To iampunha,
I may consider it an admonishment against scientific studies on children, especially the sorts cited in said warning. I finished undergrad work in 2001, hence the 01 (but I still don’t really understand your 03 comment).
I’m going to take a completely different tack here since this discussion seems to be primarily limited to Christians. I would completely agree that it is not our place to judge or condemn others based on their actions. I think Jesus ‘laid down the law’ during the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). He basically shows how we are all guilty when compared to the holiness of God. He says our hate makes us as culpable as our murder; our lust, as culpable as our adultery. The sermon on the mount presents an impossible ideal and that is exactly the point; we cannot do enough to work our way back into God’s good graces. Fortunately, Christianity says we don’t have to work our way back into God’s good graces, Jesus has done the hard part and offered it to us as a gift. All we have to do is accept. I wouldn’t say the early Christian church was a reaction against ultra-legalism so much as it showed how even ultra-legalism wasn’t enough to reconcile us with a holy God.
All that being said, the New Testament leaders often exhorted others to flee immorality (1 Corinthians as a whole comes to mind). This implies a standard of behavior was viewed as moral, but things get a little cloudy when you take into account 1 Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” I can only try to act in a way that is profitable to me without enslaving me and encourage my fellow Christians to do likewise. I only commented on the original post because I often rely on fellow Christians to point out my “motes.” I don’t think we should use “Judge not” to give people a pass.
Good point. Lucki, your post was a brilliant summary of a controverted question, and IMHO extremely well done. You may be feeling frustrated by nobody referencing it (as I have on some posts I’ve made in the past) but take that as the compliment it is – on a board where everything gets debated, nobody cares to disagree with your insightful summary. Good man!
Priam, I think Tertius’ heart is in the right place, and he probably guarilla bombed the OP because I didn’t supply a link to the original thread. Anyone who has one can thow it in is welcome.
Can you give me a cite for this? I always accepted this as well known fact, but this individual I was having a discussion with on another board says that Leviticus still applies. It’s been years since High School, so I’ve forgotten all the reasons.
Tertius was also Paul’s stenographer for the book of Romans (16:22). I wasn’t aware that it also meant third; though I suppose that makes perfect sense.
The entire book of Romans looks at your question ava, but if I had to pick a verse I’d use Romans 7:6, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” I think Paul goes on to explain that the Law’s purpose was to reveal the sin in our life. He continues in 1 Timothy 1:8-9a, “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious.”
ava my post above, Hebrews 8:8-13 also addresses this concept of the old laws dying away for the new covenant. The logic of that passage is really well laid out, ‘if there was no need for a new covenenant, there would not be one.’ It is addressing mainly the Hebrews who still obey Mosaic law even in their belief in Christ, which is a distrust of Christ. Also, I cited this passage because I think it’s important to diversify from the viewpoint of Paul, which many people have issues with. This, BTW is not Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, but a seperate work with an anonymous author, although many have been suggested.
I’m sorry for butting in here, because I’m not Christian, but it sort of seems to me that you can debate this question forever and not get anywhere. One group of Christians, with biblical support, says that homosexual sex isn’t allowed for Christians, and another group of Christians, with biblical support, says that homosexual sex is allowed for Christians, and you keep on yelling at each other. Wouldn’t this work better if it were an “agree to disagree” thing, with those people who think it’s bad allowed to be in the group that thinks it’s bad, and the people who think it’s not bad allowed to be in the group that thinks its ok, instead of everybody trying to take the moral highground?
Because one group is using a false justification for driving people away from Christianity, and denying them their rights. There really isn’t nearly enough support for an anti homosexual Christianity to justify it as a doctrine of your church. You certainly can’t use it as a justification of homosexuality as being immoral, and thereby throwing it out of the law entirely. It has to be hashed out over and over until this is worked out on a larger scale. It’s like a racist doctrine. You have to keep going over the word until it’s settled in each persons mind. Some people can remain ignorant, but we can limit their influence of others by hashing this out.
What? I’m quoting from Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
So, can you cite anywhere were Christ (not Paul or some other human) refutes this? If not, then your assertion is false.
Captain Amazing, it’s not merely the issue you identify but something that goes to the core of what “being a Christian” means. For some of us, it consists in following Christ and doing as He taught (even commanded) regarding compassionate and respectful treatment of others; for others, it consists in “finding the Lord” and then living according to what they read in the Bible (and often, in attempting to force others to do likewise). Quite frankly, we on the first side see the “Bible-believing Christians” of having turned that book into a leatherbound god which will provide them with all the answers (or having come close to doing so) and their “Bible-based” stance on issues like the treatment of homosexuals as going flat against the command of Christ. And we’re called to follow Him – not somebody’s opinion of what the Bible says. And to do unto others as they we would have them do unto us. If somebody were condemning childless Episcopalians, CJ, Barb and I would hope that people like gobear and Mr Visible would come to our aid – and so it’s incumbent on us to stand by them. It’s the direct orders of the Man we call Lord that we should treat them as we’d want to be treated, and to love them as our neighbors, our brothers and sisters. Dr Chuckie can rave all he wants about “declining morality” – by Jesus’s standards, he’s the one committing a moral offense.
There’s also a public policy question – if they are trying to legislate what they think God wants everyone to do, that’s grounds enough for fighting it. There’s no room for compromise where one side is determined to force its way on another.
Matthew 15:11 Jesus speaking on the dietary portion of the Law "What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ "
