
whatever
> > passage they would rather not believe.
>
> Paul was talking about the Todah. Not his letters being god-breathed.
I assume you meant Torah. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter calls Paul's writings
scripture. Paul frequently speaks of his special, direct revelations from
Jesus. Certainly Paul's revelations should be considered scripture.
> I find it funny that people should believe someone who oversaw
> killings. If it was today, he'd be writing in jail somewhere and most
> today people wouldn't exactly trust a convict. Guess most Jews didn't
Indeed, this is true! The other Apostles were afraid of him. See Acts
9:26ff.
> then either. Not to mention him believing Jesus was coming back in
> his lifetime or shortly thereafter - so most should be celibate, only
> to marry to avoid temptation - nothing to do with love. And thinking
I haven't seen any convincing argument that Paul thought the next coming
would occur in his lifetime. The "or shortly after" comment makes me think
that your source isn't very sure of itself.
I assume you're referring I Corinthians 7. It doesn't say "most" should be
celibate, just that it is good to be so. No reference to occurrence.
Certainly one should marry to avoid temptation, but the passage doesn't say
that this excludes love, and there are many passages in which it is clear
that husbands need to love their wives!
I implore you to PLEASE check your sources before you post these kind of
comments.
> it's unnatural for a man to cut his hair or a woman to have no
> authority or speak in church. And those slaves - follow what your
I think the language about hair was that it was "disgraceful." It's a long
and fruitless discussion, but the consensus is that it must have had
cultural connotations that we aren't aware of today.
Re: woman having authority in the church, many Christians do believe this,
regarding female priests/pastors. This is strictly a Christian issue,
though. I don't think those outside the church should accuse a hierarchy
they don't belong to.
> master tells you to do... He may have had some good things to say,
Re: slaves, if you read that passage, it tells slaves to obey their masters,
and act righteously towards them to win them over to Christ. Paul
recognizes that human slavery is ultimately a temporary thing, and that
human bondage is a small thing compared to heavenly things. This is NOT
condoning slavery. Paul urges in Philemon to free his runaway slave
Onesimus! Paul also urges slave-holders to treat their slaves as brothers
in Christ.
> but sorry, I have to question a guy like this.
>
> Do you follow these passages/commands or ignore them and make
> excuses...
I suppose you're going to call them excuses, but here goes.
Most of these are instructions for a civil government run by God. We do not
exist in that type of government today. It doesn't mean that the committed
violations aren't still wrong.
Romans 13 clearly instructs that the secular civil governments have been
given authorization from God to punish injustice.
> > Exodus 20:21-25 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to
be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his
property.
A
> 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
> prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
> fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23
> But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye
> for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for
> burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (so much for turn the
> other cheek)
What does "turn the other cheek" have to do with it? "Turn the other cheek"
has to do specifically with being persecuted.
> Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear
> women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
I agree.
> Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged
> to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
> the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
> for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
A
> Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does
> not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they
> discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and
> bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to
> the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not
> obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of
> his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among
> you.
A. Certainly you'll agree that being a stubborn and rebellious son is not
right. Like I said above, we don't punish in that manner because we don't
have a God=mandated civil government set up.
> Psalm 137:8 " O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> happy is he who repays you
> for what you have done to us-
> 9 he who seizes your infants
> and dashes them against the rocks."
Babylon was an unholy nation in a time when nations were represented by
their Gods. God often commanded complete genocide against these peoples
becuase their nation fully represented rebellion against the God of Israel.
Though many will claim "God is on our side," or "Allah is with us," no
nation today has God on their side representing them like Israel did.
> 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 'As in all the
> congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
> churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
> the Law says.'
Yet women are allowed to prophecy. Therefore, this refers to a more
specific instance in worship in church.
> Leviticus 20:9 - 'If anyone curses his father or
> mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his
> mother, and his blood will be on his own head.'
A.
> Leviticus 25:44 - 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the
> nations
> around you; from them you may buy slaves.' and Ephesians 6:5
> 'Slaves,
> obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of
> heart, just as you would obey Christ.'
Already addressed.
> Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except
> for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits
> adultery." (Almost half of America, then, continues in adultery.)
That's right!
> Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go
> through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
> of God." ( Most Americans are quite rich)
And most Americans aren't going to enter the kingdom of God ...
Note what follows though. The disciples protest, and say, "Who then can be
saved?"
Jesus then says, "with people this is impossible (i.e. not the rich, not the
poor can be saved!), but with God all things are possible"!
Rich and poor can be saved, but I will certainly say that, like the rich man
in Matthew 19, the rich today have a lot more reservations in following
Christ than the poor!
> 1 Timothy 2:11 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
> 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;
> she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam
> was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became
> a sinner. 15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if
> they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Nice
> perspective from God - or is that an ancient man bound by his time)
Already addressed.
> I suppose you would say Jesus came to cover these laws right? Why is
> that? They were all FROM God in the first place. Or isn't the bible
> innerant?
He came to FULFILL these laws.
> > > What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
> > > definition is different now. Unless it is to treat your partner
> >
> > They probably understood it the same way it was understood under the
Mosaic
> > law, which is the way we understand it today.
>
> Most sexually immoral references were concerning idolatry
> (fornication) and taking of property (women).
>
> > Idolatry is often portrayed in conjunction with bowing down to an
object.
> > Christians don't bow down and worship bibles. In what way can you
possibly
> > twist the word "worship" such that you think Christians worship the
bible
> > and Buddhists and Hindus don't worship their idols?
>
> I'd say worship involves what you adhere to most in your life. Not
> just what or whom you bow to.
By that definition, what do you worship?
If you're trying to understand the Old Testament teaching on worshipping,
you ought to use the Old Testament view on idolatry. It's pretty clear that
bowing down to idols is idolatry, and devoting time to reading God's word is
not.
> > > Adulterers? Their idea of this was alot different than todays. Male
> >
> > It was? How do you know? A lot of people argue that "things were
> > different" when the bible was written, but do so without any evidence to
> > that effect, but make it their basic assumption.
>
> There is plenty of evidence.
Like ...
> > I agree it is a bad translation, but it is a hard thing to translate.
> > According to the NET Bible translator's notes, the translation of those
two
> > words, translated "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" are the
> > active and passive partners in a homosexual relationship.
> >
> > http://www.netbible.com/netbible/index.htm
>
> And of course, the net bible commentators are correct. Even they say
> "it is possible" - so obviously they don't know either. The first word
Pointless to argue then. You're not going to convince anyone that you know
more than the netbible translators, and if you're not convinced by this,
then you're already set in your ways.
> The writers probably thought homo acts were unnatural anyway since it
> didn't help in propogating "the Jewish (or X-tian) nation". But they
> didn't address any mutual consenting, loving homo relatinships. So we
> don't know for sure.
The fact that it's "mutual consenting, etc." might make it better, but it
doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
> > > Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
> > Jesus says to pay your taxes. It's not thievery. Unless you're
referring
> > to something I'm not thinking of.
> I wonder if he'd say that about Iraq or Afganistan today.
Are they any better than the Roman Government was?
> > Everyone is deserving of eternal punishment, and therefore there is no
> > "innocents."
> How is it that humans deserve never ending torture for finite sins of
> about 75 years? What an evil doctrine. I know - you didn't think of it
> - you're just following what the bible says. Take it up with God,
> right? I have. The Great Spirit said don't believe everything you
> read.
Easy question. Because they were committed against an infinite God. You do
the math.
> You're entitled to your opinion. But you might want to look into
> repenting from teaching false doctrine. Don't believe everything your
> pastor or teacher says. Unbiased (hard to find) scholars versed in
Actually, I would say "unbiased" is impossible to find. Everyone has their
own set of presuppositions. The atheist and the Christian both do.
> Greek and Aramaic are the most reliable. But still no one knows
> exactly what things meant - we weren't there. Do your own research and
> weigh it.
I've done my own research, and I'm convinced.
Don
lifesabirch
> "defense" of homosexual christians.
Yes. Appreciated. Of course gay in and of itself is not even mentioned
as a Law so it can't be included in the any catagory of sin anymore
than being straight in and of itself. It's always surrounded by
contexts of idolatry and abuses of it, just as hetero acts.
In other words, to point out that when
> people point out certain biblical laws that *other* people are breaking,
> they stand equally as guilty of breaking other laws and therefore have no
> right to condemn others.
It's almost understandable when a Christian condemns. They read Jesus
and Paul doing it so they try to follow in their footsteps. I know
-the purpose of them listing off sins is to get to the grace, right?
:) I suppose another reason is to let people know they should try to
live a certain way that is glorifying to God. People have to look at
some kind of lists/comments, I suppose, to know what is considered sin
or not. Shouldn't we at least try to stop doing these "sins" (along
with giving it to God)? And won't these just stop or fall by the way
if we live in Christ?
>
> The law *had* it's purpose, and yes, it was from God. But as the NT further
> explains no one could even keep the laws, which is why Jesus came in the
> first place. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law..." So the
> point of all this is that God gave the law for a certain purpose, and once a
> person is "in Christ," that purpose has been served and *no* believer is
> under the law.
Let's take one specific law created "by God and carried out by his
people" from the OT and one from the NT and you can tell me how and
why Jesus came because of it.
OT
Exodus 20:21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is
not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the
slave is his property."
How is it that no one could keep this law? People couldn't keep from
punishing a man/master if the slave lived after a beating? God
suppossedly told his people to do this?? Talk about a cursed and
wicked law. God seems kinda evil letting people do this for hundreds
of years until Christ came to say - "Oh - hey, it was all a set up -
you can just have faith and that will make you righteous. You don't
have to follow it anymore." Didn't both Jesus and Paul praise the Law?
(Not one word will pass away; Scripture (Torah) is God-breathed and
should be used for teaching) How can anyone give credence to this law
without being appalled or seeing it as primitive? And how is Jesus
dying/rising saving us from this specific law?
Just wondering...
NT
1 Corinthians 14:34,35 - "As in all the
congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should
ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to
speak in the church."
If Paul thought so high of faith = righteousness being the end all, be
all - why is he reaffirming a specific Law in keeping women
subordinate? Do you think this is directly from God for all time in
all situations? Or from Paul's viewpoint of the Law and his ancient
culture.
Just wondering...
Another question if there is no male or female in Christ, etc. etc. -
why are people so caught up in whos doin' whom. :)
>
> Didn't mean to butt in Birch, and I didn't reply here because *you* said
> what you said, but rather simply because your comments are worthy of
> discussion, especially among Christians.
No problem.
>
> -Breezy
Don Lowe
> Yes. Appreciated. Of course gay in and of itself is not even mentioned
> as a Law so it can't be included in the any catagory of sin anymore
> than being straight in and of itself. It's always surrounded by
> contexts of idolatry and abuses of it, just as hetero acts.
I'll take a moment and affirm this. One's personal identity is not a sin.
However, I think the bible's view on abuses of this is much broader than
yours. Lev 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie
with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."
I'm gonna quote from a different post of yours ...
> The writers probably thought homo acts were unnatural anyway since it
> didn't help in propogating "the Jewish (or X-tian) nation". But they
> didn't address any mutual consenting, loving homo relatinships. So we
> don't know for sure.
Leviticus 20 does address "mutual consenting, loving relationships." A man
lies with a woman in a mutually consenting, loving relationship, but not
with another male.
> In other words, to point out that when
> > people point out certain biblical laws that *other* people are breaking,
> > they stand equally as guilty of breaking other laws and therefore have
no
> > right to condemn others.
> It's almost understandable when a Christian condemns. They read Jesus
> and Paul doing it so they try to follow in their footsteps. I know
> -the purpose of them listing off sins is to get to the grace, right?
> :) I suppose another reason is to let people know they should try to
> live a certain way that is glorifying to God. People have to look at
> some kind of lists/comments, I suppose, to know what is considered sin
> or not. Shouldn't we at least try to stop doing these "sins" (along
> with giving it to God)? And won't these just stop or fall by the way
> if we live in Christ?
I usually only point out sins to rebuke Christians, not non-Christians. I
Corinthians is a great example of pointing out a Christian's fault (the sin
was sleeping with his father's wife). Paul also says not to judge those
outside of the church. "For what have I to do with outsiders? Do you not
judge those who are within the church?"
> > The law *had* it's purpose, and yes, it was from God. But as the NT
further
> > explains no one could even keep the laws, which is why Jesus came in the
> > first place. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law..." So
the
> > point of all this is that God gave the law for a certain purpose, and
once a
> > person is "in Christ," that purpose has been served and *no* believer is
> > under the law.
>
> Let's take one specific law created "by God and carried out by his
> people" from the OT and one from the NT and you can tell me how and
> why Jesus came because of it.
>
> OT
> Exodus 20:21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
> the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is
> not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the
> slave is his property."
> How is it that no one could keep this law? People couldn't keep from
It's not that no one could keep this one law, it's that no one could keep
the entire law perfectly. That's why there are hundreds of these! No one
can perfectly keep the law when there are so many of them.
> punishing a man/master if the slave lived after a beating? God
> suppossedly told his people to do this?? Talk about a cursed and
> wicked law. God seems kinda evil letting people do this for hundreds
> of years until Christ came to say - "Oh - hey, it was all a set up -
> you can just have faith and that will make you righteous. You don't
There you go again. You can claim God is evil, but unless you're a moral
absolutist, claims of evil and good are arbitrary. As a Christian, God is
the moral standard of good. The very fact that God shows us mercy at all is
a testament to his goodness.
> have to follow it anymore." Didn't both Jesus and Paul praise the Law?
> (Not one word will pass away; Scripture (Torah) is God-breathed and
> should be used for teaching) How can anyone give credence to this law
> without being appalled or seeing it as primitive? And how is Jesus
> dying/rising saving us from this specific law?
Not a small topic, but if you really want to know, read Romans 1-5. It's a
large topic that's covered in full depth there, and I really can't do it any
justice without copying the text and pasting it into my message. He covers
why the law was perfect and yet flawed, holy yet a curse, and why Jesus was
needed.
