Yes to any and all. Whatever you have ideas on. Sexi's and Mevers' are good examples of the "everyday life" bit.
My specific question was acutally geared towards how/what scriptures and interpretations do, basically what Mevers said above.
Sorry if this post shows up twice. The dog's snout bumped my keyboard (I have no idea which button he pushed) and my post disappeared in progress. Honest! You can't make this stuff up!
Anywhoo...I would say that my faith and my interpretation of scripture impacts absolutely every aspect of my life, from the moment I get up in the morning until I fall asleep at night. It not only shapes my daily routine and guides my behavior but, more importantly, guides my thoughts and attitudes. When a situation arises, positive or negative, I react to it based on my understanding of God's character and His will for my life. This impact can be subtle or what some might characterize as "extreme" (although the extreme side of the scale is probably pretty rare).
My attitudes about my role in my marriage, for instance, are greatly shaped by my beliefs while the fact that I still *am* married is almost certainly due to divine influence! ;)
When I am training my children, I don't just tell them what they should do. I tell them *why* they should behave in a certain way or have a certain attitude.
It's like building blocks or steps. You need each part before you can progress to the next. With living a "good life", sometimes you work from the top down. Maybe you don't commit adultery after becoming a Christian (if you were doing so beforehand) because you understand that action to be displeasing to God. That's policy. But *why* is it displeasing to God? Well, it disrespects your spouse, the institution of marriage, etc. So maybe disrespect is the philosophy behind not commiting adultery (or one of them anyway). So behind the policy is the philosophy. Next step, why is it disrepectful? Well, because God calls us to remain faithful and to keep the marriage bed "pure". That's principle. Faithfulness and purity are the principles upon which the philosophy is based. Now the final step (or more accurately, the basic foundation/the first step) is the question of why does God care about faithfulness and purity? The answer is revealed in the character of God. God embodies faithfulness and is Himself ultimately pure. We should try to be like Him. So the foundation is the character of God, upon which rests the principles, upon which we base the philosophy, which is then manifest in the policy (aka "good" behavior/attitude). It all sounds more confusing than it is.
Example: most people teach their children not to chew with their mouths open. The behavior (policy) can easily be demonstrated without any understanding of the underlying reasons (philosophy-principle-character). This isn't a big deal in most cases but someday a thorny situation might arise where one is called upon to make a decision where the policy comes into question. Without understanding the reasons behind the policy, all manner of unwise decisions may result. This is clearly demonstrated in professing Christians bombing abortion clinics and other such heinous acts. These people clearly didn't understand the character of God when deciding to act under His name. By the way, back to children chewing with their mouths open, if you're curious to that little one... Policy - don't chew with your mouth open (even though there's no specific scripture that even alludes to this). Why? Open mouthed chewing is generally perceived as rude. Philosophy - we should not act rudely. Principle - 1 Corinthians 13:5 "Love is not rude". Character - God is love and is therefore never rude.
Anyway, I hope you can extract my answer to your question from my ramblings!
|
Here is Moff's attempt at answering what might appear as the "ultimate" question…
The question as I understand it --
What about people who have never heard the "good news"? What about people who have never even heard of Jesus? Are they just damned to hell?
While this is a great question, it is also a rather poor question. The problem is that it kind of goes along the lines of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?". The question implies that either God is a bastard and condemns people to hell just for being born in a different part of the world or there isn't ONLY one way to be saved and the Bible was lying. Hence the reason why this is such a difficult question to answer.
First of all, we need to ask who or what we think that God is. If we believe that he is all knowing, caring and so on, then it would be rather silly to think that he hadn't thought of this already. So, if God is actually who we think that God is, then the real question becomes "Why didn't God let us in on what his plan is for the people who haven't heard the good word?".
So, let's assume that God has a plan for all this, but he hasn't let us in on his little secret yet. Why not? There are a number of purely logical reasons that I can come up with. I said it before, people seem to be more apt to "see" Christ through other people. Christianity is a relationship based religion (or at least I believe it was meant to be). God wants us to go out into the world and "be Christ" to the rest of the world. Related to this is that people really seem to want to take responsibility away from themselves. In general, people seem to want to point fingers and claim that it isn't their fault but someone else's. If the Bible said something like "well don't worry about preaching to the rest of the world because I will take care of that" it takes responsibility away from us and what he has tasked us to do.
So why didn't God tell us what his plan is? I believe that it is because people are more apt to become saved through people and God wants us to feel the need to get the Bible out there to the rest of the world.
While that might explain why God didn't tell us what his plan is, it doesn't really tell us any more about what God's plan is for people who haven't ever heard the message of God. Since, by the nature of the question, it is assumed in this case that God exists, I will use a few verses to support what I believe. I will be using the NASB as it is supposed to be the most accurate "literal" translation of the Bible.
In Romans chapter 1 it talks a bit about how no one is without excuse because God is evident just by looking around. I only think that that is part of the picture. Christians like to throw that verse around as if that will fix all problems. While some people might see God just by looking at a tree, I don't think that is universally true. And we should look at more than Romans 1.
Acts 2:38-39 -- And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off…
This is towards the end of Peter's speech during Pentecost. This tells me that God has a plan for all those who are "far off". The Holy Spirit is for everyone. Somehow, God will make it all work.
The Apostle's Creed has a statement in it that says "He (Jesus) descended into Hell". Some versions say "Hades" instead of "Hell". There are a number of reasons why this is important and why this is included in the creed -- but for my purposes, the reason is also found in I Peter 3:18-20 --
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
A number of Christians believe in a type of "holding area" where people who died before Christ came went. I think that Catholics especially believe this and I think that they call it "Purgatory". There is certainly some Biblical evidence to support this concept. This passage in 1st Peter seems to suggest that Jesus went and preached to all the souls that had died without knowing the message of Christ before Christ came to Earth. Some might argue that this "Purgatory" exists outside of time and that souls -- past, present and future -- that haven't heard the message get that chance when Christ comes and visits them. That might be a bit of a stretch, and I don't think that I believe it, but it could be possible and in either case, I will let you decide. But it at least deals with people prior to Jesus who died.
Luke 3:6 -- And all flesh will see the salvation of God.
In the Luke passage, this comes from John the Baptist preaching and quoting from Isaiah (so it can be found in at least 2 places). This, again, tells me that everyone will get an opportunity to accept or reject Christ.
I Timothy 2:3-4 -- This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Ok, so this is sounding kind of like a broken record -- here, again, is evidence that the message of salvation is for everyone. And on that note, here is another one…
2 Peter 3:9 -- The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
So, what does all this mean? It tells me that God wants everyone to make a decision (I will come back to "decision" in a minute) to accept salvation. It further tells me that everyone will have that opportunity. For people who haven't heard the message from the Bible, I don't know what form that will take -- and I don't think that it will be a consistent "form" in any case. Maybe some people will literally see God. Maybe the decision will be made after they die. Maybe they will see a tree and believe in God. Maybe none of the above. Maybe all of the above. I don't know but I do think that God has it covered.
