Is he wrong?

[reinaert]

Worthy of death and put to death (ie killing homosexuals) are completely separate things. Especially in this context where worthy of death is synonymous with not worthy eternal life

But that is a sectarian interpretation on your part, and only very contemporaneously so. There were whole epochs, esp during formal Christendom, where his was the normative exegesis. How are you right now? And what keeps he and his ilk from re-establishing the older, and more enduring interpretation?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Thank you.

But, would it be fair to assert that his implication that 'worthy unto/of death' allows for an exegesis that God works through human agency could become a larger or even dominant interpretation, again.

It is the worthy part you seem to be stuck on, which I get.

The issue comes down to if you believe the text is the word of God then the valuation of interpretation comes down to what was commanded. What is missing from Romans is an outright command for people to exercise God's wrath for him.

That said, if you stretch the interpretational value of that text you could infer action but that is not really the point of that text. If anything it is a warning about God's handling of the matter that can be harsh, not really man's.

 

[Daisy]

Can you expand on how his interpretation of 'worthy of death' is wrong?

That is Jehovah's decision to make, not man's...

 

[reinaert]

It is the worthy part you seem to be stuck on, which I get.

Not really stuck on it. Concerned that an archaic view is mainstreaming again. It's not like Rushdoony et al were reading it otherwise forty years ago.

The issue comes down to if you believe the text is the word of God then the valuation of interpretation comes down to what was commanded. What is missing from Romans is an outright command for people to exercise God's wrath for him.

That said, if you stretch the interpretational value of that text you could infer action but that is not really the point of that text. If anything it is a warning about God's handling of the matter that can be harsh, not really man's.

But, what if a community's framework - its superstructure - was that the whole of visible creation was subject to the viceregency of the episcopate, as is still, say, Rome's official doctrine?

 

[reinaert]

That is Jehovah's decision to make, not man's...

I read this as so much copping out.

 

[Daisy]

I read this as so much copping out.

Is it? Do you think it's also ok to burn witches at the stake?

 

[Crovax]

But that is a sectarian interpretation on your part, and only very contemporaneously so. There were whole epochs, esp during formal Christendom, where his was the normative exegesis. How are you right now? And what keeps he and his ilk from re-establishing the older, and more enduring interpretation?

It's not my interpretation, the whole chapter is about salvation through faith. The context of death here is clearly about what happens after you die not causing your death.

You also have to remember the chapter mentions all these sins that are "worthy of death"

envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Are you asking what is stopping a crazy person from trying to murder all the people who gossip?

 

[reinaert]

It's not my interpretation, the whole chapter is about salvation through faith. The context of death here is clearly about what happens after you die not causing your death.

You also have to remember the chapter mentions all these sins that are "worthy of death"

envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Are you asking what is stopping a crazy person from trying to murder all the people who gossip?

I am asking, in a roundabout way, why you think your recent sectarian interpretation will remain dominant.

 

[reinaert]

Is it? Do you think it's also ok to burn witches at the stake?

I am not a Christian. But, I am a minority who lives in a country plagued by explicitly political believers, an increasing number of whom have reverted to the arguments of Christendom. I am not reassured by assertions of 'that's not what God means' from people who cannot keep their own house in order, especially not as maximalists and reconstructionists and bibliomantic nationalists are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.

 

[Crovax]

I am asking, in a roundabout way, why you think your recent sectarian interpretation will remain dominant.

Other than the fact this has been the interpretation since Paul wrote the words?

 

[Daisy]

I am not a Christian. But, I am a minority who lives in a country plagued by explicitly political believers, an increasing number of whom have reverted to the arguments of Christendom. I am not reassured by assertions of 'that's not what God means' from people who cannot keep their own house in order, especially not as maximalists and reconstructionists and bibliomantic nationalists are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.

I am a Christian...no part of Christendom, btw...but, I am also a minority who lives by the Bible's guidance for a Christian's life...I do not partake in politics because I support God's kingdom rule, where at that time...

"He will render judgment among many peoples
And set matters straight respecting mighty nations far away.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning shears.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
Nor will they learn war anymore.
They will sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one will make them afraid,
For the mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken." Micah 4:3,4

 

[reinaert]

Other than the fact this has been the interpretation since Paul wrote the words?

A casually confident assertion, given the longstanding interpretation of the Church's temporal and moral authority, or the more local fact of the pastor in the OP who refutes you. Homosexuality was punishable by death for nearly the entirety of Christian dominion, with the imprimatur of the Vatican, and later, of Protestant and Reform authorities.