> Just wondering...
>
> NT
> 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 - "As in all the
> congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
> churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
> the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should
> ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to
> speak in the church."
>
> If Paul thought so high of faith = righteousness being the end all, be
> all - why is he reaffirming a specific Law in keeping women
> subordinate? Do you think this is directly from God for all time in
> all situations? Or from Paul's viewpoint of the Law and his ancient
> culture.
Neither. It's for congregations/churches for the given time/dispensation,
which continues today.
> Just wondering...
>
> Another question if there is no male or female in Christ, etc. etc. -
> why are people so caught up in whos doin' whom. :)
It's a complicated question, and it's good of you to ask. Both male and
female are equal in worth in God's eyes (hence your reference to Galatians
3:28), but men and women are different by nature. God has assigned men and
women different roles in his church. Is a pastor worth more in God's eyes
than the usher? Of course not, but God has called the pastor to preach and
not the usher. Likewise, God has assigned different roles to men in women.
Different in purpose, equal in worth.
Of course, this is a debatable topic among Christians. Recommended reading
is Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by Wayne Grudem and
John Piper. A warning, though, it's pretty theologically dense, but the
intro chapters by John Piper are wonderful.
Don
Jason Steiner
>
> It always strikes me as odd when non-Christians criticize Christians on
> moral grounds, i.e. "This is but one thing WRONG with Christianity." I
> assume most non-Christians I encounter on these discussions are either
> atheists or moral relativists. In either case ... "wrong" simply has no
> meaning.
You're wrong.
There are many standards by which to judge. And non-religious
standards are far more objective and substantial than religious
standards.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Don Lowe
news:hkrusa...@shell.gaydeceiver.com...
> Don Lowe <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It always strikes me as odd when non-Christians criticize Christians on
> > moral grounds, i.e. "This is but one thing WRONG with Christianity." I
> > assume most non-Christians I encounter on these discussions are either
> > atheists or moral relativists. In either case ... "wrong" simply has no
> > meaning.
>
> You're wrong.
>
> There are many standards by which to judge. And non-religious
> standards are far more objective and substantial than religious
> standards.
>
> jason
We're still talking about moral standards, right?
I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why is it more
objective and substantial than a religious standard?
Don
Josh Spencer
> From: "Don Lowe" <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com>
Oh no, someone has clapped for the court jester again! Don, how could you?
Are we ever going to finish a meal around here without having to stop for a
laugh at Steiner's so-serious absurdities?
josh
Jason Steiner
> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> > Don Lowe <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > It always strikes me as odd when non-Christians criticize Christians on
> > > moral grounds, i.e. "This is but one thing WRONG with Christianity." I
> > > assume most non-Christians I encounter on these discussions are either
> > > atheists or moral relativists. In either case ... "wrong" simply has no
> > > meaning.
> >
> > You're wrong.
> >
> > There are many standards by which to judge. And non-religious
> > standards are far more objective and substantial than religious
> > standards.
>
Among others.
> I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why
> is it more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
Like other animals, we're social creatures. There are objective
and substantial consequences for working or failing to work with
others.
Don Lowe
> > I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why
> > is it more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
> Like other animals, we're social creatures. There are objective
> and substantial consequences for working or failing to work with
> others.
That's not any more objective or substantial than religious moral standards.
Is working with others good and failing to work bad? What if you're working
for the Taliban? And what determines working with others? And what about
these consequences you're talking about? What makes them good or bad?
In any case, I think you're dodging the point. As a Christian, I'm happy to
share my moral convictions, because I believe they are truth that comes from
God. Are you afraid of putting forth your moral convictions up for scrutiny
as well? Or are you just content to criticize others' convictions as
"wrong" without stating either your moral convictions or your standard for
judging them wrong? I would like to hear what your convictions and
standards are.
Don
Breezy
> Yes. Appreciated. Of course gay in and of itself is not even mentioned
> as a Law so it can't be included in the any catagory of sin anymore
You know the verse everyone quotes from Leviticus. That's what I'm pointing
out. Everyone says that "law" holds today and yet they won't keep other
Levitical laws, such as ones you mentioned and other ones.
> It's almost understandable when a Christian condemns. They read Jesus
> and Paul doing it so they try to follow in their footsteps. I know
> -the purpose of them listing off sins is to get to the grace, right?
> :) I suppose another reason is to let people know they should try to
> live a certain way that is glorifying to God. People have to look at
> some kind of lists/comments, I suppose, to know what is considered sin
> or not. Shouldn't we at least try to stop doing these "sins" (along
> with giving it to God)? And won't these just stop or fall by the way
> if we live in Christ?
According to Paul's doctrine, the law was not meant as a list of things that
people should do in order to glorify God. It was ultimately given as a
means to show what sin is - for the purpose of showing people their need for
the eventual coming of the Messiah. Exactly what law was he talking about?
The Levitical laws? The "ten" commandments (there are actually more than
ten specific commands there)? I don't know. But the point is that if a
person looks at what God considers holy, if the person is honest the only
conclusion he can come to is that he does not measure up to God's holiness
and righteousness. Jesus said, "be perfect." No one is. Paul claimed that
the righteousness needed is the same as God's. Obviously no one measures up
to that. Enter the Messiah.
> Exodus 20:21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
> the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is
> not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the
> slave is his property."
>
> How is it that no one could keep this law? People couldn't keep from
> punishing a man/master if the slave lived after a beating? God
> suppossedly told his people to do this?? Talk about a cursed and
> wicked law. God seems kinda evil letting people do this for hundreds
> of years until Christ came to say - "Oh - hey, it was all a set up -
> you can just have faith and that will make you righteous. You don't
> have to follow it anymore."
The Levitical law... it's one thing I'm not sure about, as far as how it
fits into the whole picture. But the point is reiterated by Paul, Peter and
others that law-keeping will not save a person.
> Didn't both Jesus and Paul praise the Law?
The law is holy. The law is good. Both Paul and Jesus would agree. But
the law has no mercy unless you turn from having broken it and "repay"
somehow for your misdeeds. The "sacrifices" weren't good enough, says the
writer of Hebrews. For they had to keep giving them year after year after
year. One "ultimate" sacrifice was needed, a perfect one by a "spotless
Lamb." Why the need for the laws when it would all come down to that? I
don't know. But I don't feel the need to understand it all.
> (Not one word will pass away; Scripture (Torah) is God-breathed and
> should be used for teaching) How can anyone give credence to this law
> without being appalled or seeing it as primitive?
A primitive law - only by our own cultural views. Things like this go on in
the world today. But I did some research and found that "slaves" didn't
become slaves in the same way as our country has known it. It was often as
a result of a thief not being able to repay what they'd stolen or as an
alternative to jail, etc. Not that I understand God's view of it or why the
beating was allowed. The recent studying I did gave me a glimpse of it, but
I certainly couldn't talk about it unambiguously.
> And how is Jesus
> dying/rising saving us from this specific law?
> Just wondering...
"This specific law" isn't the point. It's the law as a whole that Paul is
talking about. Again, in his explanations he refers to Mt. Sinai, and
without having deeply studied that part lately, it seems to me that he's
refering to those ten commandments, but again at the moment I can't speak on
it with authority.
> NT
> 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 - "As in all the
> congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the
> churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as
> the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should
> ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to
> speak in the church."
>
> If Paul thought so high of faith = righteousness being the end all, be
> all - why is he reaffirming a specific Law in keeping women
> subordinate? Do you think this is directly from God for all time in
> all situations? Or from Paul's viewpoint of the Law and his ancient
> culture.
> Just wondering...
Well, I wonder too. :) I'm not sure what Paul's deal was with that. I've
heard all kinds of explanations. But looking at it quickly here it doesn't
appear that he's saying that keeping this command or exhortation of his has
anything to do with earning or maintaining the righteousness that is needed
for salvation. But about Paul: For one, he was human and subject to
imperfections and flaws. It's one reason I don't like people calling his
writings inerrant or God-breathed. But when it comes down to it, his
doctrine - his explanation of the two covenants, etc. - seems pretty solid,
as far as what I understand of it.
But something bigger than my understanding of the facts, birch, is a
spiritual connection I have with the Father, which testifies to my spirit
that my basic belief is true. Believe me, this is something that I don't
say lightly and that has been years in the making. I have questioned many
of the same things you question. So far I've come to the conclusion that
"the Bible" isn't the final authority in my life, but rather God's word to
me personally. God has spoken to my heart about various things that are in
what we call the "bible." Of course I can't prove it to you or anyone, and
don't need to. But I will say that He said if you seek Him you'll find Him.
I've paid the price - probably not as much as some and more than others -
and have found what I need from Him as far as an answer to the overall saved
by grace alone thing.
> Another question if there is no male or female in Christ, etc. etc. -
> why are people so caught up in whos doin' whom. :)
I know you've got the smiley there, but of course he wasn't talking actual
physical status. He also said there is not Greek nor Jew, no slave nor
free. People remained Jews and Greeks, slaves and free... but "in Christ"
(spiritually) none of those things are of any significance.
-Breezy
Josh Spencer
> From: "Breezy" <nowo...@NOmchsiSPAM.com>
> "lifesabirch" wrote:
>> Yes. Appreciated. Of course gay in and of itself is not even mentioned
>> as a Law so it can't be included in the any catagory of sin anymore
>
> You know the verse everyone quotes from Leviticus. That's what I'm pointing
> out. Everyone says that "law" holds today and yet they won't keep other
> Levitical laws, such as ones you mentioned and other ones.
Most of the Levitical laws were for that culture, at that time in their
history. However, it's notable that homosexual sex is specified as
"detestable" or an "abomination" to God. If I'm not mistaken, only a few
laws are distinguished as such in the OT, for behaviours also spoken against
in the NT, and thus they're viewed as applicable across culture & time.
If I'm not mistaken.
And I really don't care personally, but anyone who's into the issue needs to
note that very important "abomination" variable. Not all laws are written
as equal in the OT.
josh
Jason Steiner
>
> Oh no, someone has clapped for the court jester again! Don, how could you?
> Are we ever going to finish a meal around here without having to stop for a
> laugh at Steiner's so-serious absurdities?
Sure.
I haven't contributed anything to the discussions on God's opinion
of various brands of professional audio gear, or God's opinion of
popular children's novels and their cinematic adaptations.
Jason Steiner
> > > is it more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
> >
> > Like other animals, we're social creatures. There are objective
> > and substantial consequences for working or failing to work with
> > others.
>
> That's not any more objective or substantial than religious moral
> standards. Is working with others good and failing to work bad?
> What if you're working for the Taliban? And what determines working
> with others? And what about these consequences you're talking
> about?
In extreme cases, death.
> What makes them good or bad?
How do you feel about death?
> In any case, I think you're dodging the point. As a Christian, I'm
> happy to share my moral convictions, because I believe they are
> truth that comes from God.
As members of the Taliban, a lot of people were happy to share their
moral convictions, because they believed that those convictions were
truth that comes from God. A lot of them area dead now.
> I would like to hear what your convictions and standards are.
No you wouldn't.
You've got your standard, and you're happy with it, and you'll follow
it regardless of the consequences. Even unto death. Just like the
Taliban.
Dave Paisley
Josh Spencer wrote:
> > From: "Breezy" <nowo...@NOmchsiSPAM.com>
> > "lifesabirch" wrote:
> >> Yes. Appreciated. Of course gay in and of itself is not even mentioned
> >> as a Law so it can't be included in the any catagory of sin anymore
> >
> > You know the verse everyone quotes from Leviticus. That's what I'm pointing
> > out. Everyone says that "law" holds today and yet they won't keep other
> > Levitical laws, such as ones you mentioned and other ones.
>
> Most of the Levitical laws were for that culture, at that time in their
> history. However, it's notable that homosexual sex is specified as
> "detestable" or an "abomination" to God. If I'm not mistaken, only a few
> laws are distinguished as such in the OT, for behaviours also spoken against
> in the NT, and thus they're viewed as applicable across culture & time.
Like eating shellfish? (KJ Lev 11:12)
Now there's a real abomination for you...
Or eating eagles, ossifrages(?) and ospreys... (KJ Lev 11:13)
> If I'm not mistaken.
>
> And I really don't care personally, but anyone who's into the issue needs to
> note that very important "abomination" variable. Not all laws are written
> as equal in the OT.
But you have to slice and dice pretty fine to get just the answer you
want.
--
dave
scholar and fool
> Don Lowe <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>> > > I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why
>> > > is it more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
>> >
>> > Like other animals, we're social creatures. There are objective
>> > and substantial consequences for working or failing to work with
>> > others.
>>
>> That's not any more objective or substantial than religious moral
>
> No you wouldn't.
>
> You've got your standard, and you're happy with it, and you'll follow
> it regardless of the consequences. Even unto death. Just like the
> Taliban.
wow, so obvious...even the darts were weak in this response.
perhaps this response is jason's holiday gift to r.m.c...
...or maybe he was just feeling ill when he posted. :)
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@failure.net
replace junkmail with phliktid to e-mail me
Breezy
> Most of the Levitical laws were for that culture, at that time in their
> history. However, it's notable that homosexual sex is specified as
> "detestable" or an "abomination" to God. If I'm not mistaken, only a few
> laws are distinguished as such in the OT, for behaviours also spoken
against
> in the NT, and thus they're viewed as applicable across culture & time.
Yep, they were cultural, but not only that, it was God's commands to only
those people. The rest of the world was not a part of God's covenant with
the Jews which included those laws. The question I have is... when Paul
used the generic term "law," was he talking about these Levitical laws or
the laws given to Moses at Mt. Sinai known today as the ten commandments, or
both. However, when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter because
1) The people Paul was writing to knew what he was talking about, 2) Paul's
ultimate conclusion is that law-keeping or "works" cannot save a person and
3) As I said, those laws were not given to us Gentiles in the first place.
