Joe Cool
The Pharisees in Christ’s time also believed they knew what was sinful and what was not, based on scripture. They chastised Him for picking and eating grain on the Sabbath, among other things because they believed doing so violated the commandment which says “keep holy the Sabbath day.” They were quite sure they knew “God’s opinion” on that and many other matters. Christ differed.
I’ve done my best through prayer, reading, and study to follow Christ’s teachings and obey God’s laws, but I’m human. I make mistakes, and I could be wrong. I’m assuming, until I see evidence otherwise, that the same applies to you. You apparently believe homosexuality is inherently sinful. I don’t. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to accept the consquences.
So I guess the ten commandments got a little long-winded for you, eh?
SisterCoyote at first glance it makes sense, but the loophole is the “self” part. What about to the thousands who don’t think as you do? Self interest could be threatening/injuring people into submission! But enough on relativism…
This sounds suprisingly socialistic. See thread titled: Why communism didn’t work.
You make an interesting point. If God said there was nothing wrong with rape and murder, then as K2rage101 asked, what would be your source for saying that I shouldn’t do it? Because if there is no absolute moral authority, there’s no reason why anybody shouldn’t do anything that pleases them at that moment.
But I agree with you – I believe that there is absolute morality. And that it comes from God. If it were not so, then force would decide all moral questions. After all, society’s morals come from popular opinion. Popular opinion can be enforced only through the use or implied use of force. And then at its root, it all comes down to who has the louder voice – and even more basic, who can wield the most force.
And in an encounter on the street between a horny male rapist and a woman, it’s likely the man can wield more force.
I missed this before.
It all depends on who you define as “Christianity”. You make it sound as if there’s a board of directors at Christianity, Inc. that gets to decide these things.
If you mean the Catholic Church, then I’m sure it will happen soon. But I don’t know that any group of people won’t change their minds, but I do know that the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is very clear and unambiguous. There is no interpreting around something that says in no uncertain terms, “Don’t do this.” Although I’m finished being surprised at the human ability to rationalize.
Polycarp, what you continually ignore (I was at first tempted to say ‘miss’ instead of ‘ignore’, but you seem far too well-read and your ideas seem too considered to have missed something so basic) is that Jesus wasn’t a teddy bear. He didn’t just walk around saying “all of you are ok. I’m ok, you’re ok, we’re all ok. Everybody be happy!” Some things he did say, however, are:
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. (John 5:14 KJV)
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mat 9:13 KJV - also Mark 2:17, Luke 5:32)
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47 KJV)
Here’s one people here are very fond of quoting, but for some reason, they all stop before the pivotal part:
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11 KJV)
Seems that Jesus, along with offering mercy, demanded obedience and repentance. Like I said earlier, you can’t pretend he was just this hippie, walking around loving everybody. He did, after all, chase the money changers out of the temple with a whip.
It’s very misleading to go around telling everybody that we’re all ok, and that God will accept us all just the way we are. All of us are sinners, even the nice ones. And no matter how good a person might think you are, Isaiah said “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6 KJV)”
Well, to be more precise, your doctrine comes from the way you interpret what you read in the bible. To take the example you gave earlier of homosexuality, there are people who read the bible and don’t find the prohibition against homosexual sex in Leviticus to be unambiguous. You do, but that’s because you make certain assumptions that you probably don’t entirely realize you’re making. (and I’m not saying these assumptions are incorrect) You assume that
The bible is G-d’s word, and teaches us how to live.
The prohibition against homosexual sex is a divine commandment, and doesn’t come from the societal biases or ignorance of the time.
What the ancient Hebrews understood and what Leviticus bans under “A man lying with a man as he would a woman” is the same thing as what we understand as homosexual sex today.
That it’s called an “abomination” means it’s sinful.
That that prohibition is one of the laws of Leviticus still applicable to modern Christians.
The fact is, you do interpret the bible. That’s not an insult…there’s nothing wrong with interpreting it…it’s a series of books written between 2-3000 years ago, in a langiuage different than your own. In that situation, interpretation is inevitable, as you ask “What does G-d want of me, and how does the bible tell me how to live?”
Where I think you’re incorrect is in assuming other groups, like the Roman Catholic Church or Polycarp and those who think like him, to mention two groups you brought up, disagree with you because they they are ignoring, or not paying attention to what the bible says. It seems like what’s actually happening is that they’re interpreting the bible differently than you are, and putting emphasis on different passages than you do. I don’t think it’s fair for you, honestly, to suggest that only those people who agree with you doctrinally are Christian, which, in my reading, you seem to have done. Christianity has existed for about 2000 years now, and spawn numerous variations in doctrine and beliefs, all under the overarching framework of “Christian”. It seems to me a very sterile and dogmatic Christianity that excludes that variety of beliefs from membership in the Christian fellowship…
Nah, the human ability to rationalize will never cease to astonish me. Heck, people can talk themselves into believing that discrimination is a defensible moral position.