At the same time, I don't think that it means that we can shirk our responsibility to tell others about Christ and about the message that the Bible tells us. Seeing a vision of Jesus doesn't really show people what caring and forgiveness means. I still feel that it is better for people to see Christ through others.
Decision -- during my research of this ultimate question, I kept coming up with the idea of "decision". Everything that I read seems to point to God wanting us all to make the decision to follow Him. This ultimately goes back to the discussion on "free choice" (which I am not trying to bring up again). God wants us to choose God given the choice to choose God or not to choose God. Forcing people to make one choice or the other doesn't demonstrate love at all -- on either side. People keep saying that God is condemning us. The reality is that we are condemning ourselves. None of us deserves to be saved. Jesus has taken care of that. It's the decision that we make that condemns us or saves us. Everyone gets to make that decision.
So what about people who have never heard the message of Christ? I believe that they are given an opportunity at some point in either their life or death, to either accept or reject Christ.
Here is Moff's attempt at answering what might appear as the "ultimate" question…
Well, Moff, you obviously put great thought and care into your response. Your theory is logical (to me, anyway) if not terribly specific. Of course, I don't personally believe we have to understand all of God's plans in blistering detail (or even most of His plans) in order to believe He exists or that his plans are in place and active.
Point being ... good post, Moff!
I'm not too happy with most applications of anything religious. And I rarly see any of their finer doctrins applied.
Question for Sexi (and anyone else who wants to put their 2 bits in):
OK, so you feel that most Christians do not actually apply their docterines in the way they should, how should they be applied? Why?
I'm not too happy with most applications of anything religious. And I rarly see any of their finer doctrins applied.
Question for Sexi (and anyone else who wants to put their 2 bits in):
OK, so you feel that most Christians do not actually apply their docterines in the way they should, how should they be applied? Why?
They should apply ink and toner.
Question for Sexi (and anyone else who wants to put their 2 bits in):OK, so you feel that most Christians do not actually apply their docterines in the way they should, how should they be applied? Why?I'm not too happy with most applications of anything religious. And I rarly see any of their finer doctrins applied.
OK, I'll take the bait. Please note I'm not sniping at any Paizoan whatsoever, only at some of the so-called "Christians" who would never deign to discuss things rationally on a message board. In fact, I'm going to start with the premise that the teachings of Jesus are, in fact, correct.
1. To those who feel it's their personal mission to aggressively proselytize because of the injunction to "love thy neighbor": I'd like to see them stop and ponder the idea that "pitying contempt" and "love" may not necessarily be synonymous. To apply the doctrine of love, the "contempt" part has to be replaced with "understanding," in my opinion. In the case of those who follow a religion other than Christianity, maybe having a good idea of their beliefs would demonstrate an attempt at that understanding. The attitude that "You're obviously wrong because you disagree with me" shows no understanding nor compassion; only scorn. This attitide can never be the basis of love, as I see it. As a correlary, the attitude that "I feel sorry for all the stupid benighted people who don't accept what's obviously true, and whose lives are therefore meaningless," is, in essence, extremely non-Christian.
2. I'll ignore arguments from history (the "Holy" Roman Empire) or current events (nations currently under Sharia law) as non-Biblical. But I that being said, I would like to see those who feel that all law should be Biblically-based stop eating shrimp at once: if homosexuality is to be outlawed based on statements found in Scripture, then so too should the eating of shellfish. But that's an obviously silly argument, what many Evangelicals are fond of calling a "straw man" (which seems to be the new buzz-word to show that one is 'hip' to the wiles of the evil humanists). More importantly, I'd want those in favor of Biblical-based law to think carefully about John 18:36 ("Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world.'").
3. Also from John 18:37, "Jesus answered, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'" Okay, here's the bee in my bonnet. Accepting that the word of Jesus is good, this does not automatically mean that Jesus is saying, "Everyone on the side of truth interprets Genesis literally." Christ tells us that HIS words and teachings are the basis of truth, not that a book written before his birth should take precedence over observation and reason. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do I find a statement that its text is also inerrant in terms of science and history. (Note that the 1978 "Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy," for example, is not scriptural.) I'm no expert, obviously, but I've read the Bible and seen no quotes, no matter how out-of-context, that support the view of the Bible's inerrancy in matters of science without a great deal of creative interpretation. Why, then, do so many "Christians" assail science and scientific research, and feel so strongly that they must constantly "defend themselves" against the same? If they truly believe that nothing outside of the Bible contains any truth, they should immediately stop driving their trucks: nowhere in Scripture is the internal combustion engine described.
By that last item, I am NOT in any way saying that most Christians fall into this camp; only the ones who claim that the scientific method must allow for Scriptural inerrancy, or who claim that science is inherently "Godless." Science is a useful tool, and the Bible cites any number of instances of the use of tools, without claiming that we should break those tools as "false instruments of the devil." Just because a hoe does not depend on divine intervention to function, so too should Science be allowed to investigate natural phenomena without the need to stop any area of research that might conceivably conflict with someone's interpretation of Scripture.
Humbled by your reason,
The Jade
|
Here's a random question:
What does everyone here think of Satanism?
I am not a Satanist (I am agnostic, leaning towards animism), but I have researched the subject quite a bit. I have found that Satanism is not really a religion per se, but a life philosophy. It's actually more of an antireligion, in the sense that Satanists do not actually 'worship' Satan, but use him as a metaphor for base human impulses and desires. Most Satanists believe in the power of the individual; that one must have faith in oneself, not some higher power.
I reiterate, what do you think? What have you heard?
But I that being said, I would like to see those who feel that all law should be Biblically-based stop eating shrimp at once: if homosexuality is to be outlawed based on statements found in Scripture, then so too should the eating of shellfish. But that's an obviously silly argument, what many Evangelicals are fond of calling a "straw man" (which seems to be the new buzz-word to show that one is 'hip' to the wiles of the evil humanists).
I'm feeling opinionated today so...
Bloody evangelicals. Anyone who calls that a straw man doesn't really understand what that term is supposed to mean. In philosophical terms a straw man is when you ascribe a foolish position to your opponent and then demolish it, in order to make his or her real, stronger position seem weaker. Arguing against atheism by saying that all atheists belive only in sceince and then proving that science can be wrong is setting up a straw man and kicking it down. What you just described was not a straw man. It's a perfectly reasonable question: If God says no to gays and shellfish, why are you hating gays and eating lobster?
I'm sorry but Evangelicals can really piss me off sometimes. I find their combination of anti-intellectualism and "I'm just a simple country chicken from a backwoods galaxy, but I can still use fancy words like a college professor" deceptive and offensive, especially because they frequently misuse the terms and I'm not entirely sure it's by accident...
What does everyone here think of Satanism?
I am not a Satanist (I am agnostic, leaning towards animism), but I have researched the subject quite a bit. I have found that Satanism is not really a religion per se, but a life philosophy. It's actually more of an antireligion, in the sense that Satanists do not actually 'worship' Satan, but use him as a metaphor for base human impulses and desires. Most Satanists believe in the power of the individual; that one must have faith in oneself, not some higher power.