As far as the word abomination being used, it doesn't matter whether or not
the word was used in any specific ordinance. What mattered at the time was
that *the people to whom the laws were given* were supposed to keep them
all! Lev 18:24 'Do not defile yourselves with *any* of these things; for
by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.'
One of the abominations was creeping creatures (Lev 11:41). While
christians get upset with a gay person I don't know of any christian who
would throw a hissy fit (although they might say Yuck!) if someone were to
eat "whatever crawls on it's belly, or whatever crawls on all fours,
whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth."
I also don't see anyone having a problem with abominable lobsters or octopi
or "whatever in the water does not have fins or scales." (Lev. 11:10-12)
If the 'abominable' homo law applies across time and culture, shouldn't the
other 'abominable' ordinances?
My point is that whether it's the Levitical laws or the ten commandments, a
christian is not under *any* part of the old covenant.
> And I really don't care personally, but anyone who's into the issue needs
to
> note that very important "abomination" variable. Not all laws are written
> as equal in the OT.
The various 600+ laws that are in the OT are indeed not "equal" in that they
were given to different people at different times. One thing that I've
brought up in the past that I seem to have forgotten lately (although I
brought it up above) is that gentiles were never even part of the Old
Covenant. None of those laws pertained to them. When Paul talks about the
law being used to bring people to Jesus, the thing I keep forgetting is that
that's meant for Jews who were actually under those laws. Whenever you find
Jesus talking to Jews, He related to them with the Law (which they were
familiar with), but if you found Him talking to Gentiles, I don't think He
talked "law" to them. Rather, His message was (in my own loose words): "You
are able to freely be a part of God's family."
Probably over half of my past conversations with birch could've been avoided
if I'd only kept that in mind. :) What I'm saying - and I know this is too
radical for some christians - is that how a christian lives their life is
not dependant upon any of God's laws. I can see how the laws - especially
the ten commandments - can be used to show a person God's heart towards how
we live, but He's not requiring us to keep them as a means of staying right
with Him.
-Breezy
Breezy
> People have to look at
> some kind of lists/comments, I suppose, to know what is considered sin
> or not. Shouldn't we at least try to stop doing these "sins" (along
> with giving it to God)? And won't these just stop or fall by the way
> if we live in Christ?
Forgot to reply to this part yesterday.
Jesus talked a lot about us needing forgiveness. That, to me, implies that
these things won't just stop or fall by the way. We're told that we *are*
in Christ and He *is* in us - we are one with Him. We *are* the
righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. "The temple of God is holy, and that
*is* what you are..." (I Cor. 3:17) "If any man is in Christ, he *is* a
new creation..." (II Cor. 5:17) "The one who joins himself to the Lord
*is* one spirit with Him." (I Cor. 6:17)
The Holy Spirit does dwell within the spirit of a christian. All of those
above verses (and many more) tell us that our status is that of being one
with Christ and *being* righteous because of that. Because of this, our
godly spirit looongs to do what is right and good.
However, Jesus and Paul also talked about us still living with weak _flesh._
"The spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak." - Jesus. Our fleshly
(non-spiritual, human nature) part of our being is *not* the part of us that
is reconciled to God nor "born-again," etc. It is corruptible, it is subect
to sin. It is subject to homosexuality. :-D
And of course there's this passage:
Rom 7:15-20 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to
do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do
what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it
is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in
me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with
me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I
will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20
Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that
dwells in me.
NKJV
What I get out of that is that in general terms (my own words), we are drawn
towards sin because of our human nature. What Paul says here though, is
that "it is no longer I who do it but sin in me." It's not a matter of
trying to shake responsibility, but rather I believe he's giving it as a
spiritual fact. Since I *am* a new creation (spiritually), then the "old"
me which keeps on sinning is not really "me" but rather "sin that dwells in
me." So a christian has two choices - to follow the Spirit in Him or the
sin in him. We're of course exhorted to follow the Spirit and not be
enslaved by sin. But no matter how we end up behaving, our spirit *is* holy
and righteous because of the life of Christ in us. It's not simply a matter
of "faith = righteousness." It's more along the lines of "by faith we
become one with Christ and are therefore made righteous."
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
God..." (Rom 8:16) This Spirit/spirit life within us is vital to
understanding the things of God. I could live the whole rest of my life
trying to get all the t's crossed and i's dotted, and trying to line up all
the bible verses in a way which makes them all fit together nice and snug.
But what really matters to me in the long run is the Spirit speaking to my
spirit. It's not as if God indwells you so you suddenly know all that God
knows. Just like you can spend a lifetime "finding yourself" or learning
new things about yourself, it's also a lifetime of learning from God about
Himself. I've asked God a lotta lotta, whole lotta questions in my
lifetime. Some of the questions have been answered, in various ways, but
most remain unanswered. That's ok, I have what I need in this life, and I
believe I've got all of eternity to get to know Him. :)
-Breezy
lifesabirch
opinion.
I guess looking at the bible differently than I used to (blindly),
I've decided I can't trust what's in it. Some is good and applicable
in my life. Some is not. If it uplifts me, it's good. If it provably
tears down in this life, it isn't. Our modern interpretations could be
way off. I see words on paper that could have meant something quite
different in another time. Who knows- someone else could be writing
emails right now that could be believed by people 2,000 years from now
as from God. And it would look totally different than the bible's
concepts.
Faith and salvation is quite subjective so it's tough to really put
stock into Paul's more than my own or anything else that was written
at the same time. Who knows if Thomas' (or any others) version of what
God says was quite possibly the correct one. Or if some words were
added or subtracted, or translated correctly. Comes down to faith I
suppose. God seems to want to use humans to convey things, but in
doing that it makes it impossible to know for sure just what the heck
is good, bad, or ugly.
So I end up going by reason, logic, and faith in the human spirit. I
don't know if these people made up a version of God. One can believe
and think they know, but um... I know thought I did. People might
say that my way is subjective. But so are the many interpretations of
the bible, koran, you name it. People say to live by what the bible
says is the only way, yet I've known many people who are at peace
getting away from it and living productive lives. And visa versa.
I think Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm get a bad rap (or rep)
because there is so much fighting, bickering, and criticism. Our
way/god is better than yours so I'm going to force my way thru the
government and the majority of society.
I don't see non-Xians getting too upset about something like Bhuddism
or Wicca.
They are belief systems, but doesn't require an egotistical god. My
way or the highway.
That being said - Your thinking is pretty good. Did I just say that?
:)
Breezy
"lifesabirch" wrote:
> I guess looking at the bible differently than I used to (blindly),
> I've decided I can't trust what's in it. Some is good and applicable
> in my life. Some is not. If it uplifts me, it's good. If it provably
> tears down in this life, it isn't. Our modern interpretations could be
> way off.
Could be way off, could be slightly off. However that's not the only
possibility to consider. It _could_ have a lot of meaning for us today. I
do see it that way.
> I see words on paper that could have meant something quite
> different in another time.
Maybe, maybe not.
> Who knows- someone else could be writing
> emails right now that could be believed by people 2,000 years from now
> as from God. And it would look totally different than the bible's
> concepts.
Yep, through the use of google they'll come up with the Life's a Birch Bible
and start the Birch Church. ;) You'll be bigger than Joseph Smith!
> Comes down to faith I suppose.
Agreed. I'll most likely never see it like you but it's good to hear other
thoughts on it, such as you've shared.
-Breezy
Peter T. Chattaway
: I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why is it
: more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
I really don't think you want to go there. If no one's asked it yet, then
someone at some point is *bound* to ask you how *your* religious moral
standards can be "objective" when they change at God's whim.
Perhaps we should abandon this notion of "objective morality" altogether?
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- pe...@chattaway.com ---
If true love never did exist how could we know its name? -- Sam Phillips
Happiness happens but I want joy. -- Marjorie Cardwell
Peter T. Chattaway
: "lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
: > definition is different now.
:
: They probably understood it the same way it was understood under the
: Mosaic law, which is the way we understand it today.
Um, well, no, there *have* been changes. For example, AFAIK, polygamy was
not a viable option for most first-century Jews (except maybe among the
royalty; then again, Herod was Idumean, not Jewish). And many Christians
down through the years have assumed that oral and anal sex is forbidden
*even between married couples* and, hence, would be "immoral".
: Idolatry is often portrayed in conjunction with bowing down to an
: object. Christians don't bow down and worship bibles.
The definition of "idolatry" that I've usually worked with is "anything
that comes between you and God, and not in a good way". And yes, the
Bible *does* come *between* people and God -- sometimes in a good way, and
sometimes not. Sometimes the Bible is an icon, which mediates the sacred,
and sometimes it is an idol, which replaces the sacred. It all depends on
what sort of relationship you have with the Bible, and with God, etc.
: > Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
:
: Jesus says to pay your taxes. It's not thievery.
Non sequitur. Jesus also told people to turn the other cheek when they
were struck, and to give their underwear when the authorities confiscated
their outerwear for no good reason. In other words, he told people to
repay evil with good. Thus, to say that Jesus told people to pay their
taxes is *not* to say that Jesus said taxes were a good thing.
Josh Spencer
>>Josh Spencer wrote:
>>
>> Most of the Levitical laws were for that culture, at that time in their
>> history. However, it's notable that homosexual sex is specified as
>> "detestable" or an "abomination" to God. If I'm not mistaken, only a few
>> laws are distinguished as such in the OT, for behaviours also spoken against
>> in the NT, and thus they're viewed as applicable across culture & time.
>
>
> Now there's a real abomination for you...
>
> Or eating eagles, ossifrages(?) and ospreys... (KJ Lev 11:13)
Big difference there...eating those is called detestable to *them*, not to
God. And rightly so! Have you ever smelled the breath of somebody who just
ate shellfish? Pure abomination. And eating eagles, that's just plain
wrong as any good American should know. ;-)
>> If I'm not mistaken.
>>
>> And I really don't care personally, but anyone who's into the issue needs to
>> note that very important "abomination" variable. Not all laws are written
>> as equal in the OT.
>
> But you have to slice and dice pretty fine to get just the answer you
> want.
No, you don't. One does have to ignore certain parts of the text in order
to make the point you were attempting to make, however.
josh
Josh Spencer
> From: "Breezy" <nowo...@NOmchsiSPAM.com>
> As far as the word abomination being used, it doesn't matter whether or not
> the word was used in any specific ordinance. What mattered at the time was
> that *the people to whom the laws were given* were supposed to keep them
> all! Lev 18:24
And weren't they? Otherwise they'd be driven out like the other nations,
which they were eventually.
> If the 'abominable' homo law applies across time and culture, shouldn't the
> other 'abominable' ordinances?
As I said in my original post, "if I'm not mistaken". I've looked at the
texts closely now (had to break out the reference books to get the Hebrew),
and I was mistaken. It doesn't say homosexual sex is an abomination *to
God* specifically, which is what I remembered for some reason. So it's not
really distinct from some other laws like the dietary ones we're talking
about. Although they are all distinct in that they could wreak havoc on the
health of humanity, as sexual and dietary behaviours do today just as much.
And that's worth thinking about.
> My point is that whether it's the Levitical laws or the ten commandments, a
> christian is not under *any* part of the old covenant.
I agree. My main interest was just that people were looking closely enough
at the text, although it turns out that I wasn't myself. And I don't even
care about this stuff, so I shoulda kept my big mouth shut.
The usual consensus, though, is that if something is forbidden in the OT
*and* in the NT, then it's generally not a good idea to do it. That's what
evangelicals say, anyway. I don't think anyone's brought up that pretty
common approach to this issue.
> What I'm saying - and I know this is too
> radical for some christians - is that how a christian lives their life is
> not dependant upon any of God's laws. I can see how the laws - especially
> the ten commandments - can be used to show a person God's heart towards how
> we live, but He's not requiring us to keep them as a means of staying right
> with Him.
I totally agree with that. I don't really know why I was butting in to
argue the homo angle, because we think the same thing about all this law
stuff.
That said, there are plenty of commands in the NT that imply obedience.
What do you make of those? Same thing as with OT commands, just for a
certain culture at a certain time? I haven't made my mind up. Although I
kinda think all commands are just there as a failsafe, and people are aware
of what's right and wrong without being told. It's built in. Although most
of us prefer fucking things up to doing what's best, we know deep down
what's what.
josh
Josh Spencer
>> Dave Paisley wrote:
>>> Josh Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> Most of the Levitical laws were for that culture, at that time in their
>>> history. However, it's notable that homosexual sex is specified as
>>> "detestable" or an "abomination" to God. If I'm not mistaken, only a few
>>> laws are distinguished as such in the OT, for behaviours also spoken against
>>> in the NT, and thus they're viewed as applicable across culture & time.
>>
>> Like eating shellfish? (KJ Lev 11:12)
>>
>> Now there's a real abomination for you...
>>
>> Or eating eagles, ossifrages(?) and ospreys... (KJ Lev 11:13)
>
> Big difference there...eating those is called detestable to *them*, not to
> God. And rightly so! Have you ever smelled the breath of somebody who just
> ate shellfish? Pure abomination. And eating eagles, that's just plain
> wrong as any good American should know. ;-)
Actually, I'm wrong here...there's no distinction as I previously thought,
(except for the obvious health issues inherent in both). Sorry about that.
>>> If I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>> And I really don't care personally, but anyone who's into the issue needs to
>>> note that very important "abomination" variable. Not all laws are written
>>> as equal in the OT.
>>
>> But you have to slice and dice pretty fine to get just the answer you
>> want.
>
> No, you don't. One does have to ignore certain parts of the text in order
> to make the point you were attempting to make, however.
And vice versa, as I've so clumsily proved. :-)
josh
Don Lowe
From: "Breezy" <nowo...@NOmchsiSPAM.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kurt Cobain Meets Jesus Christ...?