On the rest of that quote, please see my post above this one, the one that starts out: “Okay. So, who else qualifies as being a Christian?” I’m very curious to see what you might say.
If you sublimate the common instinct that tells you that harming others is immoral to what someone says God says is moral, you are setting yourself up for a fall.
It’s not complicated, people. There is an absolute moral authority, it’s called common fucking sense. Hurting others is wrong, not hurting others is not wrong. How is that too complicated for some people to understand?
My language in that last post was a little intemperate, but the statement stands. The ones doing mental gymnastics are those defending one of many interpretations of the bible against common sense and logic.
My language in that last post was a little intemperate, but the statement stands. The ones doing mental gymnastics are those defending one of many interpretations of the bible against common sense and logic.
How does one tell the story of the Lord standing before the self-righteous accusers, and their shamed retreat, one by one, and His forgiveness of the woman, and miss the point so badly?
He did not say, “Go and tell others to sin no more.”
Who do you want to be, in this story, the sinner, or those who were preparing to stone the sinner in God’s name?
You are an expert on your sins, and you must take them to the Lord, thy God, and prostrate yourself before Him, and know in your great fear, and your trembling joy, that He will judge you, with love, and with forgiveness, and with greater joy. You have no authority over the sins of others. You do have an obligation toward those who sin against you. You are bidden to forgive them.
If you fear for the souls of your brothers, who practice things you feel are sinful, you should pray for them, and for your own heart to have in it the kindness to forgive them. Do it at home, and in the dark, without public outcry. That is your duty as a Christian. I didn’t read the part where we were supposed to go cry out in the temples and market places against the sins of others.
The Lord did make judgments of others. That’s His authority, and He knows them entire, in their minds, and hearts, and with utter understanding. Their spirits are in His care, not ours.
I also think that believing that you do not interpret the meaning of scripture is an unreasoned pretense. Every thing you hear, or read has to be processed by your mind. That is interpretation.
We must speak with great caution, brothers, when we call ourselves Christians, and make public judgments. Many will judge Christ Himself by our words. We are not worthy of that, but He is worthy of our most meticulous care, lest those who do not know Him see our pettiness as His. As you have judged, so by that same measure are you to be judged. I am not so great in heart that I forgive every soul, to my lasting sorrow. But I am not fool enough to pronounce damnation for the souls of thousands by my own words. That is a standard I fear, with good cause.
Tris
“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage.” ~ Lao-Tzu ~
You know, Tris, I don’t recall telling anyone to do or not do anything. I didn’t make any public judgements. A question was posed about Christian beliefs, and I answered, based on my personal beliefs, then defended my beliefs from the proceeding attack.
I did not condemn anybody (as if I had that authority anyway) - I simply stated why I believe as I do, and backed it up with the authority on which I base those beliefs.
So why are you taking me to task for judging people? The only thing I said outside of normal discussion that is even remotely similar to a judgement was to point out to polycarp my belief that he is misrepresenting the faith that he professes. This correction both you and I should have taken up privately. That was my error. But making judgements?
There was no attack to defend your beliefs from. Who (aside from Kirkland1244 who was being an ass) has attacked you or your belief system?
You really do seem to have an empathy problem. You make fun of gay posters for talking about being harassed, compare us to terrorists and then claim to be the one under attack.
—First of all, it was the prophet Ezekiel. Hardly an unfaithful servant, eh? Second, he wasn’t told to eat ‘poop’, he was told to make barley cakes and bake it over a fire built with ‘poop’.—
You are telling me that I have not read this passage enough? Ezekiel HAD been naughty. And the kicker is not the poop eating, it’s the fact that god had to be reminded of his own dietary laws.
—But I agree with you – I believe that there is absolute morality. And that it comes from God.—
Ah, so, opinions cannot determine what i and is not moral. Instead… God’s… opinion… determines what is and is not moral. Check!
Except… the very concept of “determine” is incoherent when applied to “aboslute” morality. Its a contradiction in terms.
—If it were not so, then force would decide all moral questions.—
But that seems to be EXACTLY what you believe is going on with God: God is going to use force to enact his will. Anyone who doesn’t agree is screwed. This is not MORAL argument in ANY sense.