I reiterate, what do you think? What have you heard?
A far as I know you what you are talking about is the Satanism of Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. I have mixed feelings about it. If Satan is not a real being, and neither is God, but they are archetypes of freedom and slavery as LaVey suggests, then why even use Satan as your model? Why not just say "I'm an atheist, I do what I want?" I don't see the point of the Church of Satan, it seems to me like pointless rebellion against religion when it's perfectly OK to be non-religious anyway.
The other forms of Satanism, medieval Satanism and those black metal dudes in Norway, they actually thought/think Satan is real and are pretty much anti-Christians. Which I also think is a bit funny because it means your religion is dependant on another religion to exist. Anyone who doesn't believe in the Biblical God also doesn't belive in Satan, so it's pretty much a bizarre form of Christianity or Judaism in my eyes.
Try saying that to a Satanist and see what happens ;)
Here's a random question:
What does everyone here think of Satanism?
I am not a Satanist (I am agnostic, leaning towards animism), but I have researched the subject quite a bit. I have found that Satanism is not really a religion per se, but a life philosophy. It's actually more of an antireligion, in the sense that Satanists do not actually 'worship' Satan, but use him as a metaphor for base human impulses and desires. Most Satanists believe in the power of the individual; that one must have faith in oneself, not some higher power.
I reiterate, what do you think? What have you heard?
I read somewhere about one Satanist "leader" who left a Satanist gathering because he believed he had been contacted by Satan himself (actually Set, according to him), and he actually worshiped him and was infuriated by the implication that Satan was a metaphor.
My personal opinion... Well, I like the emphasis on personal power, but I think that sole emphasis in that area is fallacious. Personally I feel that the group is more important than the individal, so I would have trouble identifying with Satanism. As a philosophy, I actually think it may be closer to the mark that "obey the supreme overlord without question" that has found its way into most religious.
That being said, some Satanist groups do some pretty ugly s!*!. There was at one point in the not to distant past a Satanist group in the area where I live, and while I did not live there at the time I have heard stories of the mutilated animals that decorated the town for a while. And it has given the town a very supersticious quality, small towns have long memories; and just guess what they played because they thought it was a way to worship Satan. I don't characterize all Satanist groups this way, I'm just posting both this and the above to show that different Satanist groups can be just as varried as those of any other religion, and it is impossable to characterize an entire religion like that.
There's a difference between the modern common practices of Satanism and those kids who think they're real vampires, slaughter house cats, listen to black metal, and congregate in the woods because their parents won't allow them to watch what they wanna watch on the tube.
BTW, no slam against black metal fans. You're not responsible for cat killers. They just like anything that makes them feel empowered and Maroon 5 just doesn't seem to fit the bill.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the Biblical God also doesn't belive in Satan, so it's pretty much a bizarre form of Christianity or Judaism in my eyes.
From Andrew Vachss:
"Do you think there are people who actually worship the Devil?""Sure! It's the perfect religion: if you f^*# up, you go to heaven."
Satan is a dork. I kick his butt.
But could he whup Conan?
|
|
My personal opinion... Well, I like the emphasis on personal power, but I think that sole emphasis in that area is fallacious. Personally I feel that the group is more important than the individal, so I would have trouble identifying with Satanism. As a philosophy, I actually think it may be closer to the mark that "obey the supreme overlord without question" that has found its way into most religious.Here's a random question:
What does everyone here think of Satanism?
I am not a Satanist (I am agnostic, leaning towards animism), but I have researched the subject quite a bit. I have found that Satanism is not really a religion per se, but a life philosophy. It's actually more of an antireligion, in the sense that Satanists do not actually 'worship' Satan, but use him as a metaphor for base human impulses and desires. Most Satanists believe in the power of the individual; that one must have faith in oneself, not some higher power.
I reiterate, what do you think? What have you heard?
Well, to each their own. }:}
That being said, some Satanist groups do some pretty ugly s#&&. There was at one point in the not to distant past a Satanist group in the area where I live, and while I did not live there at the time I have heard stories of the mutilated animals that decorated the town for a while. And it has given the town a very supersticious quality, small towns have long memories; and just guess what they played because they thought it was a way to worship Satan. I don't characterize all Satanist groups this way, I'm just posting both this and the above to show that different Satanist groups can be just as varried as those of any other religion, and it is impossable to characterize an entire religion like that.
From what I've heard, it was a bunch of teenagers that shot and butchered a cow on Hallowe'en just to scare people. This was during the whole "Sean Sellers - alleged Satanist Kidnappings - Marilyn Manson is actually the Antichrist" frenzy, so people just Assumed it was Satanists.
And by the way, according to the Bible (I forget which part), the Antichrist is anyone who is against God, so technically Mr. Manson is an Antichrist.
Time for me to chime as well I suppose.
OK, I'll take the bait. Please note I'm not sniping at any Paizoan whatsoever, only at some of the so-called "Christians" who would never deign to discuss things rationally on a message board. In fact, I'm going to start with the premise that the teachings of Jesus are, in fact, correct.
Duly noted. And thanks.
1. To those who feel it's their personal mission to aggressively proselytize because of the injunction to "love thy neighbor": I'd like to see them stop and ponder the idea that "pitying contempt" and "love" may not necessarily be synonymous. To apply the doctrine of love, the "contempt" part has to be replaced with "understanding," in my opinion. In the case of those who follow a religion other than Christianity, maybe having a good idea of their beliefs would demonstrate an attempt at that understanding. The attitude that "You're obviously wrong because you disagree with me" shows no understanding nor compassion; only scorn. This attitide can never be the basis of love, as I see it. As a correlary, the attitude that "I feel sorry for all the stupid benighted people who don't accept what's obviously true, and whose lives are therefore meaningless," is, in essence, extremely non-Christian.
I agree 100% Loving someone involves MUCH more than just preaching the Gospel AT them. It also includes getting alongside them, sharing tehir life, meeting them where they are at, and showing them how the Jesus hs made an impact in you own life and relationships. Loving someone certainly includes sharing the gospel wit hthem, but it includes much more than "just" that.
2. I'll ignore arguments from history (the "Holy" Roman Empire) or current events (nations currently under Sharia law) as non-Biblical. But I that being said, I would like to see those who feel that all law should be Biblically-based stop eating shrimp at once: if homosexuality is to be outlawed based on statements found in Scripture, then so too should the eating of shellfish. But that's an obviously silly argument, what many Evangelicals are fond of calling a "straw man" (which seems to be the new buzz-word to show that one is 'hip' to the wiles of the evil humanists).
This one is a little bit more complicated. First, let me say that the Bible clearly teaches that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong, whether it is gay or heterosexual. I agree that I think most Christians have, for what ever reason, weird hangups about sexuality in general, but I wish chrisitnas would realise that heterosexual sin is just as "bad" as homosexual sin.