> The various 600+ laws that are in the OT are indeed not "equal" in that
they
> were given to different people at different times. One thing that I've
> brought up in the past that I seem to have forgotten lately (although I
> brought it up above) is that gentiles were never even part of the Old
> Covenant. None of those laws pertained to them. When Paul talks about
the
Sort-of right. If I recall, there were Gentiles living amongst the Jews,
and most, if not all, of the laws applied to those Gentiles as well. But
your points still stand.
Don
Don Lowe
revealed to Peter that all foods were declared clean. Read the account, and
the surrounding chapters, this was a BIG deal in the early church, so big
that the early Gentile Christians were instructed that should respect the
dietary restrictions because the stigma of eating those foods was so great.
See Romans 14 as well.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Paisley" <dr...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Kurt Cobain Meets Jesus Christ...?
Don Lowe
have so many conflicting ideas in this world of what is good and what isn't.
You're right -- ultimately it does come down to faith. You say you end up
going on reason, logic and faith. There is a large division in modern
mainline churches about whether to give more authority to scripture alone or
shape it to our current culture, as Paul did to his own. Ultimately, I side
with staying strictly with what scripture teaches because because I believe
in the depravity of mankind, I don't think that our human reasoning is the
best judge.
I am torn with issues such as whether women should be pastors, because I
understand that the bible unequivocally teaches that they should not hold
that authority in the church, but my reason doesn't comprehend why.
Ultimately, I have to decide that God's reasons are better than my own.
If we judge everything by own reasoning, like you said, take what uplifts
me, deny what doesn't, then that ultimately leads to moral relativism. I
don't think God would leave us that uncertain of what is right and wrong,
and thus I believe that God gave us the bible so that we would not be
confused.
It doesn't uplift me to believe that I am a sinner, that I have offended my
creator in absolutely heinous ways. But God, though the bible, has
convicted me that is so. It does uplift me that God has provided the
sacrifice of his son so that I do not have to pay the penalty for those
sins, and those sins will be remembered no more! (Jer. 31:34) But the
latter is only uplifting if the former is true. If I deny that I'm a sinner
in rebellion against God, then why should I rejoice in the sacrifice of His
son?
This sort of moral ambivalence is typical of generation, and I think Paul
addresses this when he writes to Timothy in his last letter.
2 Timothy 4:1-5 "In the Presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge
the living and the dead, and in the view of his appearing and his kingdom, I
give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of
season; correct, rebuke and encourage -- with great patience and careful
instruction.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears will want to hear. They
will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
"But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of
an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."
Don
"lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103a5b9.02120...@posting.google.com...
lifesabirch
the
> texts closely now (had to break out the reference books to get the Hebrew),
> and I was mistaken. It doesn't say homosexual sex is an abomination *to
> God* specifically, which is what I remembered for some reason. So it's not
> really distinct from some other laws like the dietary ones we're talking
> about. Although they are all distinct in that they could wreak havoc on the
> health of humanity, as sexual and dietary behaviours do today just as much.
> And that's worth thinking about.
What are you talking about? Hetero practices wreak havoc much more
than any homo does. Pregnancy is a much bigger problem than the small
% of homos. If anything homo is a good thing. Population control, ya
know. And more women for you. :) I know many homo couples who don't
present any health problems. And I know many straights who do. Go
figure. Adhering to a healthy diet is good, but doesn't require a
religious book to figure that one out. I know many people who eat pork
and shellfish who are healthy.
>
> > My point is that whether it's the Levitical laws or the ten commandments, a
> > christian is not under *any* part of the old covenant.
>
> I agree. My main interest was just that people were looking closely enough
> at the text, although it turns out that I wasn't myself. And I don't even
> care about this stuff, so I shoulda kept my big mouth shut.
>
Especially when you don't get that when 'abomination'was mentioned, it
was mostly associated with idolatry practices. It was detestable to
God for women to wear men's clothes, ya know. Deut. 22:28 Boy, guess
all those women wearing pants now are an abomination. Do fundies point
to this one?
> The usual consensus, though, is that if something is forbidden in the OT
> *and* in the NT, then it's generally not a good idea to do it. That's what
> evangelicals say, anyway. I don't think anyone's brought up that pretty
> common approach to this issue.
Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
pledged
to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
lives."
If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
this other one.'
> > What I'm saying - and I know this is too
> > radical for some christians - is that how a christian lives their life is
> > not dependant upon any of God's laws. I can see how the laws - especially
> > the ten commandments - can be used to show a person God's heart towards how
> > we live, but He's not requiring us to keep them as a means of staying right
> > with Him.
>
> I totally agree with that. I don't really know why I was butting in to
> argue the homo angle, because we think the same thing about all this law
> stuff.
There is no homo angle. At least there wasn't during the time any of
this was written. It was an idolatry issue. People's out of context
bias today make it an issue. To the demise of innocent victims who
didn't choose anything anymore than straights.
lifesabirch
> What, cynicism better and more realistic than faith?
Usually. And more healthy if things are not adding up.
Who burst your balloon,
> buddy? I've met Doug and used to correspond with him a lot, and personally I
> don't consider him better off these days.
Why is that?
But he is a cool guy, and at least
> he's honest enough to admit that Christianity and homosexuality cannot
> peacefully co-exist in an individual.
They can't exist in your mind. But in millions of others, it's a
healthy reality. He struggles because people like you have told him he
can't be in peace. Too bad it's false teaching. Sounds like he doesn't
have enough information. I hope he finds it. You're obviously
ill-informed as well.
Hot or cold, yeah, but lukewarm is
> putrid.
Most people who point out lukewarm have no idea what it means. Just a
personal interpretation.
Now he needs to quit grinding his axe, like it is somehow other
> Christians fault that he feels guilty, and get on with his life.
Um, it is. If other Christians would get their head out of a cave, he
wouldn't have to deal with such things.
It's funny,
> listening to him, he rails against Christianity, but give him a few drinks,
> get him on stage, let him sing a few refrains of Over My Head, and he starts
> preaching anyway. God's calling is truly irrevokable.
Don't you know when someone drinks they revert back to what they know
and have done in the past. It's called conditioning. Not God's calling
trying to break thru. It's probably guilt from people like you he's
come into contact with.
lifesabirch
> But what really matters to me in the long run is the Spirit speaking to my
> spirit. It's not as if God indwells you so you suddenly know all that God
> knows. Just like you can spend a lifetime "finding yourself" or learning
> new things about yourself, it's also a lifetime of learning from God about
> Himself. I've asked God a lotta lotta, whole lotta questions in my
> lifetime. Some of the questions have been answered, in various ways, but
> most remain unanswered. That's ok, I have what I need in this life, and I
> believe I've got all of eternity to get to know Him. :)
I've learned many things by questioning. I am finding myself and
learning about God and how big this world is. Bigger than any ancient
man's ideas of what sin is or isn't.
Thank the stars the Spirit spoke to me and told me I can be with the
person I'm in love with - without worrying that it is a sin in any way
shape or form. :)
lifesabirch
> "lifesabirch" wrote:
> > I guess looking at the bible differently than I used to (blindly),
> > I've decided I can't trust what's in it. Some is good and applicable
> > in my life. Some is not. If it uplifts me, it's good. If it provably
> > tears down in this life, it isn't. Our modern interpretations could be
> > way off.
>
> Could be way off, could be slightly off. However that's not the only
> possibility to consider. It _could_ have a lot of meaning for us today. I
> do see it that way.
Maybe it has alot of meaning because you choose to believe the good
parts, then after awhile it makes sense to you, then it becomes truth
to you. But is it really? But I still say, more power to ya as long as
you don't be too loud about it and infringe upon another's equal
rights to live how they want. :)
> >
>
> > Who knows- someone else could be writing
> > emails right now that could be believed by people 2,000 years from now
> > as from God. And it would look totally different than the bible's
> > concepts.
>
> Yep, through the use of google they'll come up with the Life's a Birch Bible
> and start the Birch Church. ;) You'll be bigger than Joseph Smith!
God, I hope I'd be bigger than Mr. Smith. I want to be on par with
Paul, dammit. He gets more cred - for some odd reason. That church
name does have a nice ring to it, I must admit.
Well, no, I guess I could never be so egotistical to say I was
speaking for God.
I surely wouldn't say part of salvation for women is thru childbearing
-
1 Timothy 2:15 lol Oh that wacky Paul.
Josh Spencer
> What are you talking about? Hetero practices wreak havoc much more
> than any homo does.
I meant all the sexual behaviours condemned as detestable in the law, not
just homo. And they didn't have health codes and safe cooking back then, so
the dietary laws made sense.
>> The usual consensus, though, is that if something is forbidden in the OT
>> *and* in the NT, then it's generally not a good idea to do it. That's what
>> evangelicals say, anyway. I don't think anyone's brought up that pretty
>> common approach to this issue.
>
> Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
> appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
> the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
>
> Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
> pledged
> to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
> the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
> for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
> lives."
> If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
> this other one.'
Remember, it's also rape in the US if an adult has sex with a minor...even
if she's consenting. You ever heard of people getting married quick because
the girl gets pregnant and they don't want it to look bad? Happened all the
time in this country until a few years ago. It was considered the
responsible thing to do for a young man to marry a girl if she got pregnant,
whether they were in love or not. I suspect that verse is talking about a
similar situation.
>> I don't really know why I was butting in to
>> argue the homo angle, because we think the same thing about all this law
>> stuff.
>
> There is no homo angle. At least there wasn't during the time any of
> this was written. It was an idolatry issue. People's out of context
> bias today make it an issue. To the demise of innocent victims who
> didn't choose anything anymore than straights.
Where does idolatry come in with regard to the verses against homosexual
sex?
And nobody's innocent. Least, not any human I've ever met.
josh
Breezy
> Maybe it has alot of meaning because you choose to believe the good
> parts, then after awhile it makes sense to you, then it becomes truth
> to you. But is it really?
No, that's not the way it has been with me. But I won't get into that. All
I'll say is that just because it's "ancient," that doesn't mean God's heart
or "Word" isn't conveyed through it.
> But I still say, more power to ya as long as
> you don't be too loud about it and infringe upon another's equal
> rights to live how they want. :)
Dude, as deep into conversations with you as I've been, and from what I've
known of your way of living, theology, philosophy, etc, have I ever done
that? We've both tried to persuade each other, or maybe better said we've
both simply been very outward with our beliefs. But if either one of us has
been adamant about others seeing it their way and condescending to others
who don't see it their way... well. Never mind. :)
-Breezy
scholar and fool
> [...] It was detestable to God for women to wear men's clothes,
> ya know. Deut. 22:28 Boy, guess all those women wearing pants
> now are an abomination. Do fundies point to this one?
the fundie fundies do. those fake morally bankrupt liberal
fundies don't.
Breezy
> I totally agree with that. I don't really know why I was butting in to
> argue the homo angle, because we think the same thing about all this law
> stuff.
I'll pay respect to your wish to not delve into that further because I can
recall many times when I've also opened my mouth just to make a quick
comment, not meaning to open up a whole debate. :)
> That said, there are plenty of commands in the NT that imply obedience.
> What do you make of those? Same thing as with OT commands, just for a
> certain culture at a certain time? I haven't made my mind up.
First off, I think that many of the things that I often hear people calling
"commands" aren't actually commands but rather exhortations, advice or
whatever. But no matter what, I think some fit into the "culture" aspect
and some fit as a general saying for all. Context is most usually key, so
you kind of have to take each one individually for what it's worth.
That said, the doctrine I follow is that no matter if it's a command or
exhortation, being obedient to it will not save a person nor keep them
saved. The life of Christ in an individual is what saves them. I won't get
into that here since I mentioned it in more detail in another recent post.
> Although I
> kinda think all commands are just there as a failsafe, and people are
aware
> of what's right and wrong without being told. It's built in.
I personally define it as "the Holy Spirit indwells us."
> Although most
> of us prefer fucking things up to doing what's best, we know deep down
> what's what.
So has it been from the beginning, so shall it be. ;) Fortunately not for
eternity though.
-Breezy
lifesabirch
> > From: lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
>
> > What are you talking about? Hetero practices wreak havoc much more
> > than any homo does.
>
> I meant all the sexual behaviours condemned as detestable in the law, not
> just homo.
Yes, I know. Isn't it funny that polygamy and concubines were approved
by God then. It is proven that both hetro and homo relationships can
thrive and be loving - even outside of marriage. How is that wreaking
havoc?
And they didn't have health codes and safe cooking back then, so
> the dietary laws made sense.
ic. why then make an excuse that seems logical for this, but when
people do the same about homo, people say we are justifying? Don't
people see these laws as primitive (for the time and specific people)
and surrounded in being clean and being seperate from foreign idolatry
practices?
>
> > If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
> > this other one.'
>
> Remember, it's also rape in the US if an adult has sex with a minor...even
> if she's consenting. You ever heard of people getting married quick because
> the girl gets pregnant and they don't want it to look bad? Happened all the
> time in this country until a few years ago. It was considered the
> responsible thing to do for a young man to marry a girl if she got pregnant,
> whether they were in love or not. I suspect that verse is talking about a
> similar situation.
Ok, maybe you're right. Or maybe you're not. Who knows. I suppose they
had their reasons. But trying to interpret now and applying today is
pretty wierd and iffy and viewed countless ways so why even try. But
people have no problem using two verses to condemn gays, giving no
leeway to any explanation like the one you just gave here.
> Where does idolatry come in with regard to the verses against homosexual
> sex?
I find it kinda odd how idolatry is mentioned in every chapter in the
bible where there is a "clear negative" reference. Lev. 18, Lev. 20,
Romans 1. The other references are ambiguous. I wouldn't doubt that
the jewish nation would frown upon homo in itself, tho. They didn't
seem to like any non-procreative spilling of semen at all. To
civilized societies today, the stoning/killing of people sounds
ridiculous and considered a crime. Yet it is recommeneded. Guess this
happenes today - amazingly. This is why human rights groups are
needed.
I know, you're not too interested in this issue, but a couple sites
that explains it better than I...