The entire concept of “moral authority” is gibberish. Appeals to authority are on the basis of authorities having KNOWLEDGE about a given subject, not command over what is and is not true. But a truly absolute morality CANNOT have a command authority over it without self-contradiction. Were “good” simply subject to god’s whim, it would be nonsense to call god “good.” The very term would become devoid of meaning.
—I guess everything would be happy if they had just had the sense to let you put it[the Bible] together, huh?—
No. People can write whatever they feel like. I just am saddened that anyone would think that they can grasp all the great truths just from reading a single compilation.
—If God said there was nothing wrong with rape and murder, then as K2rage101 asked, what would be your source for saying that I shouldn’t do it? Because if there is no absolute moral authority, there’s no reason why anybody shouldn’t do anything that pleases them at that moment.—
You’ve completely dodged the question: if god said to rape and murder, what other authority COULD you look to in your proported system? (of course, god DOES tell people to rape and murder in the Bible, but that’s beside the point I guess)
So having an affair is OK as long as my wife doesn’t find out? After all, it didn’t hurt me or my neighbor. Actually, we kind of enjoyed it!
Lieing so you don’t get hurt/in trouble is dishonest, but it doesn’t hurt anyone.
Greed and avarice leading to the amassing of wealth doesn’t hurt anyone (the very FACT that I have money hurts no one) but then again, it “hurts” my wealth to share some of that with the poor, doesn’t it?
It’s not that this is too complicated for some people to understand. It’s more that it’s full of holes, or rather ludicrous to adopt as an end-all, say-all moral foundation.
So, I’m still waiting. Any chance you might address the issue of the multitudes of biblical interpretations out there? Why, if the word of God is so clear, do so many religions differ on what it means? Which of these interpretations is correct? Why?
If you have an affair you are harming your wife, betrayal of trust is harmful whether you get cought or not. Lying to keep out of trouble assumes you did something to get in trouble for in the first place. If you don’t hurt anyone to amass your wealth why would there be a problem with being wealthy, the words “greed” and “avarice” would seem to imply that your wealth was at others expense.
How is my moral system any worse than accepting someone else’s word on what an interpretation of the bible means.
I, and millions of other non-Christians, somehow manage not to be rapists and murderers without believing in your little book.
Conversely there are many Christians who have sublimated their innate sense of morality to what some backwards ass pastor tells them and they wind up bombing abortion clinics, beating homosexuals, fire-bombing synagogues…
How would I know why they all have different stances? Perhaps you should ask them instead of me.
Now, a disclaimer is appropriate: I am not making comments on the beliefs of individual members of the above sects, only on what I know of the official teachings of those sects.
No, I don’t consider Mormons to be a Christian church. The reason is that they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. They believe him to be a created being, of equal stature as Satan. (and the church of latter day saints IS the mormon church)
I don?t know what distinguishes Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Lutherans from each other (I know only that they are protestant), so I can’t comment on them.
The Roman Catholic Church (and this is where I smell a trap – I suspect that the reason you asked this question might be so that you could watch me get dog-piled when I say what I’m about to), while it has as members a large number of sincere Christians, is a Christian Religion in name only.
[ul][li]Its “head of state” calls himself the “Vicar of Christ”, which means “another christ” - thereby putting himself in the place that should be occupied only by Jesus himself.[/li][li]It teaches idolatry (bowing and praying to statuary and saints). [/li][li]It teaches goddess worship (praying to Mary, and naming her “Co-Redemptrix with Christ”). [/li][li]It denies the Once-For-All completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, replacing it with the idea of the “Mass,” wherein they believe that the bread and wine miraculously become Christ himself, so that he is sacrificed CONTINUALLY. Apparently killing him once wasn’t good enough.[/li][li]It denies that salvation is by grace through faith, replacing it with the idea of salvation through the church and its sacraments.[/li]
[li]The catholic church has slaughtered more christians than Rome ever did, and all in the name of “mother church”.[/li][li]The church has usurped God’s authority, making the claim that it alone can dictate salvation and damnation, and that a person can be relegated to hell by the priest’s or pope’s dictate, and that through “indulgences,” you can bribe or purchase someone’s way into heaven, even after their death. The church historically has used the practice of offering indulgences (“get out of hell free” cards, and freedom to sin without consequence for the next X days) in trade for political favors, and the threat of excommunication (after all, you can’t get to heaven without the church!) in order to force others to bend to its will, including deposition and assassination of a monarch (cite[/li][li]The idea of “apostolic succession” is a joke. Unless apostolic succession can be passed down through murder, subterfuge, bribery, and armies marching against each other - all of which have been common methods of choosing the new pope. To be honest, this doesn?t strictly demonstrate my point except in showing that the RCC continues to be deceitful in clinging to the idea that the papacy has passed down in some sort of godly fashion.[/li][/ul]
While they say that Christians are welcome to join their church, Unitarian Universalists don’t even claim to be a Christian religion, so I see no reason why I should consider them so.