But this also brings up the fact that the Bible, while it is ONE book, is compased of TWO testaments, the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). (Testament is another [Latin?] word for Covenant, which basically means contract or agreement). When Jesus came, and died and rose again for us, he perfectly fulfilled the OT, and instituted, a new better covenant in His body and Blood on the Cross. This is the basic argument of the book of Hebrews.
Anyway, the point is that now, after Jesus death, ressurection and ascension, we can't take ANY of the OT and just apply it straight to us today, even the 10 commandments. We have to read it all through the "lense" if you like of Jesus, see how He fulfilled it (both the letter and intention), and then follow Jesus example as we follow it today.
In the case of food laws, Jesus explicitly, in Mark 7:14 - 23 declared all foods "clean."
It also ticks me off no end when I hear Christians using Leviticus to condemn gay people today. First, this is clearly not loving them. They need to hear the gospel, not that they are going to hell, they already know we think that. Second, it is poor exegesis. Yes, the Bible does say that homesexual sex is wrong, but it is not as clear as simply quoting Leviticus as if that answers the question. Much better to go to the many places in the NT where God declares ALL sex outside the marriage covenant wrong.
Not sure if I was all that clear above. Basically, there are two covnenants, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant. It is wrong to take ANY part of the Old Covenant, and just apply it to christians Today, without seeing it through the "lense" of Jesus.
If some one want me to explain more on the relationship between the Old and New Testament I can, but it is a pretty involved argument. Or if you want examples, just provide the obscure OT references, and I'll do my best to show how they are fulfilled through Jesus, and how we are to follow them today.
More importantly, I'd want those in favor of Biblical-based law to think carefully about John 18:36 ("Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world.'").
I agree with you here I think. I think the Bible should inform our laws, but I am wrestling with how much. Murder should clearly be outlawed, but I am not sure about Adultery. I don't know on what basis the decision should be made. The problem is, that as Chrisitans, we can't, and shouldn't, expect non-chrisitans to live the same way as Christians. Theother problem is that we seem to have elevated homosexuality to some new category of the absolute worst sin you could ever commit. I think get the impression most Christians would rather their son confessed to killing someone than that he was struggling with feelings of same sex attraction.
3. Also from John 18:37, "Jesus answered, 'You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'" Okay, here's the bee in my bonnet. Accepting that the word of Jesus is good, this does not automatically mean that Jesus is saying, "Everyone on the side of truth interprets Genesis literally." Christ tells us that HIS words and teachings are the basis of truth, not that a book written before his birth should take precedence over observation and reason. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do I find a statement that its text is also inerrant in terms of science and history. (Note that the 1978 "Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy," for example, is not scriptural.) I'm no expert, obviously, but I've read the Bible and seen no quotes, no matter how out-of-context, that support the view of the Bible's inerrancy in matters of science without a great deal of creative interpretation. Why, then, do so many "Christians" assail science and scientific research, and feel so strongly that they must constantly "defend themselves" against the same? If they truly believe that nothing outside of the Bible contains any truth, they should immediately stop driving their trucks: nowhere in Scripture is the internal combustion engine described.
By that last item, I am NOT in any way saying that most Christians fall into this camp; only the ones who claim that the scientific method must allow for Scriptural inerrancy, or who claim that science is inherently "Godless." Science is a useful tool, and the Bible cites any number of instances of the use of tools, without claiming that we should break those tools as "false instruments of the devil." Just because a hoe does not depend on divine intervention to function, so too should Science be allowed to investigate natural phenomena without the need to stop any area of research that might conceivably conflict with someone's interpretation of Scripture.
I also agree with you here. The Bible never claims that it is a Science Textbook. It was never written to be a a science textbook, and shouldn't be expected to reach the standards of a science textbook.
The doctrine of infallibility (not inerrancy) says that the Bible is infallible in ALL matters of Faith and Godliness. That is, it contains everyhting you need to know to be saved and live a Godly Life. That's all. I mean, that is still a big claim, but it is much less than that claimed by those who claim "inerrancy"
I'm feeling opinionated today so...
Bloody evangelicals. Anyone who calls that a straw man doesn't really understand what that term is supposed to mean. In philosophical terms a straw man is when you ascribe a foolish position to your opponent and then demolish it, in order to make his or her real, stronger position seem weaker. Arguing against atheism by saying that all atheists belive only in sceince and then proving that science can be wrong is setting up a straw man and kicking it down. What you just described was not a straw man. It's a perfectly reasonable question: If God says no to gays and shellfish, why are you hating gays and eating lobster?
I'm sorry but Evangelicals can really piss me off sometimes. I find their combination of anti-intellectualism and "I'm just a simple country chicken from a backwoods galaxy, but I can still use fancy words like a college professor" deceptive and offensive, especially because they frequently misuse the terms and I'm not entirely sure it's by accident...
I am not sure what you mean by evangelical here. I know here in Australia (and in Britian I think) it has a different meaning than in America.
The word comes from the greek work "euangellion" which baisaclly means "gospel" or "good news" so and evangelical, is a "Gospel Person". These days, it basically means someone who believes the Bible is the final (not only, but final) Authority on matters of Faith and Godliness. For those who haven't worked it out yet, I put myself firmly in this camp. I am not generally happy with Labels for the most part, but I would label myself an "Evangelical"
In the circles I travel in (Sydney Anglicans (or similar) basically for the most part), we are often stereotyped as conservative, overly theological, too intellectual, not very "down to earth" and with very little "Real world Experience"
So I am interested to hear the basis for your impressions of Evangelicals, if only to understand how we are percieved by non-Chrisitans.
I am not sure what you mean by evangelical here. I know here in Australia (and in Britian I think) it has a different meaning than in America.
The word comes from the greek work "euangellion" which baisaclly means "gospel" or "good news" so and evangelical, is a "Gospel Person". These days, it basically means someone who believes the Bible is the final (not only, but final) Authority on matters of Faith and Godliness. For those who haven't worked it out yet, I put myself firmly in this camp. I am not generally happy with Labels for the most part, but I would label myself an "Evangelical"
In the circles I travel in (Sydney Anglicans (or similar) basically for the most part), we are often stereotyped as conservative, overly theological, too intellectual, not very "down to earth" and with very little "Real world Experience"
So I am interested to hear the basis for your impressions of Evangelicals, if only to understand how we are percieved by non-Chrisitans.
I mean guys in the US like Billy Graham (RIP) and that Pastor Ted guy, and the guys who jump on bandwagons like ID and spread misinformation about what scientists actually do and about the evils of secular humanists.
I guess I basically mean dodgy televangelists who prey on poorly educated biblical literalists - The guys who don't debate meaningfully but their dogmatism and high CHA scores mean that few people notice that they are full of s**t.
Thankfully none of the Christians on this board fall into that category, but then I would hardly expect a televangelist to play D&D. They don't exactly strike me as being the thoughtful type.
Sorry if I sound like a snob, but it's very frustrating if you spend half your life getting an education and some guy comes along and spouts a load of cobblers and he's backed by a million screaming followers because he talks in Jesus' name. I think those guys are the antichrist, metaphorically speaking.