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html
http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/blwink.htm?rnk=r1&terms=walter+wink
>
> And nobody's innocent. Least, not any human I've ever met.
Another odd doctrine. We are born sinful. hmm. How can a baby,
handicapped, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, left handed,
creative or athletic minded person, etc be guilty of anything other
than who they are? It's mostly intrinsic and immuable. Trying to
change it creates all kinds of problems.
If you heard over and over that liking the opposite sex was evil and
an abomination against God, you might think differently. What if you
were handicapped of left handed or black? You'd say - hey, I didn't
choose any of this so why am I guilty? To say gays should be celibate
or change because of some faulty bible interpreting or ancient
practices is plain cruel and ignorant to knowledge and science today.
Being a Christian is much more a choice. And it is much easier to
change or shift one's views within that belief sytem.
lifesabirch
> "lifesabirch" wrote:
> > Maybe it has alot of meaning because you choose to believe the good
> > parts, then after awhile it makes sense to you, then it becomes truth
> > to you. But is it really?
>
> No, that's not the way it has been with me. But I won't get into that. All
> I'll say is that just because it's "ancient," that doesn't mean God's heart
> or "Word" isn't conveyed through it.
I agree. But it's just as possible God's heart is totally different.
Just because something is written today outside the bible's context
could just as easily mean it's God's heart and Word.
>
> > But I still say, more power to ya as long as
> > you don't be too loud about it and infringe upon another's equal
> > rights to live how they want. :)
>
> Dude, as deep into conversations with you as I've been, and from what I've
> known of your way of living, theology, philosophy, etc, have I ever done
> that?
Sorry. It wasn't meant as an implication against you, really. I know
you agree with that.
We've both tried to persuade each other, or maybe better said we've
> both simply been very outward with our beliefs. But if either one of us has
> been adamant about others seeing it their way and condescending to others
> who don't see it their way... well. Never mind. :)
Being adamant about others seeing it their way isn't infringing on
another's rights. It's discussing and saying what I feel from my point
of view. You do the same. When it comes to faith issues that is not
provable, I'll give an opinion but don't ask for you to renounce your
faith. On the other hand you might tell me to renounce you know what
because you think it's a sin. (Yes, I know you haven't to me, but if
your it was your kid you'd maybe discourage him, which has wreaked
havoc on so many gay kids self worth) Before you say I'm assuming-
I'll admit it first.
You get to believe whatever you want -and I support that. And love
whomever you want with benefits. And I support that. I live in a
world where I can't marry whom I love legally, join the armed forces
without lying, adopt my partner's kids, give blood to the Red cross,
can be legally denied jobs and housing because of my orientation.
Something I didn't choose. Yet you get legal protection because of
something you did choose - faith.
That is what I was talking about. Rights that I don't have because
of whom I love. I guess I don't know if you would vote for equal
rights or not. But as of now, the reality is I'm the one with the
short stick. Not blaming you, tho, ok?
lifesabirch
I apologize for sounding condescending. I'm guilty. If I do, I usually
try to give a logical reason as to why. If I see other people being
hurt somehow by a specific doctrine or verse, I tend to speak up. If a
doctrine sounds ridiculous to me, I'll say what I feel and ask how can
you believe in something that is illogical to me. I could be kinder
about it. I like to challenge to damn much. I suppose it comes from
repression and non-questioning most of my life. Sorry. Hey, I could
be Steiner. (come on- take a joke. :))
Jason Steiner
>
> I find it kinda odd how idolatry is mentioned in every chapter in the
> bible where there is a "clear negative" reference. Lev. 18, Lev. 20,
> Romans 1. The other references are ambiguous. I wouldn't doubt that
> the jewish nation would frown upon homo in itself, tho. They didn't
> seem to like any non-procreative spilling of semen at all.
Uh, no, you're mistaking Jews with Catholics.
The Jewish law was that when a man dies without leaving offspring,
his brother has to step in and give his wife children. (And once
again I am amazed that people in the 21st century still give any
credence whatsoever to the wacky laws of a bunch of primitive
yahoos who had no problem with concubines and slaves and fucking your
brother's wife.)
The Catholics took this single event, a violation of a very specific
law, and turned it into a general principle. (And once again I am
amazed that people in the 21st century still give any credence
whatsoever to the wacky laws of a bunch of fags in dresses who were
in the habit of taking stuff out of context.)
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Breezy
> I apologize for sounding condescending. I'm guilty.
Well I guess I can't read that without admitting my own guilt. :)
Hopefully I haven't been that way towards you. I think I've tried not to
be. But it's possible. I do know that right here in rmc I've been that way
towards other "bible-believing" christians. Not for the same reasons as
you, though. I understand their "trust" in the bible as the inerrant word
of God and so I use those scriptures to build my case for certain doctrines.
But then they come back and say I'm wrong... and I've been known in the past
to be kind of condescending with my replies as I show them exactly what
their bible says. It's not generally a habit of mine but I've been known to
be that way from time to time.
> If I do, I usually
> try to give a logical reason as to why. If I see other people being
> hurt somehow by a specific doctrine or verse, I tend to speak up. If a
> doctrine sounds ridiculous to me, I'll say what I feel and ask how can
> you believe in something that is illogical to me. I could be kinder
> about it. I like to challenge to damn much.
I guess we can both be the same way, but for different reasons.
> I suppose it comes from
> repression and non-questioning most of my life.
Again, the same type of things but for different reasons. My "repression"
has come in a different form... but it still involves christians (wrongly, I
believe) using bible verses against me or what I believe. I myself have
been hurt by those people. For a short time, when I began to question
certain things and would speak up, I would feel sort of like a victim of
those people. However, I quickly outgrew that and I just understand that
people won't always see it my way. They will continue to do and say those
hurtful things but it *doesn't hurt* because I know who I am and what I
believe. Also, I think that with the *absense* of condescending talk, I'm
more likely to gain a more favorable audience. I'm all for healthy and
mature debate.
All that said, I think that generally you're pretty mature about how you
approach others in here.
-Breezy
Don Lowe
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.021209...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca...
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Don Lowe wrote:
> : "lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : > What does sexually immoral mean? They proably knew then, but the broad
> : > definition is different now.
> : They probably understood it the same way it was understood under the
> : Mosaic law, which is the way we understand it today.
> Um, well, no, there *have* been changes. For example, AFAIK, polygamy was
> not a viable option for most first-century Jews (except maybe among the
> royalty; then again, Herod was Idumean, not Jewish). And many Christians
> down through the years have assumed that oral and anal sex is forbidden
> *even between married couples* and, hence, would be "immoral".
I'll plead ignorance on the oral and anal sex thing, but I'll agree, I don't
think the bible speaks on it directly.
I also don't think we can consider polygamy in the "sexually immoral"
category in terms of the Mosaic law. It's just that the responsibility of a
husband to his wife multiplies. It was practiced in Old Testament times
without anyone calling into question whether it was sexually immoral (but
people questioned its wisdom, certainly). Jesus made it clear enough that
marriage in its original intention was meant for one man and one woman, and
Paul did not allow polygamous husbands to become elders, but they still
didn't go so far as to call it sexually immoral. Of course, those teachings
still quickly ensured that polygamy phased out pretty quickly. It's
interesting that worldwide, while different cultures disagree on how many
wives a husband can take, pretty much they all agree that the husband should
be faithful to her/them.
> : > Thieves? I think the entire government is on the highway to hell then.
> :
> : Jesus says to pay your taxes. It's not thievery.
>
> Non sequitur. Jesus also told people to turn the other cheek when they
> were struck, and to give their underwear when the authorities confiscated
> their outerwear for no good reason. In other words, he told people to
> repay evil with good. Thus, to say that Jesus told people to pay their
> taxes is *not* to say that Jesus said taxes were a good thing.
I agree -- doesn't say one way or the other. The main point was that the
things that our earthly governments require is insignificant to what God
requires of us -- Give to God what is God's!
Don
Don Lowe
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.021209...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca...
> : I'll bite. What non-religious moral standard do you use, and why is it
> : more objective and substantial than a religious standard?
>
> I really don't think you want to go there. If no one's asked it yet, then
> someone at some point is *bound* to ask you how *your* religious moral
> standards can be "objective" when they change at God's whim.
I don't think whether or not God's "whim" changes makes the morality of
making God the standard any less objective.
Here's a pretty basic analogy. If God wants me to water my lawn on monday,
It's right to do it. If he doesn't want me to water it on tuesday, it's
right not to do it. Why? Probably because God thinks it's good not to
overwater the lawn.
So God decides to allow Jews to eat certain foods in Acts. Did he have good
reason for it? Certainly. To show Peter that just as all foods are now
clean, also that the Gentiles are welcome into the covenant. God decides
that sacrifices are no longer necessary. Why? Because the true sacrifice,
Jesus Christ, has been offered.
So God changes his mind, but it doesn't make the standard any less
objective.
Don
Don Lowe
> was mostly associated with idolatry practices. It was detestable to
> God for women to wear men's clothes, ya know. Deut. 22:28 Boy, guess
> all those women wearing pants now are an abomination. Do fundies point
> to this one?
I think pants are culturally accepted for both genders today. The point was
not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms. The
command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman wearing
pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man wearing
a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
against cultural norms. Of course, if you're in Scotland, wear your kilt
all you want!
> Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
> appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
> the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
>
> Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
> pledged
> to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
> the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
> for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
> lives."
> If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
> this other one.'
The father isn't forced to make his daughter marry the rapist. The rapist
is forced to marry the daughter. Read Exodus 22:16-17, and you can see that
the father has the right to refuse to give his daughter to her and demand
money instead.
Don
lifesabirch
> not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms. The
> command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman wearing
> pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man wearing
> a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
> against cultural norms. Of course, if you're in Scotland, wear your kilt
> all you want!
You're admitting then whatever the current culture dictates is what
God finds acceptable or not. That's what I've been saying all along.
Boy, God changes his mind alot. I wonder if he gets confused trying to
keep up what current fundies think today. Talk about an abundance of
bias's based on human bigotry. Then attributing it as God's word.
Amazing.
> > Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
> > appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
> > the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
>> >
> > Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
> > pledged
> > to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
> > the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
> > for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
> > lives."
> > If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
> > this other one.'
>
> The father isn't forced to make his daughter marry the rapist. The rapist
> is forced to marry the daughter.
What is the difference?
If the rapist is forced to marry her, then the father would have been
forced as well. If the father isn't forced, then the rapist wouldn't
be forced. Thus not following the Deut. passage.
Read Exodus 22:16-17, and you can see that
> the father has the right to refuse to give his daughter to her and demand
> money instead.
Two passages contridicting each other. How shocking.
Altho, Deut. says rape. Exodus says seduce. The first describing
nonconsentual.
Both of these passages are disgusting. Especially Deut. 22. Totally
demeaning and embarrassing to the dignity of women. Anyone who tells
people to follow any of these things needs his head examined. Or go
live with the Taliban.
lifesabirch
> not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms. The
> command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman wearing
> pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man wearing
> a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
> against cultural norms.
Maybe more men should wear dresses. Then it will become more
acceptable in culture, therefore acceptable to God and the fundies who
claim to speak for him. I guess it would come full circle since Jesus
wore a dress.
lifesabirch
> not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms. The
> command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman wearing
> pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man wearing
> a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
> against cultural norms.
Maybe more men should wear dresses. Then it will become more
Don Lowe
> "Don Lowe" <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > I think pants are culturally accepted for both genders today. The point
was
> > not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms.
The
> > command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman
wearing
> > pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man
wearing
> > a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
> > against cultural norms. Of course, if you're in Scotland, wear your
kilt
> > all you want!
>
> You're admitting then whatever the current culture dictates is what
> God finds acceptable or not. That's what I've been saying all along.
> Boy, God changes his mind alot. I wonder if he gets confused trying to
> keep up what current fundies think today. Talk about an abundance of
> bias's based on human bigotry. Then attributing it as God's word.
> Amazing.
I don't think you understand what I was saying. I wasn't saying ALL laws
should be culturally dictated. I'm saying that this particular law, by its
very nature, is culture-dependent. How is one to determine what it is to
dress like a man or a woman? That concept does not exist without a
surrounding culture. The law is saying, more-or-less, do in Rome as the
Romans do (presumably so as not to offend and break cultural norms).
> > > Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
> > > appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
> > > the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
You've never heard of shotgun weddings?
> > > Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not
> > > pledged
> > > to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay
> > > the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl,
> > > for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he
> > > lives."
> > > If someone can't take this seriously, how can anyone say 'adhere to
> > > this other one.'
> >
> > The father isn't forced to make his daughter marry the rapist. The
rapist
> > is forced to marry the daughter.
>
> What is the difference?
> If the rapist is forced to marry her, then the father would have been
> forced as well. If the father isn't forced, then the rapist wouldn't
> be forced. Thus not following the Deut. passage.
>
> Read Exodus 22:16-17, and you can see that
> > the father has the right to refuse to give his daughter to her and
demand
> > money instead.
>
> Two passages contridicting each other. How shocking.
They don't contradict each other. They both say the rapist/seductor is
forced to marry the woman, i.e. tha perpetrator doesn't have the choice in
the matter. The Deuteronomy account doesn't address the father's choice,
but it was probably presumed. Why? What does "Deuteronomy" mean? Second
law. It's a restating of the laws previously mentioned. The second time,
it was obviously referencing the first time it was given in Exodus.
> Altho, Deut. says rape. Exodus says seduce. The first describing
> nonconsentual.
I'm not sure if consent is stated explicitly in either passage. Not that it
matters.
> Both of these passages are disgusting. Especially Deut. 22. Totally
> demeaning and embarrassing to the dignity of women. Anyone who tells
> people to follow any of these things needs his head examined. Or go
> live with the Taliban.
First of all, as I have been stating all along, the Mosaic punishments and
consequences are related to the society it was given -- it was a Jewish
nation. They often aren't applicable to to today's society. For example,
worshiping another God other than the God of Israel is still wrong just as
it was then. However, it doesn't make sense to punish it when our nation is
not a Christian nation in the way Israel was a Jewish nation.