Wow, look. Utter ignorance from a fundie, whouda thunk it?
And the bigot shows his true, horrid, Ku Klux Klan-like colors.
[quote]
[li]Its “head of state” calls himself the “Vicar of Christ”, which means “another christ” - thereby putting himself in the place that should be occupied only by Jesus himself.[/li][/quote]
Of course, the term “Christian” means “a little Christ,” which could infer the same damn thing, but hey, the godforsaken Katolics must be wrong, no matter how stupid the person attacking them…
[quote]
[li]It teaches idolatry (bowing and praying to statuary and saints). [/li][/quote]
It would be idolatry only if Catholics worshipped the Saints as gods, which they/we do not.
[quote]
[li]It teaches goddess worship (praying to Mary, and naming her “Co-Redemptrix with Christ”). [/li][/quote]
Bullshit. The Church has never formally named Mary “Co-Redemptrix with Christ,” you arrogant liar.
[quote]
[li]It denies the Once-For-All completeness of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, replacing it with the idea of the “Mass,” wherein they believe that the bread and wine miraculously become Christ himself, so that he is sacrificed CONTINUALLY. Apparently killing him once wasn’t good enough.[/li][/quote]
Oh goodie, standard fundie lie #1278.5.
The Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, it is a timeless re-presentation of the one and only sacrifice on Golgatha. Jesus died once, and only once. If you knew thing one about Catholicism, you wouldn’t make stupid statements like this. But clearly your knowledge of Catholicism comes from the sorta garbage “sources” commonly frequented by fundie pseudo-Christian bigots.
[quote]
[li]It denies that salvation is by grace through faith, replacing it with the idea of salvation through the church and its sacraments.[/li][/quote]
And agina, more bullshit. Read the Church’s documents on salvation. I recommend you start with Dominus Iesus (Lord Jesus).
The church stresses Salvation by Grace. Now, we don’t fall for Martin Luther’s “faith alone” lie, but do not spread the utter fallacy that the Church does not teach salvation by grace.
[quote]
[li]The catholic church has slaughtered more christians than Rome ever did, and all in the name of “mother church”.[/li][/quote]
More than whom? And you know, you prots have blood on your hands, too. And lets not forget your recent fundie ancestors, who lynched blacks and Jews, and Catholics in the name of “White Christian Morality,” and even today are prone to attack innocent gays, Christian or otherwise.
And even today you Fundies are still working hard to deny groups you hate equal protection and recognition under the law.
[quote]
[li]The church has usurped God’s authority, making the claim that it alone can dictate salvation and damnation, and that a person can be relegated to hell by the priest’s or pope’s dictate, [/li][/quote]
That is simply not true. Common fundamentalist anti-Catholic lie. Which seems to be your trade in life. How utterly pathetic.
That is not what an indulgence is. not even close. Indulgences have nothing to do with damnation or slavation. They are not 'get out of hell free" cards. They do not alleviate the need to confess ones sins nor do they alleviate the risk of Hell for those who earn them.
And the Church does not sell indulgences, the sale of indulgences was a major ecclessial error in the Middle Ages, and was shot down and put to a end during the Counter-Reformation.
Why don’t you go to a Catholic website, and actually learn what you’re talking about before you spread your fundamentalist lies.
No, the idea of “once saved always saved” is a joke. The mythical rapture, where the sky pixie grabs his gang just in time and helps sell a lot of crappy “Left Behind” books is a joke. The common fundamentalist worship of the King Jimbo Bible is a pathetic joke.
Apostolic Succession, on the other hand, is one of the foundations of the true Christian religion, and always has been.
Apostolic succession has to do with the laying on of hands to consecrate bishops. It does not have anything to do with the selection method of the next pope.
The pope’s authority comes from the chair he holds, and the fact that he was consecrated a bishop by the laying on of hands in a line going back to the apostles themselves, it has nothing to do with how he is selected pope.
What a piece of work you are, spreading lies seems to be your only point in life. You attack Christainity when you attack Catholicism, you hate and spit on gays. You are a perfect example of all that is evil about fundamentalism, a cancer on the body of Christ, and the body politic.
Luckily time is a great version of chemotherapy, and people liek you and the lies you puish will burn away. Already the tide has trurned, your lies and misrepresentation no longer hold sway with the youths of our land, and your fringe cult has never been the dominant force in Christaintiy.