I could be wrong but I get the impression that in the US "Evangelical" means a born again Christian who believes that the bible is not only the final authority on God, but on EVERYTHING, and that countries should be officially Christian rather than secular. Sort of like the Christian version of muslims who believe in Shariah rule. They also believe that the Rapture will come in their lifetime, which seems to be modern American myth evolved from passages in Revelation. Maybe I should have said "Charismatic" rather than "Evangelical."
I agree 100% Loving someone involves MUCH more than just preaching the Gospel AT them. It also includes getting alongside them, sharing their life, meeting them where they are at, and showing them how the Jesus hs made an impact in you own life and relationships. Loving someone certainly includes sharing the gospel with them, but it includes much more than "just" that.
Right on!
This one is a little bit more complicated. First, let me say that the Bible clearly teaches that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong, whether it is gay or heterosexual... It also ticks me off no end when I hear Christians using Leviticus to condemn gay people today. First, this is clearly not loving them.
I've seen in others that sex outside of marriage is also self-destructive, so you'll get no argument from me as to that point! The issue in the U.S. seems to be that "Christians" feel the need to prevent gays from marrying, specifically so that they can be singled out for persecution as sinners... which brings us back to the difference between "love" and "scorn," and on which you and I seem to agree.
Not sure if I was all that clear above. Basically, there are two covnenants, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant. It is wrong to take ANY part of the Old Covenant, and just apply it to christians Today, without seeing it through the "lens" of Jesus.
Got it. I understand the distinction, just not why people pick bits of the Old Testament if they can be used to harrass others, but ignore the bits that they don't want to apply to themselves.
Murder should clearly be outlawed, but I am not sure about Adultery. I don't know on what basis the decision should be made. The problem is, that as Chrisitans, we can't, and shouldn't, expect non-chrisitans to live the same way as Christians.
Murder is clearly destructive, whether one is a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist. Maybe that's a pretty solid basis. With the Old Testament now seen in a new light, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" becomes basic pragmatism, rather than dogma-- and I never argue with results.
By that last item, I am NOT in any way saying that most Christians fall into this camp; only the ones who claim that the scientific method must allow for Scriptural inerrancy, or who claim that science is inherently "Godless."The Bible never claims that it is a Science Textbook. It was never written to be a a science textbook, and shouldn't be expected to reach the standards of a science textbook. The doctrine of infallibility (not inerrancy) says that the Bible is infallible in ALL matters of Faith and Godliness. That is, it contains everyhting you need to know to be saved and live a Godly Life. That's all. I mean, that is still a big claim, but it is much less than that claimed by those who claim "inerrancy."
Yes; I used the word "inerrancy" on purpose there. So many people in the U.S.--and especially in Texas--seem to feel that infallibility is nowhere near good enough, and they go a little overboard.
I also agree with you here.
And THAT'S the beauty of this thread. People ask sarcastically if "anyone has been converted yet," but that's not the point. The point is that by understanding one another, we can maximize the areas in which we agree, and come closer to the understanding we were talking about earlier.
Thank you!
I mean guys in the US like Billy Graham (RIP) and that Pastor Ted guy, and the guys who jump on bandwagons like ID and spread misinformation about what scientists actually do and about the evils of secular humanists.I think those guys are the antichrist, metaphorically speaking. I could be wrong but I get the impression that in the US "Evangelical" means a born again Christian who believes that the bible is not only the final authority on God, but on EVERYTHING, and that countries should be officially Christian rather than secular. Sort of like the Christian version of muslims who believe in Shariah rule. They also believe that the Rapture will come in their lifetime, which seems to be modern American myth evolved from passages in Revelation.
You've hit the nail on the head as far as I can see, Kahoolin. It's a very loose (and technically incorrect) nomenclature, but it fits too many people here in the U.S. to ignore. And I agree with you 100% with regards to your "antichrist" comment. As I said, there are a lot of these folks around the U.S., and they scare me to death. I mourn for the days when "consevative" implied a balanced budget, rather than an effort to hasten Armageddon.
Much better to go to the many places in the NT where God declares ALL sex outside the marriage covenant wrong.
So homosexuality is OK if the same-sex couple is married?
Much better to go to the many places in the NT where God declares ALL sex outside the marriage covenant wrong.So homosexuality is OK if the same-sex couple is married?
Nice catch there Hill Giant. :)
But marriage, in the Bible is between a man and a women. And ONLY between a man and a women.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Adam and Eve were made for each other. Men and Women are made to complement each other. Genesis 2 says that Eve was made as the ideal helper, or complement (I think the literal meaning is "Like Opposite") for Adam. So marriage is clearly meant to be between a man and a women. Not between a man and a man, (or a women and a women).
Jesus teaches exactly the same thing in Mathew 19, where he repaets this teaching.
Murder should clearly be outlawed, but I am not sure about Adultery. I don't know on what basis the decision should be made. The problem is, that as Chrisitans, we can't, and shouldn't, expect non-chrisitans to live the same way as Christians.Murder is clearly destructive, whether one is a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist. Maybe that's a pretty solid basis. With the Old Testament now seen in a new light, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" becomes basic pragmatism, rather than dogma-- and I never argue with results.
I was talking with a mate at college today about this very issue, and he suggested that a good place to start, as Chrisitan, is that Chrisitan ethics should inform public laws, but only as they are needed to protect the weak, the vulnerable, the poor, the exploited, and society. I think that is a pretty good place to start.
Yes; I used the word "inerrancy" on purpose there. So many people in the U.S.--and especially in Texas--seem to feel that infallibility is nowhere near good enough, and they go a little overboard.
I thought you did. I get sick of these sort of people dragging the name of Christ through the mud.
|
|
...I am not sure what you mean by evangelical here. I know here in Australia (and in Britian I think) it has a different meaning than in America.
The word comes from the greek work "euangellion" which baisaclly means "gospel" or "good news" so and evangelical, is a "Gospel Person". These days, it basically means someone who believes the Bible is the final (not only, but final) Authority on matters of Faith and Godliness...
Evangelical has the same meaning (definition) in the US. Many Americans, however, associate the noun form with anyone who preaches the gospel. My experience is that most Americans (I'm very broadly generalizing; my limited experience in and amongst more than 400 million Americans) don't understand the difference between, for example, a televangelist or street corner evangelist, and an Evangelical.
So I am interested to hear the basis for your impressions of Evangelicals, if only to understand how we are percieved by non-Chrisitans.I mean guys in the US like Billy Graham (RIP) and that Pastor Ted guy, and the guys who jump on bandwagons like ID and spread misinformation about what scientists actually do and about the evils of secular humanists.
I guess I basically mean dodgy televangelists who prey on poorly educated biblical literalists - The guys who don't debate meaningfully but their dogmatism and high CHA scores mean that few people notice that they are full of s**t.
Thankfully none of the Christians on this board fall into that category, but then I would hardly expect a televangelist to play D&D. They don't exactly strike me as being the thoughtful type.
