You dont seem to understand: Jesus's words were recorded by 'men.' Common ordinary men and not for a moment do I believe that Jesus or God would demand such as I wrote.
In my real life, I avoid ignorance and hate whenever possible and that was not taught in the United Methodist Church that I grew up in either, nor was it taught by my Sunday-school-teaching father. Jesus preached love and forgiveness... no matter what homophobic followers of the past wrote....
Wantoness in Jesus's day was frowned upon for many reasons, mostly ones that had a basis in social stability. Kids born out of wedlock and women who were single and had kids were mostly unprotected. Because of this sex out of wedlock was seen as harmful to society. As was the spread of disease thru multiple partners. Men having sex was an extension of this and in the traditions of the time, they had no option to legitimize their relationship. I doubt Jesus examined it beyond that and didnt know it was not a choice.
Dissect it all you want....I'm not going to change my mind and you can keep your depressing, repressive beliefs yourself, they are all yours.
I did say that the Catholic Church still does not marry adulterers.
But all of them marry fornicators.
That doesn't mean the church approves of fornication.
.
So only extremists believe that gays should be able to marry?
And those that fight for equality in America are aggressors (well, maybe. Fighting for equality is noble IMO)?
Exactly and that's pretty much my point. It seems that some religions and churches and religious organizations decided to pick homosexuality to actually condemn and not entitle *those* sinners to marriage, but turn a blind eye to the others....or just give them lip service but not actually campaign to and/or forbid them.
Exactly and that's pretty much my point. It seems that some religions and churches and religious organizations decided to pick homosexuality to actually condemn and not entitle *those* sinners to marriage, but turn a blind eye to the others....or just give them lip service but not actually campaign to and/or forbid them.
You either didn't read what I wrote, or chose to ignore all but the part you replied to.
As I said, there is a difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone in an ongoing state of sin who expresses no intent to alter that.
The first case is practically the very essence of Christianity... ALL Christians are repentant sinners. To repent means to have a change of heart and mind, a realization of sinfulness, and typically means the repentant person will endeavor to avoid their sin henceforward.
A couple seeking SSM in a church that believes homosexual activity is Biblically a sin, is outright saying they will continue in sin and is furthermore asking the church to conduct a Christian wedding for, and thus put the church's blessings upon, a union the church believes is sinful and a state of being of the couple the church believes is an ongoing state of sin.
Nor is this strictly limited to SSM. I know of many churches that, if they are AWARE that the prospective couple is a product of adultery (ie Mr left his wife for Miz New Bride) will not conduct a wedding for them in church. Those churches that have a strict interpretation of Biblical scriptures about marriage and divorce would hold that the couple began in adultery and continues in adultery, and that the church cannot bless such a union because the union itself is sinful!
Now if the disappointed adulterous couple shops around, yeah they will find a theologically-liberal church somewhere that will marry them in the sanctum... but such a church is typically not going to be one that takes the Bible too seriously. Theologically fluffy, some of us call them.
Are you getting why there is a difference at all now? I've tried several different ways to explain it. Seems obvious enough to me:
Couple1 acknowledges their sin, repents and vows to do right from now on = ok it's good.
Couple2 refuses to admit sin and vows to continue sinning, just wants church's blessing on their sin = not ok.
You are either skipping or missing his point about the intention to continue in sin. If the married couple intends to (for example) immediately enter the Swinger Culture, and the Church is aware of that, then no, the Church should not marry them. It's not about "punishing sinners" by not letting them access marriage in a Church, it's about not teaching or blessing sinful unions.
No, as I wrote in my response to you....Jesus would no longer consider that a sin, if he even did then (since his Words were intepreted by others).
No, as I wrote in my response to you....Jesus would no longer consider that a sin, if he even did then (since his Words were intepreted by others).
That's a theologically liberal position, one which requires a much looser view of scripture and interpretation.
Theologically conservative churches tend to take scripture in a relatively literal manner until there is compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.
These two viewpoints are going to be incompatible. You're basically saying "ignore what the bible says' and the theologically-conservative reply is an astonished 'Um, we can't do that. The bible is the core of our beliefs."
