Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Frank Apisa wrote:

So will I. And that is what we are getting -- hypocrisy instead of killing.

That is all I pointed out, right?

Yeah, if possible, I don't point out the inconsistencies whenever they refer to areas of actual progress. Small quibble.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

So will I. And that is what we are getting -- hypocrisy instead of killing.

That is all I pointed out, right?

Yeah, if possible, I don't point out the inconsistencies whenever they refer to areas of actual progress. Small quibble.

Well, Craven, maybe you ought to.

Never know where it might lead.

In this instance, for instance, it might lead to people doing the killing -- but more likely, it will lead to them questioning the rest of the passage -- and in turn, the rest of scripture.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Then, Frank, how do you resolve what the OT says to do with adulteresses, and what Jesus later taught?

Well, Sofia, the easiest way for me to explain it would be to call attention to the fact that the Bible is a sea of contradictions -- and this is just one wave.

It might be that Jesus was a hypocrite -- saying one thing and doing another.

It might be that Jesus never said he was not here to change things -- or he may have said it because he feared for his life -- or the story of him saving the adultress may be a fable.

Fact of the matter is, though, there is really no need for me to effort to find an explanation -- because the people who see the Bible as the word of God -- inerrent -- and all that, really should be the ones explaining what seems to be a significant contradiction.

You got any ideas?

0 Replies

Yes. I have an idea.
Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
To me, it means that adultery is still a baddie, but we are to police ourselves--not everyone else. I take it to mean Jesus' life and death was about turning our eyes onto Him, and off everyone else around us.

The Law is still there, but the Judge of the law is no longer the mob.

0 Replies

That's a pretty good take, Sofia ... one pretty well accepted by a lot of contempory Christian Theorists and legitimate academic theologians. Now, lemme ask this ... have you explored the history of The Bible ... how the collection of writings so designated came to be in the form we recognize today? The myths and precepts shared with or borrowed from pre-dating and/or contemporaneous cultures is thought-provoking to say the least. The destruction of The First Temple and The Babylonian Captivity were major developments in the structure of the work. There exist canonical writings that are excluded from The Bible ... and some of questionable derivation that are included. In fact, what The Christian Community accepts as The Bible, Old Testament and New, was codified some centuries following the time ascribed to The Life of Christ, while the original Jewish Bible was subject to revision right through the beginning of The Christian Era. There are today in fact sects both Christian and Jewish which endorse differing Bibles from those accepted by their more orthodox bretheren. Which of these differing Bibles is The Bible, and why, and who says so? Perhaps The Bible contains The Word of God, if indeed such exists, but it clearly, IMHO, is a work of Man, as revealed by its inconsistencies and contradictions, and by its bibliography. I have no quarrel with FAITH, honestly and earnestly derived, but Religion, to me, is nothing but bureacracy ... and while it is one thing, and reasonable, to STUDY The Bible academically, critically, and in context, it is but Religion, and a rejection of Reason, to embrace it unquestioningly.

0 Replies

I have done some independant studies of histories that coincide with Biblical history. Am aware of the additional books Catholics, Mormans, et al have and that there were some left out by King James... Also, I'm assured there is a whole lot more I don't know.

I am satisfied with the book I call the Bible.

I thought seriously, several years ago, about spending time visiting a Catholic Church---Orthodox--others. Just to get their information--their take, so to speak.

Ultimately, I decided I was content following the teachings of Christ as I have them.

0 Replies

Hey, that's cool, Sofia ... If it works for you it works for you and that's good enough. What gets me riled up is the idea that "If it works for me, its gotta work for everybody". As I said, there's a huge difference between FAITH and RELIGION. Far too many folks fail to see the difference, or to realize the two are not necessarilly interdependent. I don't attack or dismiss your stance, and in fact likely share in more of it than you may realize. On the other hand, I really consider the construct known as The Bible in the same light as just about any other canonical, liturgical, or theological literature; it is one among many, from throughout the globe and across recorded time, In common with the myriad others, it has both historical and ethico-moral significance, along with inconsistencies and contradictions.