Re: why that situation existed ... after the rape/seduction, the woman is
defiled. Probably no other man would take her as his wife. For a woman in
that culture not to take a husband was highly shameful. It meant that she
wouldn't have a husband to care for her, and the father would have to take
care for her for the rest of her life. Hence, the father is given the
ultimate decision (and presumably a responsible father would look out the
best interests of the daughter).
This law also makes the rapist/seductor responsible for his actions. It's
sending the message that if you don't want to marry this person, don't touch
her.
For a better understanding of this culture, you should read 2 Samuel 13, in
which Tamar was raped by Amnon, a great evil, and then further shamed Tamar
by refusing to marry her, even when she asked.
Don
Dave Paisley
Don Lowe wrote:
>
> "lifesabirch" <lifes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:103a5b9.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > Especially when you don't get that when 'abomination'was mentioned, it
> > was mostly associated with idolatry practices. It was detestable to
> > God for women to wear men's clothes, ya know. Deut. 22:28 Boy, guess
> > all those women wearing pants now are an abomination. Do fundies point
> > to this one?
>
> I think pants are culturally accepted for both genders today. The point was
> not to dress oneself as the other gender and confuse cultural norms. The
> command is against cross-dressing. Maybe a long time ago a woman wearing
> pants was considered cross-dressing, but it isn't today. Now, a man wearing
> a dress, that's cross-dressing, and a man shouldn't do that because it's
> against cultural norms.
So you're saying everyone involved in British pantomime is going to
hell?
Hmm, maybe that's not so bad after all...
--
dave
Jason Steiner
>
> I don't think you understand what I was saying. I wasn't saying ALL laws
> should be culturally dictated. I'm saying that this particular law, by its
> very nature, is culture-dependent. How is one to determine what it is to
> dress like a man or a woman? That concept does not exist without a
> surrounding culture. The law is saying, more-or-less, do in Rome as the
> Romans do (presumably so as not to offend and break cultural norms).
What this means is that Christians will never be cultural leaders.
The first women to wear pants were offending and breaking cultural
norms. Eventually other women followed their example, and now wearing
pants is a cultural norm for women. But a culture where everyone is
a Christian, that never would have happened. Nobody would have offended
the cultural norms, so no change could have happened.
It would be a culture in a perpetual state of arrested development.
Or in a culture where Christians are a large majority, cultural
leadership would be ceded to the small minority of non-Christians.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smeL\Łvg books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
lifesabirch
> should be culturally dictated.
Oh, just the ones you pick out. Don't fundies tell liberal Christians
they pick and choose? hmm.
I'm saying that this particular law, by its
> very nature, is culture-dependent.
As opposed to the laws you say people should adhere to today like
women being subordinate, people being condemned if they divorce,
commit adultery, or are gay. Which are for all time, right? I'm sure
you say that because mentioned in the New Testament. Of course the
buck stopped there. Guess that was the last time God was speaking to
anyone.
How is one to determine what it is to
> dress like a man or a woman? That concept does not exist without a
> surrounding culture. The law is saying, more-or-less, do in Rome as the
> Romans do (presumably so as not to offend and break cultural norms).
It doesn't say it's offending cultural norms. It's detestable TO GOD.
I thought he doesn't change. If a man wears a dress today, it ain't
because he trying to fool anyone. It's just how he feels - who the F
cares. Oh, there's roles for men and roles for women, right? I know a
stay at home dad and the woman brings home the bacon - bad people ya
know. And sometimes the woman even teaches in her church. The horror.
It seems to me you're suggesting whatever is the norm for society
where the majority worship the God of the OT, God approves. Well,
guess what. Most people think it's ok for people to divorce, remarry,
and be gay - and polls say America is mostly Christian. Guess God
approves. Do as the Romans do, ya know. Oh that's right you're going
to explain how these things aren't cultural, but for all time in any
culture. Kinda like keeping slaves.
And I thought gays, divorced, and remarried do alot of justifying (of
course fundies don't listen to them when they try to explain things)
I think you're taking the cake trying to bend over justifying this
stuff. Don't worry. I really don't mind. I'd say you could be right.
Where as you will stick to condemning people without leeway.
> > > > Why is it not a good idea to do it? There are many verses that seem
> > > > appalling today that evangelicals don't adhere to. I'd love to meet
> > > > the believer who would make his daughter marry her rapist...
>
> You've never heard of shotgun weddings?
Does that involve a man marrying his rape victim?
Rape and getting from being knocked up from consentual sex is the same
thing??
> > Altho, Deut. says rape. Exodus says seduce. The first describing
> > nonconsentual.
>
> I'm not sure if consent is stated explicitly in either passage. Not that it
> matters.
Deut. mentions the girl screaming. I doubt it's talking about orgasm.
Oh I know - she wanted it, right?
>
> > Both of these passages are disgusting. Especially Deut. 22. Totally
> > demeaning and embarrassing to the dignity of women. Anyone who tells
> > people to follow any of these things needs his head examined. Or go
> > live with the Taliban.
>
> First of all, as I have been stating all along, the Mosaic punishments and
> consequences are related to the society it was given -- it was a Jewish
> nation. They often aren't applicable to to today's society.
Kinda like Leviticus 18 and 20 - both specifically stating it was for
the Israelites. But is always used against gays. Since I've read your
explainations for all this, here's a couple reasons why the law
shouldn't be applied to gays today:
http://www.whosoever.org/v2i5/defense.html
http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/blwink.htm?rnk=r1&terms=walter+wink
I'm sure you won't change your mind. Just some logical and strong
reasons why - like you tell me.
Josh Spencer
> From: lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
> Josh Spencer <jca...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I meant all the sexual behaviours condemned as detestable in the law, not
>> just homo.
>
> Yes, I know. Isn't it funny that polygamy and concubines were approved
> by God then. It is proven that both hetro and homo relationships can
> thrive and be loving - even outside of marriage. How is that wreaking
> havoc?
Exceptions don't disprove the overall negative effect. The steady climb of
STDs, single mothers, rape, child molestation, etc. in this country speaks
to something. Havoc wreaked by shifts in sexual morality.
> And they didn't have health codes and safe cooking back then, so
>> the dietary laws made sense.
>
> ic. why then make an excuse that seems logical for this, but when
> people do the same about homo, people say we are justifying? Don't
> people see these laws as primitive (for the time and specific people)
> and surrounded in being clean and being seperate from foreign idolatry
> practices?
You say excuse, I say reason. The world keeps turning.
> Ok, maybe you're right. Or maybe you're not. Who knows. I suppose they
> had their reasons. But trying to interpret now and applying today is
> pretty wierd and iffy and viewed countless ways so why even try. But
> people have no problem using two verses to condemn gays, giving no
> leeway to any explanation like the one you just gave here.
I agree it's weird and iffy to interpret, but it's still worth doing. I
also agree no one knows, which is why I don't really care about this issue.
Personally, I think it's obvious from basic biology that homo sex isn't part
of the plan. Regardless of any laws. But it's not my responsibility to
tell people what they already know but choose to ignore.
>> Where does idolatry come in with regard to the verses against homosexual
>> sex?
>
> I find it kinda odd how idolatry is mentioned in every chapter in the
> bible where there is a "clear negative" reference. Lev. 18, Lev. 20,
> Romans 1. The other references are ambiguous.
Obviously there was a relationship between the religions of the day and
sodomy, but that's not the sole reason given against homo sex. And even if
it was, an argument could be made that homo sex is still an issue of
idolatry (i.e. worshipping something -- sexuality -- above God).
> To
> civilized societies today, the stoning/killing of people sounds
> ridiculous and considered a crime. Yet it is recommeneded. Guess this
> happenes today - amazingly.
Nothing's changed. Civilization is just more subtle & complex in its
stoning/killing. Is it always wrong? That's another discussion.
>> And nobody's innocent. Least, not any human I've ever met.
>
> Another odd doctrine. We are born sinful. hmm. How can a baby,
> handicapped, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, left handed,
> creative or athletic minded person, etc be guilty of anything other
> than who they are? It's mostly intrinsic and immuable. Trying to
> change it creates all kinds of problems.
I don't believe "doctrines." I believe what's common sense from what I see
and experience. And I don't believe your list is applicable at all. From
it, only handicap and skin color are unaffected by choice.
josh
Josh Spencer
> From: lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
> "Don Lowe" <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> The father isn't forced to make his daughter marry the rapist. The rapist
>> is forced to marry the daughter.
>
> What is the difference?
> If the rapist is forced to marry her, then the father would have been
> forced as well. If the father isn't forced, then the rapist wouldn't
> be forced. Thus not following the Deut. passage.
>
> Read Exodus 22:16-17, and you can see that
>> the father has the right to refuse to give his daughter to her and demand
>> money instead.
>
> Two passages contridicting each other. How shocking.
>
> Altho, Deut. says rape. Exodus says seduce. The first describing
> nonconsentual.
>
> Both of these passages are disgusting.
Hey, I already proposed the most likely meaning of those situations, and the
Exodus passage saying "seduce" makes it even more clear that it's talking
about a consensual relationship in which the male is forced to take
responsibility. It's the same thing that goes on all the time today with
adults/minors and boyfriends forced to marry their pregnant girlfriends.
josh
Don Lowe
news:3va8ta...@shell.gaydeceiver.com...
> Don Lowe <dryanlowe.pl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I don't think you understand what I was saying. I wasn't saying ALL
laws
> > should be culturally dictated. I'm saying that this particular law, by
its
> > very nature, is culture-dependent. How is one to determine what it is
to
> > dress like a man or a woman? That concept does not exist without a
> > surrounding culture. The law is saying, more-or-less, do in Rome as the
> > Romans do (presumably so as not to offend and break cultural norms).
>
> What this means is that Christians will never be cultural leaders.
>
> The first women to wear pants were offending and breaking cultural
> norms. Eventually other women followed their example, and now wearing
> pants is a cultural norm for women. But a culture where everyone is
> a Christian, that never would have happened. Nobody would have offended
> the cultural norms, so no change could have happened.
>
> It would be a culture in a perpetual state of arrested development.
>
> Or in a culture where Christians are a large majority, cultural
> leadership would be ceded to the small minority of non-Christians.
<shrug>. I don't care if I'm not a trend setter. You make it sound like
it's a tragic loss. Not all cultural change is good. Some of it is bad.
Killing unborn babies, for instance. Some of it has no moral bearing
whatsoever.
But some of it is good. Freeing slaves, for instance. Paul advocated that
to an individual Christian in Philemon. But Paul was not trying to cause a
cultural revolution. It is worth noting that many Christians were prominent
in the movement to free slaves, although there were a significant amount who
resisted as well.
Don
Don Lowe
laws
> > should be culturally dictated.
>
> Oh, just the ones you pick out. Don't fundies tell liberal Christians
> they pick and choose? hmm.
>
> I'm saying that this particular law, by its
> > very nature, is culture-dependent.
>
> As opposed to the laws you say people should adhere to today like
> women being subordinate, people being condemned if they divorce,
> commit adultery, or are gay. Which are for all time, right? I'm sure
Yes. "Men's clothes" "and "women's clothes" cannot be defined eithout a
cultural context.
Things like "marriage," "adultery," and "divorce" are universal concepts.
There are basically no real world examples where these concepts don't exist.
> you say that because mentioned in the New Testament. Of course the
> buck stopped there. Guess that was the last time God was speaking to
> anyone.
I never said that -- what is considered immoral in the Old Testament is
immoral today unless God released us from them or fulfilled them in the
sacrifice of his son.
>
> How is one to determine what it is to
> > dress like a man or a woman? That concept does not exist without a
> > surrounding culture. The law is saying, more-or-less, do in Rome as the
> > Romans do (presumably so as not to offend and break cultural norms).
>
> It doesn't say it's offending cultural norms. It's detestable TO GOD.
So it's detestable to God because it offends cultural norms (which should be
obvious, it doesn't need to be stated). The two facts aren't mutually
exclusive.
> I thought he doesn't change. If a man wears a dress today, it ain't
> because he trying to fool anyone. It's just how he feels - who the F
> cares. Oh, there's roles for men and roles for women, right? I know a
> stay at home dad and the woman brings home the bacon - bad people ya
> know. And sometimes the woman even teaches in her church. The horror.
This is one problem with America -- people assume their culture is always
the correct one.
> It seems to me you're suggesting whatever is the norm for society
> where the majority worship the God of the OT, God approves. Well,
Nope. Clothing in itself is neither good or evil -- it's the connotations
that make it so. That verse don't say a particular kind of clothing is evil
(dress, pants, etc.)
> guess what. Most people think it's ok for people to divorce, remarry,
> and be gay - and polls say America is mostly Christian. Guess God
Polls are wrong. America is not mostly Christian.
Don
Jason Steiner
> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >
> > What this means is that Christians will never be cultural leaders.
> >
> > The first women to wear pants were offending and breaking cultural
> > norms. Eventually other women followed their example, and now wearing
> > pants is a cultural norm for women. But a culture where everyone is
> > a Christian, that never would have happened. Nobody would have offended
> > the cultural norms, so no change could have happened.
> >
> > It would be a culture in a perpetual state of arrested development.
> >
> > Or in a culture where Christians are a large majority, cultural
> > leadership would be ceded to the small minority of non-Christians.
>
> <shrug>. I don't care if I'm not a trend setter. You make it sound like
> it's a tragic loss.
Well, yes, it would be.
Fortunately, Christians who do just what they're supposed to will never
be 100% of the population, and if they give up their ability to effect
cultural change, that gives proportionally more power to non-Christians
to guide the direction the culture is going.
So I don't want to hear any complaints.
> Not all cultural change is good. Some of it is bad. Killing unborn
> babies, for instance.
Hey, what did I say about complaints?