There's not going to be a meeting of the minds here.
However I would at least HOPE there could be a measure of mutual respect, as in agreeing to disagree and acknowledging that the other is sincere in their belief and not merely BSing.
Yes? No?
His words have absolutely been interpreted by others, but the words of his in the Gospels were merely written down by others. Jesus, having been around since before Creation, is rather immune to changing Western social sensibilities.
And while He is not recorded as addressing homosexuality in his own words, He did define marriage as between man and woman. Also there's NT verses by the Apostles, which are widely believed to address homosexual activity as a sin.
Nope. The most grievous sin of Christianity (to the extent that there is one) is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
True enough. For those who worry about scriptural timelines, it's worth noting here that the oldest texts (coming from about 15-30 years after the death of Christ) in the New Testament are actually not the Gospels, but the Epistles of Paul.
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
So, yeah, I qualify.
Ah, no. Atheism, as near as I can see =/= Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
According to Merriam - Webster dictionary the word "blasphemy" means "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; the act of claiming the attributes of deity; irreverence toward something considered sacred."
Pretty sure Jesus didn't reference Merriam when He said that - I'm not aware of anyone who has authoritatively been able to lay out for sure exactly what it means.
Mind you, I've never researched it. But Atheism? nah. Heck, there are lots of Christians who don't even think that exists.
No, because then catering the event does not cause me to enable/participate/celebrate/take-part-in/whathaveyou the actual sinful activity going on. It's not a matter of "don't be around sinful people".
Pythagoras imposed a strict rule of silence on his disciples; the Vestal virgins also were bound to severe silence for long years.
Religious orders such as the Benedictines have insisted on this as one of the essential rules of their institutes.
In monasteries of many orders there are specific places and times (usually at night) where speaking was more strictly prohibited. These places were termed "Regular Places" (church, refectory, dormitory etc.) and while the times were termed the "Great Silence". Outside of these places and times were accorded "recreations" allowing some conversation moderated by charity and moderation. Useless and idle words were universally forbidden. In active orders the members speak according to the needs of their various duties.
The Cistercian Order alone that admitted no relaxation from the strict rule of silence,[dubious – discuss] and the Reformed Cistercians maintain its severity (Trappists) though other contemplative Orders (Carthusians, Carmelites, Camaldolese etc.) are much more strict on this point than those engaged in active works. [citation needed] In order to avoid speaking, many orders (Cistercians, Dominicans, Discalced Carmelites etc.) have a certain number of signs, by means of which the religious may have a limited communication with each other for the necessities that are unavoidable.[citation needed]
In the Indian religions religious silence is called Mauna and the name for a sage muni (see, for example Sakyamuni) literally means 'silent one'.
If you cater to an event where you know people are engaging in sinful activity but you do not yourself engage in that activity, you are no more enabling the sinful activity than if you cater to the event and don't engage in the activity if they are celebrating it. If the sinful activity is of concern to you, you are in both cases feeding people in which you know are engaging in sinful activity. If you think you are enabling sinful activity by feeding a group of people who are celebrating or encouraging homosexual activity, then you are also enabling sinful activity if you feed people who are engaged in homosexual activity if they are at an event which is not celebrating or encouraging it. The same can be said of lying. If you feel you are enabling lying by feeding liars at an event which encourages lying, you are also enabling it by feeding them at an event at which they know they will be lying.
The point is this, you want to say its the activity because of its sinful nature, but really that is not the issue. Because if that was the case, there would be many things that one would have to stop engaging in. In fact, there are people who realizing the all encompassing nature of deceit who take a vow of silence and don't say anything at all. The real issue in this regard is that people have an aversion to one type of sinful activity, but they don't share that aversion when it comes to something that they themselves are victimized by. And that is not a sign of transcendence of mundane affairs, but is merely another manifestation of the arrogance that accompanies mundane activity. Therefore people who support this type of law or not doing so out of their love of righteousness, rather they are doing so as a result of the arrogance that is a symptom of their entanglement in mundane things.
Yessir, that's one way of looking at it. Thing is, not everyone sees it that way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?