Sorry if I sound like a snob, but it's very frustrating if you spend half your life getting an education and some guy comes along and spouts a load of cobblers and he's backed by a million screaming followers because he talks in Jesus' name. I think those guys are the antichrist, metaphorically speaking.
I could be wrong but I get the impression that in the US "Evangelical" means a born again Christian who believes that the bible is not only the final authority on God, but on EVERYTHING, and that countries should be officially Christian rather than secular. Sort of like the Christian version of muslims who believe in Shariah rule. They also believe that the Rapture will come in their lifetime, which seems to be modern American myth evolved from passages in Revelation. Maybe I should have said "Charismatic" rather than "Evangelical."
I thought that was the sort of people you were talking about. I am not exactly sure why they are called evangelical, I think Charismatic or Pentacostal are probably better descriptions (if they are even Chrisitan at all). They definently hold vastly different doctrines to "Classic" Evangelicalism.
Believe me, I can definently see how they make you frustrated and angry. You should see how I react when I hear some of the stuff that comes out of these guys (and ladies) mouths and pens. I get so ticked off when I see these people dragging the name of Christ through the mud over and over and over again, i wish they would just shut up.
The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in revelation, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what hte Bible actually teaches.
The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in Revelations, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what the Bible actually teaches.
I think you've got it dead spot on, there. Did you know there's even a video game now, where you can shoot the unbelievers with "holy rays"?
But marriage, in the Bible is between a man and a women. And ONLY between a man and a women.For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.Adam and Eve were made for each other. Men and Women are made to complement each other. Genesis 2 says that Eve was made as the ideal helper, or complement (I think the literal meaning is "Like Opposite") for Adam. So marriage is clearly meant to be between a man and a women. Not between a man and a man, (or a women and a women).
Something that puzzles me: if this is true, homosexuality would be a purely human phenomenon. I'm not sure on the exact dogma on whether animals can turn away from god, but I also know that that dogma wouldn't make sense to me; animals are slaves to instinct, for the most part, even domesticated and "humanlike" ones, such as dogs. But there is documentation of homosexuality in animals. It seems to me that sex, and sexuality, is an instinct that cannot be overriden, even for god.
The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in Revelations, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what the Bible actually teaches.I think you've got it dead spot on, there. Did you know there's even a video game now, where you can shoot the unbelievers with "holy rays"?
Oh, yes. Truly an "inspirational and family" game. I'd actually prefer the promotion of "steal the cars and evade the police" games than the "kill the nonbelievers" game. This is sad.
More homosexual animal documentation, this time in a more humanlike package, and in a slightly different context.
Also: bonobos are better than you.
Oh, yes. Truly an "inspirational and family" game. I'd actually prefer the promotion of "steal the cars and evade the police" games than the "kill the nonbelievers" game. This is sad.The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in Revelations, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what the Bible actually teaches.I think you've got it dead spot on, there. Did you know there's even a video game now, where you can shoot the unbelievers with "holy rays"?
this hurts my brain alot, it makes me want to hit my head right now!!!! They should just stop now, it is spreading something that should just be stoped.
And those commercials about stealing the leprechauns' lucky charms...ugh.
|
|
The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in Revelations, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what the Bible actually teaches.I think you've got it dead spot on, there. Did you know there's even a video game now, where you can shoot the unbelievers with "holy rays"?
See, THIS kind of s+~%e is why I REALLY dislike rabid Christians. They try to impose their beliefs on others, and if said others don't want to convert, they get steamrolled. Now, it's in video game form. It makes me angry, and it makes me f&$*ing sick.
*retch*
There. Now, I'm just angry.
Really stirs the hate bones, doesn't it? I mean c'mon, you should let kids decide for themselves what (if any) religion they want to affiliate themselves with. Instead, these people are trying to impose a 'crusades mentality' on the youth of the nation. F*@! them.
Mr. Shiny out.
The whole end time prophecy is very hard to understand in Revelations, and in fact in America, popular thinking seems to be more informed by the "Left Behind" series than what the Bible actually teaches.I think you've got it dead spot on, there. Did you know there's even a video game now, where you can shoot the unbelievers with "holy rays"?
All the replies to this issue above basically mirror my own. This is possibly one of the most UN-christian things I have ever heard a "Christian" promoting.
I am basically speechless....
But marriage, in the Bible is between a man and a women. And ONLY between a man and a women.Something that puzzles me: if this is true, homosexuality would be a purely human phenomenon. I'm not sure on the exact dogma on whether animals can turn away from god, but I also know that that dogma wouldn't make sense to me; animals are slaves to instinct, for the most part, even domesticated and "humanlike" ones, such as dogs. But there is documentation of homosexuality in animals. It seems to me that sex, and sexuality, is an instinct that cannot be overriden, even for god.For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.Adam and Eve were made for each other. Men and Women are made to complement each other. Genesis 2 says that Eve was made as the ideal helper, or complement (I think the literal meaning is "Like Opposite") for Adam. So marriage is clearly meant to be between a man and a women. Not between a man and a man, (or a women and a women).
Sorry, I am a bit puzzled by your post. I suppose I don't know what you mean by sexuality can not be "overridden"
I would want to say that definently that we can control our sexuality. That's why we don't go around sleeping with every person we meet.
Now, as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned, there is a VERY big difference between experiencing same sex attraction and honestly and earnestly struggling and dealing with it, and a full fledged homosexual relationship(s).
Just becasue we have urges and desires, doesn't mean we need to act on them.
I would want to say that definently that we can control our sexuality. That's why we don't go around sleeping with every person we meet.
Now, as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned, there is a VERY big difference between experiencing same sex attraction and honestly and earnestly struggling and dealing with it, and a full fledged homosexual relationship(s).
Just becasue we have urges and desires, doesn't mean we need to act on them.
I actually wonder about this alot in terms of Christianity. What is the justification for why some people have to endure more/are tested more than others? In Indian philosophy for example reincarnation covers it. You have lessons to learn. So in these terms if someone is born gay or an outrageous ladies man/maneater and has to struggle with it because they were born in a radical Islamist nation, then it is because they were too debauched in a previous life and they have to learn to overcome sexual desire. But in Christianity, Islam etc there's no reason why some are gay, some are crippled, some are blind, etc. My grandma used to say "we all have our cross to bear" but really, some people have it worse than others. Yet heaven seems to be a "you're in or you're out" sort of deal - you don't get extra heaven because you were gay and successfully resisted temptation, or weak heaven because you had an easy life as a healthy white middle class person and being a good Christian came naturally to you.
So why does God test some people more? Original sin doesn't cover it. You can't say a baby born blind has sinned any more than any other newborn baby. It kind of seems like either a) God is a sadist or b) his notion of what is fair is completely beyond our comprehension. Claiming b) is fair enough, but it sort of ends the conversation right there and makes all discusison of God's motives pointless.
What do the Christian posters think? My knowledge of Christianity is incomplete so there could be a great justification for God giving people unequal burdens which I am not aware of.