0 Replies

I agree with much of what you say. Truthfully, until very recently, I was about as anti-religion as a Christian can be.

Now, I try to tolerate them. :wink:

Religion has really mucked up Christianity almost beyond recognition. IMHO.

0 Replies

Too much dogma for my blood. c.i.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Yes. I have an idea.
Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
To me, it means that adultery is still a baddie, but we are to police ourselves--not everyone else. I take it to mean Jesus' life and death was about turning our eyes onto Him, and off everyone else around us.

The Law is still there, but the Judge of the law is no longer the mob.

Good response, Sofia. What you say makes sense. And for the sake of a bit more discussion, let's accept it as correct.

Back, if I may, to the original set of questions I asked:

After asking if Christians should be killing people who engage in homosexual acts, I asked:

Quote:

Should Christians, at very least, be lobbying for laws making homosexual conduct a capital offense?

If you are correct that the mob is not in charge, then Caesar certainly is -- or in our case, the government. The god of the Bible -- which is to say, your god, tells you quite plainly that people who engage in homosexual conduct are deserving of death -- and the god ordains that punishment.

So, should Christians, at very least, be lobbying for laws making homosexual conduct a capital offense?

And, since some Christians might not agree with what we have agreed here, Sofia, about who should implement the dictates of the god of the Bible, my next question also should be answered:

Quote:

If a Christian kills a homosexual -- should other Christians look down on the killer-- or should they hold him in high esteem for his devotion to the dictates of his God?

And even if we agree to your proposition, as we have for the sake of this discussion, shouldn't my last question be dealt with?

Quote:

As for Christians who expressing sympathy, empathy, understanding, or tolerance for homosexuals and homosexual conduct -- in other words, Christians who defy the expressed orders of their God -- should they be ostracized or otherwise soundly condemned by their fellow Christians?

0 Replies

Just getting back to the heart of the original post, there are some who don't believe that Christianity and Homosexuality are necessarily at odds with each other:

http://www.jesusmcc.org/

We even have a church here in Toronto, in the heart of the gay village.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

should they be ostracized or otherwise soundly condemned by their fellow Christians?

Well there is that thing about "Suffer not the sinner to live amongst you" ... but then, Religionists (as opposed to sincere People of Faith - a far rarer breed) are nothing if not hypocritical; the rules they like are the rules they follow.

0 Replies

Exactly, Timber!

0 Replies

My post should have read: "there are some, including myself, who don't believe that Christianity and Homosexuality are necessarily at odds with each other", just to clarify. The MCC has done very good work in building bridges, and raising awareness.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

My post should have read: "there are some, including myself, who don't believe that Christianity and Homosexuality are necessarily at odds with each other", just to clarify. The MCC has done very good work in building bridges, and raising awareness.

Cav

That is only possible if Christians are allowed to be as hypocritical as they want.

The only way Jesus can be GOD is if the Old Testament is correct.

If the Old Testament is correct -- then homosexual conduct offends the god of the Bible.

If the god of the Bible -- which is to say, the god of Christianity is offended by homosexual conduct -- then it is hypocrisy to the nth degree for Christians to build bridges to homosexuals.

0 Replies

Frank, I think most contemporary christians are revisionists. They make the claim that they love homosexuals, but not the 'sin.' c.i.

0 Replies

...or maybe some of us just appreciated Jesus' shorthand...Christianity For Dummies?...

If you only follow one commandment, let it be that you love one another....

This is much easier than processing everything.

He didn't say love one another, 'cept for those homos.

0 Replies

and that sofia could be said of every religion on the planet, and yes even by us atheists which i take as a good thing

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

and that sofia could be said of every religion on the planet, and yes even by us atheists which i take as a good thing

May I get an "amen" [AMEN!] for my personal choice for President on the Green Party ticket? thankyew

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

and that sofia could be said of every religion on the planet, and yes even by us atheists which i take as a good thing

I take it as a good thing, too, dys. :wink:

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know