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
lifesabirch
> Hey, I already proposed the most likely meaning of those situations, and the
> Exodus passage saying "seduce" makes it even more clear that it's talking
> about a consensual relationship in which the male is forced to take
> responsibility. It's the same thing that goes on all the time today with
> adults/minors and boyfriends forced to marry their pregnant girlfriends.
There weren't any boy/girlfriends then. I don't know if anyone can
force anyone else to marry today anyway. Can they? Wouldn't that be
illegal? The boyfriend might offer, but forced? hmm.
There are 3 different rape scenarios. Doesn't sound that consentual to
me. The middle one - definitely not! It was more about taking someone
else's property (women) - nothing to do with pregnancy. I think you
might be taking a modern experience and thinking it's similiar to
this. I don't know about that.
"Deut22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be
married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the
gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in
a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated
another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to
be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26
Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This
case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27
for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the
betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married
and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's
father fifty shekels of silver. [3] He must marry the girl, for he has
violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
30 A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his
father's bed."
The Exodus passage is different.
lifesabirch
> STDs, single mothers, rape, child molestation, etc. in this country speaks
> to something. Havoc wreaked by shifts in sexual morality.
Sex outside marriage are exceptions? hmm I don't know about that
today. And I know some healthy nonmarried couples than married ones. I
agree promuscuity can cause problems. But marraige can have it's own
set of problems. Pregnancy within that as well. Rape and child
molestation has nothing to do with any shift in sexual morality.
Marriage doesn't prevent it. Repression of sex usually causes
problems. Responsible sex helps.
> I agree it's weird and iffy to interpret, but it's still worth doing.
Why is that? Why not just go by the Golden rule. Or do unto others...
I
> also agree no one knows, which is why I don't really care about this issue.
> Personally, I think it's obvious from basic biology that homo sex isn't part
> of the plan.
Guess unfertile men and women wouldn't be part of any plan either. Or
handicapped people who can't have kids because of under developed
brains or bodies. Guess women past 50 shouldn't marry either since
they can't have kids. Or are you talking body parts? Gays do just
fine, thank you. It's definitely natural for the gay person and 600
species of animals and fowl that have been documented to engage in
homo behavior and stay that way.
Regardless of any laws. But it's not my responsibility to
> tell people what they already know but choose to ignore.
Who's choosing to ignore anything? It's all or nothing. And most
people who tell people follow this or that choose to ignore things
themselves. They just find a way of getting around it by saying things
are cultural. On the other hand people aren't trying to "erase
passages", but there is obviously somthing happening in that situation
that we, today, don't fully understand. It's just not fair to say
stick to this one because this is the way I understand it plain and
simple, but I'll explain away another one.
> Obviously there was a relationship between the religions of the day and
> sodomy,
Why do you call it sodomy? Nowhere in the entire bible where Sodom is
mentioned again ever referred to as meaning homo. It didn't even
happen anyway. It was attempted rape of foreigners/spies/angels who
happened to be the same sex. Nothing even happened. It was about
degredation. Ok, it's just a modern biased term.
but that's not the sole reason given against homo sex.
Seems to me no reasons were given at all. I don't even believe that
homo sex in itself is even mentioned. Rape, temple prostitution,
idolatry, sex slave/trade. But nothing else. Things that were
forbidden with hetero sex.
And even if
> it was, an argument could be made that homo sex is still an issue of
> idolatry (i.e. worshipping something -- sexuality -- above God).
Why is homo sex worshipping sexuality and not hetero sex? I don't know
any gay Christian or nonXtian who thinks this way. That they are above
God by expressing love or mutual respect? It's on par with straight.
You might be referring to Romans 1. Here is a detailed page on it.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html
> > To
> > civilized societies today, the stoning/killing of people sounds
> > ridiculous and considered a crime. Yet it is recommeneded. Guess this
> > happenes today - amazingly.
>
> Nothing's changed. Civilization is just more subtle & complex in its
> stoning/killing. Is it always wrong? That's another discussion.
hehe yes. I'm sure they had their reasons. I guess. But in today's
civilized world we don't kill for victimless crimes - like it seems in
the bible.
> I don't believe "doctrines." I believe what's common sense from what I see
> and experience.
Oh, cool.
And I don't believe your list is applicable at all. From
> it, only handicap and skin color are unaffected by choice.
Did a baby have a choice to be born? Does a heterosexual or homosexual
contemplate who they are or will be attracted to when they are young?
Did you stop and say - hey, I'm going to be right or left handed? Does
the writer with bad athleic skill say try out for the football team?
Things just happen. Deal. Trying to change is unnatural and
problematic.
I mean, I agree with you - no one's innocent and perfect. But I don't
see how anyone should be blaming people for what comes natural and
doesn't hurt anyone.
lifesabirch
eithout a
> cultural context.
>
> Things like "marriage," "adultery," and "divorce" are universal concepts.
> There are basically no real world examples where these concepts don't exist.
There are variations or these things as there are variations of
clothes in different cultures today. They are not universally fleshed
out.
>
> > you say that because mentioned in the New Testament. Of course the
> > buck stopped there. Guess that was the last time God was speaking to
> > anyone.
>
> I never said that -- what is considered immoral in the Old Testament is
> immoral today unless God released us from them or fulfilled them in the
> sacrifice of his son.
Many people say God released many them to remarry again. Yet, you say
not so because the NT didn't. So you believe that God stopped there.
> So it's detestable to God because it offends cultural norms (which should be
> obvious, it doesn't need to be stated). The two facts aren't mutually
> exclusive.
It's just as possible that it offended the Hebrew male leaders of the
time, then they tagged God's name onto it, then people believed it.
When God could have cared less.
> This is one problem with America -- people assume their culture is always
> the correct one.
Just like you think the ancient Hebrew one is the correct one.
> Nope. Clothing in itself is neither good or evil -- it's the connotations
> that make it so. That verse don't say a particular kind of clothing is evil
> (dress, pants, etc.)
I think you're probaly right that the Deut. verse has some meaning
behind it. But your interpreting on the reason is quite subjective and
suits your bias. The word used is abomination - used mostly in
idolatry situations.
> Polls are wrong. America is not mostly Christian.
I beg to differ. It's declining, but definitely mostly Christian
(altho, that term is so fragmented today). It's easy to see - there is
a church in every town. And many street corners in cities.
A 2001 poll had it at 76.5%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel.htm
lifesabirch
> moral grounds, i.e. "This is but one thing WRONG with Christianity." I
> assume most non-Christians I encounter on these discussions are either
> atheists or moral relativists. In either case ... "wrong" simply has no
> meaning.
I'm not either one. But, non X-tians have a sense of wrong and morals.
Many better than Christians. (And visa versa) Actually they are pretty
similiar to Christians, exept for some sexual mores, war ,and death
issues.
> Whereas from a Christian view, if you KNOW that someone is in complete
> rebellion against their God, and that their punishment will be everlasting
> separation from Him, you KNOW that it is best to tell those people that,
> about how their sins are separating them from a holy God, and that by
> trusting in His promises through Jesus, that they can be rescued. If you
> are a Christian, this IS showing love.
Sounds like intruding in someone's life without grounds of concrete
proof that it's absolute truth.
> I assume you meant Torah. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter calls Paul's writings
> scripture. Paul frequently speaks of his special, direct revelations from
> Jesus. Certainly Paul's revelations should be considered scripture.
I wonder if Peter thought Paul's writings were on par with the Torah.
> I haven't seen any convincing argument that Paul thought the next coming
> would occur in his lifetime. The "or shortly after" comment makes me think
> that your source isn't very sure of itself.
The NT is riddled with seemingly the immenent return. Was this a scare
tactic?
Paul made a strong case for celibacy because "the time was short" and
"this world is passing away" - Note to Paul: it's still here 2,000
years later. Maybe he was talking about the unstable Christian
situation of the time. Anyway -
1 Cor. 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now
on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who
mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not;
those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who
use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this
world in its present form is passing away.
>
> I assume you're referring I Corinthians 7. It doesn't say "most" should be
> celibate, just that it is good to be so. No reference to occurrence.
> Certainly one should marry to avoid temptation, but the passage doesn't say
> that this excludes love, and there are many passages in which it is clear
> that husbands need to love their wives!
Paul wasn't too big on the idea of marriage. It was more if you must,
you must. Then goes on to list reasons to not be married. Maybe it was
meant for specific congregation/person - not everyone.
They were betrothed by family/society class. Women were little more
than property. Not a whole lot of romantic love feelings going on. At
least not leading up to marriage like today. Just instruction how to
love as Christ loves after the wedding ceremony. But all this could
have been cultural as well. Not for all time.
>
> > it's unnatural for a man to cut his hair or a woman to have no
> > authority or speak in church. And those slaves - follow what your
>
> I think the language about hair was that it was "disgraceful." It's a long
> and fruitless discussion, but the consensus is that it must have had
> cultural connotations that we aren't aware of today.
Yes, natural theology of Paul is quite debatable. Of course he
mentions what is natural/unnatural relations in Romans 1, but
Christians seem to be blind to it because of bias and then refer to it
as sin. Kinda hypocritical to me.
>
> Re: woman having authority in the church, many Christians do believe this,
> regarding female priests/pastors. This is strictly a Christian issue,
> though. I don't think those outside the church should accuse a hierarchy
> they don't belong to.
Agreed. But both Christian men and women challenge this doctrine.
Saying it's ancient.
>
> > master tells you to do... He may have had some good things to say,
>
> Re: slaves, if you read that passage, it tells slaves to obey their masters,
> and act righteously towards them to win them over to Christ. Paul
> recognizes that human slavery is ultimately a temporary thing, and that
> human bondage is a small thing compared to heavenly things. This is NOT
> condoning slavery. Paul urges in Philemon to free his runaway slave
> Onesimus! Paul also urges slave-holders to treat their slaves as brothers
> in Christ.
So one of the books of the bible is named after a slave holder? hehe
Maybe Paul didn't condone slavery, but his verses have been used to
condone it anyway. Sounds like gay. Paul didn't condemn gay in itself
(he never used any clear homo words in Greek, like arrenomanes or
estastes), yet fundies use it to condemn all gays.
> > Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does
> > not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they
> > discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and
> > bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to
> > the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not
> > obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of
> > his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among
> > you.
>
> A. Certainly you'll agree that being a stubborn and rebellious son is not
> right. Like I said above, we don't punish in that manner because we don't
> have a God=mandated civil government set up.
I wouldn't agree if the parents were wrong and the child was being
rebellious and logical against that. So you're saying that in a God
mandated civil government, it would be ok to to this to a kid? Sounds
evil to me.
>
> > Psalm 137:8 " O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> > happy is he who repays you
> > for what you have done to us-
> > 9 he who seizes your infants
> > and dashes them against the rocks."
>
> Babylon was an unholy nation in a time when nations were represented by
> their Gods. God often commanded complete genocide against these peoples
> becuase their nation fully represented rebellion against the God of Israel.
> Though many will claim "God is on our side," or "Allah is with us," no
> nation today has God on their side representing them like Israel did.
So it's our God is better than your God so you must die. ok. Even if
Babylon did nasty terrible things, is it really right to rejoice in
killing their babies?
> And most Americans aren't going to enter the kingdom of God ...
Well, isn't that special.
> Rich and poor can be saved, but I will certainly say that, like the rich man
> in Matthew 19, the rich today have a lot more reservations in following
> Christ than the poor!
Maybe because they are more educated?
15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if
> > they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
>
> Already addressed.
I don't know any church who preaches that women are partly saved thru
having kids.
>> > And of course, the net bible commentators are correct. Even they
say
> > "it is possible" - so obviously they don't know either. The first word
>
> Pointless to argue then. You're not going to convince anyone that you know
> more than the netbible translators, and if you're not convinced by this,
> then you're already set in your ways.
Bible traslators seem to be set in their own ways if they comment by
saying these word mean active and passive roles in homo sex. Neither
term has such a connotation in any other Greek source. Do translators
ever do research of uses outside the bible or what. They are caught in
their own time, language, and prejidices. And they are all Christians.
How suspect.
> The fact that it's "mutual consenting, etc." might make it better, but it
> doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.
Only to the small minded and biased. It's not scriptually supported.
> > I wonder if he'd say that about Iraq or Afganistan today.
>
> Are they any better than the Roman Government was?
I guess not really. I do think it's odd for Jesus to praise a
government that was about to kill and torture thousands of his
followers in the next 50 years. Whatever floats your boat.
>
> > > Everyone is deserving of eternal punishment, and therefore there is no
> > > "innocents."
> > How is it that humans deserve never ending torture for finite sins of
> > about 75 years? What an evil doctrine. I know - you didn't think of it
> > - you're just following what the bible says. Take it up with God,
> > right? I have. The Great Spirit said don't believe everything you
> > read.
>
> Easy question. Because they were committed against an infinite God. You do
> the math.
It's not our fault we were created by an infinite God. He never
completely reveals himself without question, then asks us to believe
this one way and if we don't because it doesn't make much sense or
could have been created by man - then hello lake of fire? Nice. Sorry,
seems infinitely evil.
Josh Spencer
> From: lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
>> Exceptions don't disprove the overall negative effect. The steady climb of
>> STDs, single mothers, rape, child molestation, etc. in this country speaks
>> to something. Havoc wreaked by shifts in sexual morality.
>
> Sex outside marriage are exceptions? hmm I don't know about that
> today. And I know some healthy nonmarried couples than married ones. I
> agree promuscuity can cause problems. But marraige can have it's own
> set of problems. Pregnancy within that as well. Rape and child
> molestation has nothing to do with any shift in sexual morality.
> Marriage doesn't prevent it. Repression of sex usually causes
> problems. Responsible sex helps.
Agree with those last two statements, but I don't believe any sex is really
responsible unless it's in a lifelong committed relationship. In any other
situation, somebody's going to get hurt. And the build-up of those
individual hurts causes damage to the society. Of course it's not a perfect
world, so even committed relationships contribute problems, but they're the
best scenario in general. That's all I'm sayin'.