 

[AGENT J]

Is he wrong? If so, please show how.​

depends on what you mean

in the US yes he is wrong based on legality/laws and people's rights and thats really all that matters

for a bonus he is also wrong based on the moral compass of the majority of people in the us but again that's just a bonus

 

[reinaert]

depends on what you mean

in the US yes he is wrong based on legality/laws and people's rights and thats really all that matters

for a bonus he is also wrong based on the moral compass of the majority of people in the us but again that's just a bonus

But, is he absolutely wrong within Christian tradition?

 

[AGENT J]

But, is he absolutely wrong within Christian tradition?

well thats subjective

i personally know a lot of Christians IRL and none of them think like that or would agree with him (some are against gay though)
im a Christian myself and my church does gay marriage
only nutters

 

[reinaert]

well thats subjective

i personally know a lot of Christians IRL and none of them think like that or would agree with him (some are against gay though)
im a Christian myself and my church does gay marriage
only nutters

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's subjective, especially not given the rising fortunes and Trump-coup adjacency of the biblolators in the 'christian nationalist' movement, nor of the growing contingent of openly falangist American Catholics.

I am not at all reassured that the doom cycle will abate, just because some Christians honor same-sex unions.

 

[AGENT J]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that it's subjective,

but it infact is hence why you can have churches and what not that do gay marriages and even chrisitinas that think its a sin would never say the bible says to line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, thats just insane bigoted nonsens being said by a mad man

especially not given the rising fortunes and Trump-coup adjacency of the biblolators in the 'christian nationalist' movement, nor of the growing contingent of openly falangist American Catholics.

and that further proves its subjective though
trump nutters and Christian nationalists who are also nutters do not speak nor are the voice of fact for Christianity

I am not at all reassured that the doom cycle will abate, just because some Christians honor same-sex unions.

you dont have to be assured, you are free not to be
but the majority of Christians do not support lining up gays and shooting them in the back of the head

 

[reinaert]

but it infact is hence why you can have churches and what not that do gay marriages and even chrisitinas that think its a sin would never say the bible says to line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, thats just insane bigoted nonsens being said by a mad man

and that further proves its subjective though
trump nutters and Christian nationalists who are also nutters do not speak nor are the voice of fact for Christianity

you dont have to be assured, you are free not to be
but the majority of Christians do not support lining up gays and shooting them in the back of the head

The majority just don't matter if the minority swoops into power. It is here where I refer you to Duda, Orban and Erdoğan.

 

[AGENT J]

The majority just don't matter if the minority swoops into power. It is here where I refer you to Duda, Orban and Erdoğan.

the minority are not in power though and our constitution, rights, and laws dont allow them to be

 

[Crovax]

A casually confident assertion, given the longstanding interpretation of the Church's temporal and moral authority, or the more local fact of the pastor in the OP who refutes you. Homosexuality was punishable by death for nearly the entirety of Christian dominion, with the imprimatur of the Vatican, and later, of Protestant and Reform authorities.

And none of that had to do with Romans 1:32, there were plenty of other religions and secular people who also put homosexuals to death. Not to mention few of the other sins listed in Romans 1 were people put to death for or were even made crimes.

 

[reinaert]

And none of that had to do with Romans 1:32, there were plenty of other religions and secular people who also put homosexuals to death. Not to mention few of the other sins listed in Romans 1 were people put to death for or were even made crimes.

But, but the others is not a defense I'll accept for the crimes of Christendom. We are discussing a direct appeal to the very old traditions of Christendom. You cannot just handwave away the germaine.

 

[reinaert]

the minority are not in power though and our constitution, rights, and laws dont allow them to be

This isn't the world we actually live in, Agent.

 

[Crovax]

But, but the others is not a defense I'll accept fir the crimes of Christendom.

I'm not defending what was done, only pointing out that it has nothing to do with Romans 1:32

 

[AGENT J]

This isn't the world we actually live in, Agent.

???huh
uhm, unless you know where in the US gays are being legally charge and arrested for their sexual orientation, convicted of that said crime, sentenced to death and lined up and shot in the back of the head . . .

yes, what i pointed out is the world we live in

 

[reinaert]

I'm not defending what was done, only pointing out that it has nothing to do with Romans 1:32

That is not the position of many, many members of the church. So, how are you right?