What is the justification for why some people have to endure more/are tested more than others? In Indian philosophy for example reincarnation covers it. You have lessons to learn. So in these terms if someone is born gay or an outrageous ladies man/maneater and has to struggle with it because they were born in a radical Islamist nation, then it is because they were too debauched in a previous life and they have to learn to overcome sexual desire. But in Christianity, Islam etc there's no reason why some are gay, some are crippled, some are blind, etc. My grandma used to say "we all have our cross to bear" but really, some people have it worse than others. Yet heaven seems to be a "you're in or you're out" sort of deal - you don't get extra heaven because you were gay and successfully resisted temptation, or weak heaven because you had an easy life as a healthy white middle class person and being a good Christian came naturally to you.
So why does God test some people more? Original sin doesn't cover it. You can't say a baby born blind has sinned any more than any other newborn baby. It kind of seems like either a) God is a sadist or b) his notion of what is fair is completely beyond our comprehension. Claiming b) is fair enough, but it sort of ends the conversation right there and makes all discusison of God's motives pointless.
What do the Christian posters think? My knowledge of Christianity is incomplete so there could be a great justification for God giving people unequal burdens which I am not aware of.
You raise some very good points, and I'll try to answer them.
You are exactly right that the baby born blind has not sinned any more than any other new born baby. (Jesus teaches this in Luke 13).
The big answer is that He is God, and we are not, so who are we to talk back to God? This is basically the answer that Job got from God in the book of Job. But to leave it there is unsatisfying and a cop out I reckon, so I'll still give my thoughts. But it is important we keep this in mind, He is God, and sometimes (often?) His motivations are beyond that of us mere humans.
Anyway, there are a few things to say.
The first is the issue of suffering. Suffering is the result of our sin, both directly (you suffer becasue someone steals your car), and indirectly (we face natural disasters because this world is under a curse as a result of Adam's sin in the garden). Facing suffereing in this world, is a partial judgment on sin.
This begs the question, why doesn't God do somehting about it? Well, He has, He sent his son, Jesus Christ into the world to save us from our sins and redeem the world. When He returns, He will fix up the entire world, and there will be no more suffering, weeping, sickness, death, etc. The reason He didn't do it the first time, is becasue this will involve judging the ENTIRE world, and so he is holding off waiting for people to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9).
The short answer therefore to suffering, is that God is holding off his full judgment on the world, and in the meantime we are dealing with the partial judgment on sin.
Now, why do some suffer more than others? I really don't know. The one verse that comes to mind is
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Basically, God works through ALL things to conform His people to the likeness of His son Jesus Christ. This obviously includes suffering.
I think part of the reason some suffer more than others is to give people the opportunity to display love, and compassion and kindness in caring for and loving those people. The book of James says
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
In this respect it is similar to why some are more wealthy than others, so they have the opportunity to be generous to others.
Heaven is, when you boil it right down, either in or out. But I think the Bible also teaches that, somehow, we will be rewarded in Heaven accrding to what we do in this world.
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
And there are many other similar passages in the Bible.
So somehow, what we do in this life, we carry into eternity, and I think thsoe who have suffered for the name of Christ will inherit a much greater crown than those of us who have had it easy in the comfortable west, and grown fat, and soft and squishy, and have avoided any real persecution or suffering for the gospel.
Well, there you have my thoughts on the issue. I am looking forward to the replies.
I would want to say that definently that we can control our sexuality. That's why we don't go around sleeping with every person we meet.Now, as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned, there is a VERY big difference between experiencing same sex attraction and honestly and earnestly struggling and dealing with it, and a full fledged homosexual relationship(s).
Just becasue we have urges and desires, doesn't mean we need to act on them.
Hypothetically speaking, if God ruled that you had to be gay, could you?
Morty comes home to find his wife and his best friend Lou, naked together in bed. Just as Morty is about to open his mouth, Lou jumps out of bed and says, "Before you say anything, old pal, what are you going to believe: me or your eyes?"
Now, as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned, there is a VERY big difference between experiencing same sex attraction and honestly and earnestly struggling and dealing with it, and a full fledged homosexual relationship(s). Just becasue we have urges and desires, doesn't mean we need to act on them.
If this is correct, when does God realize that His methods aren't working? What I mean is, instead of being happy to "refrain from their natural instincts," those who refuse to "come out" often end up trailing broken marriages and miserable lives. For those who let on that they're struggling, typically in the U.S. (and especially in Africa), instead of compassion, they are greeted with persecution and hatred rather than support. Even more interesting, in the U.S., the most anti-gay sentiment (as in outright persecution, I mean) is centered in the areas with the most "Left Behind" sentiment, and the highest % of church attendance.
What I'm getting at is, if all of your assessments so far are posited as being correct, then God's gambit of sending Jesus to Earth has failed miserably as far as homosexuals are concerned: where gays are accepted (e.g., Canada, parts of Europe), they "come out" and live their lifestyle; where they're not, they're hated. Neither case fits your described solution at all. Granted, one could always claim that God is being inscrutible-- but as you pointed out, that's somewhat of a weak argument. The other alternative is that He's overdue for another push of the "reset" button, if you think that Noah's Flood was a literal event. But, really, a truly omniscient God should not require three tries, when in theory He knew all along how things were going to turn out.
I don't get why homosexuality is wrong? We've established that most of the bible's "commandments" (old and new) had a pratcical basis when they were instituted (don't eat meat and milk, 'cause that's what pagans do; don't eat pork, 'cause you'll get sick; don't steal, 'cause we need to share our resources; etc.) I can even see how homosexuality might be bad for small population trying to expand, but how can you say homosexuality is bad today? If God is all about love, how can he say one kind of love is better than another?
I don't get why homosexuality is wrong? We've established that most of the bible's "commandments" (old and new) had a pratcical basis when they were instituted (don't eat meat and milk, 'cause that's what pagans do; don't eat pork, 'cause you'll get sick; don't steal, 'cause we need to share our resources; etc.)
I don't think we have established that at all. The Laws God gave in the OT were given as expressions of His very character, and so that His people, Israel would stand out as demonstrably His by being different to the poeple around them. There is more, but the laws were not given for hygiene or health reasons. They may have that side effect, but that is not the reason they were given.
I can even see how homosexuality might be bad for small population trying to expand, but how can you say homosexuality is bad today? If God is all about love, how can he say one kind of love is better than another?
Well, here has to be some forms of "love" that are wrong, or paedephilia (sp?) or bestiality aren't wrong. So we are really debating who decide what is right and what is wrong. God made sex, God made relationships, so surely He is the one who decides what is right and what is wrong in those contexts. This is what it comes down to. God clearly says that homosexuality is wrong (Romans 1), so it is wrong.
God is about more than just love. Yes, He is love, but he is also righteous and just and holy and perfect and a whole lot of other attributes. One of the amazing things about God is that he manages to be both completely merciful and completely just at the same time.