>> I agree it's weird and iffy to interpret, but it's still worth doing.
>
> Why is that? Why not just go by the Golden rule. Or do unto others...
Well, I do actually. Love God and love your neighbor sums up the whole OT
law anyway. I have my hands full just doing that. But I still think it's
worthwhile to interpret accurately what ancient writings meant to the people
then and what they mean for us now. Not so we can make our interpretations
authoritative, but just so they can shed light on the struggles we have
today. My main problem with your interpretation of the OT is that you're
imposing a 21st Century American morality on it, not realizing our culture
and the ways we deal with it are just as bizarre. We're just used to it so
we don't see it.
>> also agree no one knows, which is why I don't really care about this issue.
>> Personally, I think it's obvious from basic biology that homo sex isn't part
>> of the plan.
>
> Guess unfertile men and women wouldn't be part of any plan either. Or
> handicapped people who can't have kids because of under developed
> brains or bodies. Guess women past 50 shouldn't marry either since
> they can't have kids.
C'mon. You're intentionally missing the point. Obviously none of that is
part of the plan...the point of the Fall story is that the world is fucked.
It's not working the way it was meant to. And so we have unfertility,
handicaps, old age, etc. We deal with it (I'm speaking as one who is
handicapped--paralyzed from the waist down).
> It's definitely natural for the gay person and 600
> species of animals and fowl that have been documented to engage in
> homo behavior and stay that way.
Some scientists have too much time on their hands. ;-) Forgive me if I'm
not that familiar with animal sex, but what I've heard in response to that
particular claim is that those cases are all animals in captivity. It's the
instinct to fuck that drives them to alternatives when the standard is
unavailable or undesirable for some reason. Which makes sense to me. Just
like prison.
> Regardless of any laws. But it's not my responsibility to
>> tell people what they already know but choose to ignore.
>
> Who's choosing to ignore anything? It's all or nothing. And most
> people who tell people follow this or that choose to ignore things
> themselves. They just find a way of getting around it by saying things
> are cultural. On the other hand people aren't trying to "erase
> passages", but there is obviously somthing happening in that situation
> that we, today, don't fully understand. It's just not fair to say
> stick to this one because this is the way I understand it plain and
> simple, but I'll explain away another one.
I sort of agree. I mean, it's up to each person how they interpret it. But
we can still have friendly debates like this because we think the other
person is a little off in how they're looking at things. My actual concern
is not even about homo sex, but about people who think modern morality is
somehow better than ancient morality.
>> Obviously there was a relationship between the religions of the day and
>> sodomy,
> Why do you call it sodomy? Nowhere in the entire bible where Sodom is
> mentioned again ever referred to as meaning homo. It didn't even
> happen anyway. It was attempted rape of foreigners/spies/angels who
> happened to be the same sex. Nothing even happened. It was about
> degredation. Ok, it's just a modern biased term.
I just meant that the religions of the day included a lot of butt sex. I
wasn't connoting anything, just referring to what I've read as historical
record.
> but that's not the sole reason given against homo sex.
>
> Seems to me no reasons were given at all. I don't even believe that
> homo sex in itself is even mentioned. Rape, temple prostitution,
> idolatry, sex slave/trade. But nothing else. Things that were
> forbidden with hetero sex.
Eh? What does "lying with a man as one does with a woman" mean, then?
> And even if
>> it was, an argument could be made that homo sex is still an issue of
>> idolatry (i.e. worshipping something -- sexuality -- above God).
>
> Why is homo sex worshipping sexuality and not hetero sex? I don't know
> any gay Christian or nonXtian who thinks this way. That they are above
> God by expressing love or mutual respect? It's on par with straight.
I just said an argument could be made. I'm not one who feels like making
it. :-)
> You might be referring to Romans 1. Here is a detailed page on it.
>
> http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html
Excuse me for saying so, but that guy's explanation is ridiculous. I've
never seen anyone work so hard to come up with an alternate explanation
instead of the most simple, obvious one. Seriously, it would be funny if it
wasn't sad.
>> Nothing's changed. Civilization is just more subtle & complex in its
>> stoning/killing. Is it always wrong? That's another discussion.
>
> hehe yes. I'm sure they had their reasons. I guess. But in today's
> civilized world we don't kill for victimless crimes - like it seems in
> the bible.
Huh? You do realize America only exists because of the slaughter and
violent conquering of Native Americans, blacks, southern whites, Japanese,
etc.? And now we're doing it to Middle-Eastern people. We don't kill for
victimless crimes; we are the criminals. Our nation has always built itself
from blood. We're much worse than Israel was. At least they believed God
told them to; we do it to maintain our comfort & dominance.
> And I don't believe your list is applicable at all. From
>> it, only handicap and skin color are unaffected by choice.
>
> Did a baby have a choice to be born? Does a heterosexual or homosexual
> contemplate who they are or will be attracted to when they are young?
> Did you stop and say - hey, I'm going to be right or left handed? Does
> the writer with bad athleic skill say try out for the football team?
> Things just happen. Deal. Trying to change is unnatural and
> problematic.
At four years of age I molested other girl children. I also stole quite
frequently. It just came natural to me. No one ever knew and subsequently
never told me those things were wrong, but eventually I came to realize they
were and stopped those behaviours. I consider them born tendencies I had,
but the point of a will is that you can correct the natural born tendencies
that are part of a broken Creation. I have a friend who taught himself to
be ambidextrous, and my sister actually changed my nephew's dominant hand at
a young age with direction (why, I can't remember). And I was a skinny,
clumsy nerd who grew into an all-around athlete over a couple years, with
training. The will is a marvelous thing. Trying to and achieving change is
what makes living worthwhile. I'm not down with those who promote passivity
and defeatism. It's the lowest and easiest form of living, but we were made
for much more than that.
> I mean, I agree with you - no one's innocent and perfect. But I don't
> see how anyone should be blaming people for what comes natural and
> doesn't hurt anyone.
Well, as I said above, just because something comes natural doesn't mean
it's good. And I addressed the hurt issue at the top.
Let's try and wind this discussion down if we can. I'm sure you're getting
as weary of it as I am (or maybe not, since it affects you personally and
I'm just doing it mostly as a mental exercise).
josh
lifesabirch
> Agree with those last two statements, but I don't believe any sex is really
> responsible unless it's in a lifelong committed relationship. In any other
> situation, somebody's going to get hurt. And the build-up of those
> individual hurts causes damage to the society. Of course it's not a perfect
> world, so even committed relationships contribute problems, but they're the
> best scenario in general. That's all I'm sayin'.
Ok - I just disagree. My experience is different. Someone's not
necessarily going to get hurt any more than marriage/kids. There can
be more problems in marriages.
> Well, I do actually. Love God and love your neighbor sums up the whole OT
> law anyway. I have my hands full just doing that. But I still think it's
> worthwhile to interpret accurately what ancient writings meant to the people
> then and what they mean for us now. Not so we can make our interpretations
> authoritative, but just so they can shed light on the struggles we have
> today. My main problem with your interpretation of the OT is that you're
> imposing a 21st Century American morality on it, not realizing our culture
> and the ways we deal with it are just as bizarre. We're just used to it so
> we don't see it.
Funny - I was going to say the same to you. hehe You say gay is bad
based on your modern interpreting (how that's loving your neighbor, I
don't get - since it's an intrinsic thing as much as hetero - it ends
up being bigotry then) and interpret marrying a rapist as good, when
it's obvious it WAS raping from the wording. I think they had reasons
for doing things, of course. But sorry, we don't kill people for
adultery, being a bad kid, or even having sex with animals. I don't
see how it's worthwhile to try and figure out why they did these
things to see if we can apply today.
> C'mon. You're intentionally missing the point. Obviously none of that is
> part of the plan...the point of the Fall story is that the world is fucked.
> It's not working the way it was meant to. And so we have unfertility,
> handicaps, old age, etc. We deal with it (I'm speaking as one who is
> handicapped--paralyzed from the waist down).
Too bad you think it's from some Fall. I think unfertile, handicap,
old age, gay is just as beautiful as the majority. You seem to think
like the ancient Hebrews. Populating the Earth is the biggest thing in
the world. And if you're not perfect, it's not in God's orignal plan.
ugh. hardly.
> Some scientists have too much time on their hands. ;-) Forgive me if I'm
> not that familiar with animal sex, but what I've heard in response to that
> particular claim is that those cases are all animals in captivity. It's the
> instinct to fuck that drives them to alternatives when the standard is
> unavailable or undesirable for some reason. Which makes sense to me. Just
> like prison.
lol - ic - well, obviously you don't know enough about it. Typical.
You think gay is only about fucking.
>
> > Who's choosing to ignore anything? It's all or nothing. And most
> > people who tell people follow this or that choose to ignore things
> > themselves. They just find a way of getting around it by saying things
> > are cultural. On the other hand people aren't trying to "erase
> > passages", but there is obviously somthing happening in that situation
> > that we, today, don't fully understand. It's just not fair to say
> > stick to this one because this is the way I understand it plain and
> > simple, but I'll explain away another one.
>
> I sort of agree. I mean, it's up to each person how they interpret it. But
> we can still have friendly debates like this because we think the other
> person is a little off in how they're looking at things. My actual concern
> is not even about homo sex, but about people who think modern morality is
> somehow better than ancient morality.
ic I think sometimes it's better and sometimes it's not.
> I just meant that the religions of the day included a lot of butt sex. I
> wasn't connoting anything, just referring to what I've read as historical
> record.
Even you're admitting that same sex behavior involved idolatry back
then. Yet you laugh at an explaination of someone who's spent a heck
of alot more time researching it. pretty funny.
>
> > but that's not the sole reason given against homo sex.
> >
> > Seems to me no reasons were given at all. I don't even believe that
> > homo sex in itself is even mentioned. Rape, temple prostitution,
> > idolatry, sex slave/trade. But nothing else. Things that were
> > forbidden with hetero sex.
>
> Eh? What does "lying with a man as one does with a woman" mean, then?
What was this about interpreting thru the eyes on the 21st century?
You just did what you're accusing me of. It was more than likely a
condemnation of a practice worshipping Ba'al, Molech - it's not that
hard to figure out when it says "abomination." Obviously you haven't
any time on the pages provided.
>
> Excuse me for saying so, but that guy's explanation is ridiculous. I've
> never seen anyone work so hard to come up with an alternate explanation
> instead of the most simple, obvious one. Seriously, it would be funny if it
> wasn't sad.
lol well, nice open mind there. Sounds like you and Don on here. Yet
he has researched it. He's not the only one saying this. Scholars are
as well. Kinda like your explaining away every other ancient law as
having their reasons for doing things, except this one. Your bigotry
is showing.
>
> Huh? You do realize America only exists because of the slaughter and
> violent conquering of Native Americans, blacks, southern whites, Japanese,
> etc.? And now we're doing it to Middle-Eastern people. We don't kill for
> victimless crimes; we are the criminals. Our nation has always built itself
> from blood. We're much worse than Israel was. At least they believed God
> told them to; we do it to maintain our comfort & dominance.
So tagging the name of God onto it makes it better?? Guess Osama and
crew are better than us, then? You're talking war. I'm talking the
lists in the OT - killing for adultery? rebellious kid? having sex
while mestrating?
> At four years of age I molested other girl children. I also stole quite
> frequently. It just came natural to me. No one ever knew and subsequently
> never told me those things were wrong, but eventually I came to realize they
> were and stopped those behaviours. I consider them born tendencies I had,
> but the point of a will is that you can correct the natural born tendencies
> that are part of a broken Creation. I have a friend who taught himself to
> be ambidextrous, and my sister actually changed my nephew's dominant hand at
> a young age with direction (why, I can't remember). And I was a skinny,
> clumsy nerd who grew into an all-around athlete over a couple years, with
> training. The will is a marvelous thing. Trying to and achieving change is
> what makes living worthwhile. I'm not down with those who promote passivity
> and defeatism. It's the lowest and easiest form of living, but we were made
> for much more than that.
If you don't see the difference of molestation and stealing as opposed
to being a baby, hetro, homo, right or left handed, creative...
>
> > I mean, I agree with you - no one's innocent and perfect. But I don't
> > see how anyone should be blaming people for what comes natural and
> > doesn't hurt anyone.
>
> Well, as I said above, just because something comes natural doesn't mean
> it's good. And I addressed the hurt issue at the top.
You addressed bad behavior causing hurt. All the things I list don't
cause any hurt within themselves. Why should anyone change things when
they are benificial to them? You were hurting people - that needed to
change. Hetro or homo relationships can cause harm, but can be
wonderful as well. When is molestation and stealing beneficial?
>
> Let's try and wind this discussion down if we can. I'm sure you're getting
> as weary of it as I am (or maybe not, since it affects you personally and
> I'm just doing it mostly as a mental exercise).
It's a mental exercise for me as well. I had a few days off, so I
needed something to do. :)
Breezy
> http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html
Aw, C'mon. This guy is just another one of those harebrained "all scripture
is God-breathed" guys. I mean after all, he's putting a awful lot of stock
in what that "wacky" Paul said (his interpretation anyway). And I don't
mean just this minute subject, but his whole outlook of scripture.
"I am committed... to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, his death, burial and
resurrection, and our absolute need for Him for the forgiveness of our
sins... realizing the need to try to understand the original intent of the
author as s/he was inspired by the Holy Spirit."
He actually believes that the "sacrifice" of some ancient guy is needed in
order for people to be saved and that Paul's words are God-inspired.
Wazzupwiththat???
-Breezy
Josh Spencer
> From: lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
> Ok - I just disagree. My experience is different.
I'm going to bow out of this discussion and let your words above be the
final say. It's kinda obvious that we have completely different
experiences, assumptions, methods of reasoning, etc. It could go on
indefinitely because there's not enough common ground to get to any
resolution. So, thanks for the conversation...see ya 'round.
josh