To understad why homosexuality is wrong, we need to first understand sex. God made sex. He made it for 2 reasons. To unite two people together, and for procreation. When two people are in a sexual relationship, they are more tightly bound together. This is right and good as it is part of the basis of strong marriages.
Becasue of its role in binding people together, sex outside of marriage (heterosexual OR homosexual) is therefore wrong becasue it is binding you to someone who is not your spouse, or worse, will be someone else's spouse.
Homosexuality was just as rampant in the time of the NT, (or maybe even more so), than it is today. So if it was wrong then, it is still wrong today.
Now, as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned, there is a VERY big difference between experiencing same sex attraction and honestly and earnestly struggling and dealing with it, and a full fledged homosexual relationship(s). Just becasue we have urges and desires, doesn't mean we need to act on them.If this is correct, when does God realize that His methods aren't working? What I mean is, instead of being happy to "refrain from their natural instincts," those who refuse to "come out" often end up trailing broken marriages and miserable lives. For those who let on that they're struggling, typically in the U.S. (and especially in Africa), instead of compassion, they are greeted with persecution and hatred rather than support. Even more interesting, in the U.S., the most anti-gay sentiment (as in outright persecution, I mean) is centered in the areas with the most "Left Behind" sentiment, and the highest % of church attendance.
What I'm getting at is, if all of your assessments so far are posited as being correct, then God's gambit of sending Jesus to Earth has failed miserably as far as homosexuals are concerned: where gays are accepted (e.g., Canada, parts of Europe), they "come out" and live their lifestyle; where they're not, they're hated. Neither case fits your described solution at all. Granted, one could always claim that God is being inscrutible-- but as you pointed out, that's somewhat of a weak argument. The other alternative is that He's overdue for another push of the "reset" button, if you think that Noah's Flood was a literal event. But, really, a truly omniscient God should not require three tries, when in theory He knew all along how things were going to turn out.
I don' think that God has failed, so much as Christians have failed. And failed miserably. You won't get any argument from me about the fact that Christians have treated people who are gay absolutely atrociously (and it breaks my heart). But that doesn't mean God has failed.
His way is right. His way is just. His way is the right way to live. As Christians we need to get back to actually living what God says. At the moment it seems that most "Christians" attitude to homosexuality is not informed by the Bible and God's Character, but by there own conservative worldview and prejudices. We need to get Christians back to looking at what God actually says in the Bible. Back to letting the Bible shape and mold out thoughts and worldview instead of using our thoughts, worldview, and prejudices to shape how we read the Bible.
If we can get Christians actually reading their Bibles, and reading them properly, then we would see quite a different Chrisitianity. And this is slowly, at least here in Australia, in the circles I move in, starting to happen. I know I was teaching my youthgroup kids that heterosexual was just as bad as homosexual sin. And I think my genreation (30 and under), at least here in Australia is getting better at this.
Moses trudges down from Mount Sinai, tablets in hand, and announces to the assembled multitudes: "I've got good news and I've got bad news. the good news is I got Him to pare 'em down to ten. The bad news is 'adultery' is still in."
sadly today i saw a sticker on a car that sad believe and jesus Chirst and you will be saved, sorry it is random just thought ya people would want to know sorry
I don't think that God has failed, so much as Christians have failed.
I guess I'm not clear on why, if He knows in advance they'll approach it totally the wrong way, He didn't make it clearer what they're supposed to do. That almost makes it sound like He intended it as a learning experience, which makes no sense at all in the context of us all being doomed except for Christ's intervention--in that context, we're not here to learn, but to repent and submit. Our learning of things is meaningless, so why present a lesson? Or, if it's not a lesson, but a command, why not clarify it so that at least a noticeable majority of your followers can figure it out?
Well, here has to be some forms of "love" that are wrong, or paedephilia (sp?) or bestiality aren't wrong.
How did I know you were going to bring up pedophilia and bestiality? Love is wanting what's best for someone else; pedophilia and bestiality are about dominance. There is no comparing that sort of rapine behavior with intimacy between consenting adults.
Becasue of its role in binding people together, sex outside of marriage (heterosexual OR homosexual) is therefore wrong becasue it is binding you to someone who is not your spouse, or worse, will be someone else's spouse.
So what's wrong with monogamous homosexuals? (And before you say they can't reproduce: nobody disallows infertile heterosexuals from marrying.)
Love is wanting what's best for someone else; pedophilia and bestiality are about dominance. There is no comparing that sort of rapine behavior with intimacy between consenting adults.
That's a truly excellent point. I might also add that it's theoretically possible to draw the line anywhere. Frank Herbert said, "Between depriving a man of an hour of his life, and depriving him of his life, there is a difference only of degree." But we do not prosecute for murder if someone refuses to get their shopping cart out of your way. We DO persecute for murder. It's a matter of choice, and more importantly, of the degree of harm. Those abused as children have vastly higher rates of suicide and depression; those in monogamous homosexual relationships do not. Therefore we prosecute pedophelia in the U.S. and Europe, but not homosexuality. In many parts of Africa and the Middle East, they prosecute both.
So what's wrong with monogamous homosexuals? (And before you say they can't reproduce: nobody disallows infertile heterosexuals from marrying.)
These are, unfortunately, dissimilar arguments. The point above is clear logic, proceeding from basic Western law (post-Rome, anyway). But the ONLY argument against homosexual marriage is Biblically-based, so logic and precedence of law, unfortunately, do not apply there; only people's interpretations. I'll also point out the large number of Episcopalians in the U.S. who have no issue with homosexuality at all (slightly different interpretation of Scripture), whereas their African Anglican brethren, many of them raised in a culture (as noted above) where homosexuality is a legally punishable offense, often choose to interpret Scripture as strictly as possible when it comes to condemning homosexual behavior. In other words, it seems to be a matter of culture and prejudice, far more than of Scriptural accuracy.
|
|
Oh, how I really hate this subject...
Hill Giant brings up a really good question. I really didn't have an answer to. Here is what I can come up with for now about the whole homosexual issue...
Regardless of what other people say, the Bible is rather vague about what Hill Giant is talking about. Usually in the Old Testament, homosexuality is in reference to entire societies and is generally combined with things like rape and other acts that are generally considered "bad" by all groups. There are a few places in the New Testament, but it seems that often times the translation of key words is up for debate -- generally where some translations come up with "homosexual" or related, it could also mean things like "sex with boys (children)" or "male prostitution".
I am not an expert in translations, so I am only going off of what I can find out.
Here to me is the bottom line with all of this. Homosexuality is never seen in a good light in the Bible. I feel that God eventually intended things to be between a man and a woman -- sole partners -- and meant for them to procreate. Worst case -- homosexual behavior is a sin -- and as I have said before -- it is no better or worse that flipping someone off on the highway and should be viewed with the "why are you looking at the splinter in your brother's eye when you have a log in your own". I do not know if what Hill Giant was describing is truly a sin. I will let God figure that one out. If someone is gay and is truly seeking God and they feel that they should change, then they should change (and God will provide the means to do so). If they don't feel that they should change, then don't.