Quote: @MaroonBells said:
You accuse me of crafting straw men, then respond with a series of them. Still, how do you know for sure Christ didn't love hookers for their parties?
As we liberals fight alongside "the evil one" for things like healthcare, a living wage and principled leadership, it's good to know what "genuine" Christians think. I always wonder. Interesting to me that you are so UNwilling to believe Christ's new testament call to "welcome the stranger" could possibly apply to immigrant and refugee policy, and yet seem SO willing to accept ancient old testament condemnations of things like homosexuality, which appears alongside similar condemnations of mixed fabrics and shellfish. It just smacks of bigotry to me. Unless of course you are equally burn-in-helly about wearing polycotton socks.
Your "fight" for those things isn't evil. The "evil" part is when you try to impose those things onto Jesus. THAT is the work of the Evil One, who brought sin into the world with a very simple question: "Did God really say...?" "Genuine" Christians are not those who have the right political stances; they are the ones who believe that the Bible is God's Word and treat it accordingly. If I gave you the impression that fighting for those things was "unChristian", I apologize.
As for the rest of your post: you have to decide if you want America to be a theocracy or not. You cannot- on the one hand- say that Christ's call to welcome the stranger (among His other teachings that I won't spend the time to list here) should be our country's "law"... and then, on the other hand, say that individuals should be free to make whatever sinful choices they want (regarding their sexuality, abortion, divorce, etc). Either we should enshrine Christ's teachings into our nation's laws... or we shouldn't. You can't pick and choose which commands of His that you like (and, therefore, impose them on the entire country)... and throw out the ones you don't. I, for one, do NOT want a theocracy. I believe that God has given people the freedom to choose to follow Him... or reject Him. When I talk about abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc... TO OTHER CHRISTIANS... I do so in the context of defending what the Bible says about those things (against those who would try to say that any of those things are "OK with God"). My goal is not to make sure that the country obeys God's Laws in their own personal lives. If someone wants to be gay (or just simply "is" gay), I'm not in favor of any law that would punish them for it. Same thing with divorce. As a Christian pastor, it is my job to tell people what God says about divorce, too. But I don't want any laws created that would punish people who get them.
On the other hand, science can easily prove that an unborn child is a human life... so- for that reason- I am comfortable working towards laws that will protect that life.
As for the rest of your comments, the NT has multiple admonitions against homosexuality. It's not based solely on the OT laws given to ancient Israel. So it is completely rational (and appropriate) that a Christian would acknowledge that it is a sin. Either you know that the Bible has more to say about homosexuality than just what's written in Leviticus (are being intellectually dishonest with your comments)... or you really don't know the Bible. Either way, it is sad that you think calling a "sin" a sin... is bigotry. As I have said many times: the Bible calls any sex outside of marriage "a sin". It also says that divorce is a "sin" in most cases. Why would it be "bigotry" to say that homosexuality is also a sin? Every single person commits sin... and none is a greater sin than the other. THAT is what the Bible says. If calling "a sin" a sin is bigotry... than the Bible is "bigoted" against every human being that ever lived.
By the way, I freely acknowledge that SOME (too many) "Christians" have focused on the sin of homosexuality... while completely ignoring other sins. In those cases, I do believe that bigotry is at work. I have seen it in my own church members: they are OK with denying marriage to gays... but have no problem opening up our church for those who are living together (and- depending on the situation- for those who have been divorced). For the record: I have told my members that I won't do a wedding for either situation- because BOTH are against God's will.
I consider theocracies to be absolute nightmarish concepts, and would likely die as a revolutionary were the US to swing that way. I cannot imagine a better opportunity for widespread, crippling corruption...as centuries of abused altar boys and nuns can attest, along with victims of every other terrifying theocracy (the Middle East has been rife with examples).
Divorce has become over-used and far too convenient (even though many are the opposite), but I would absolutely refute any outside "authority" claiming any say within any relationship of mine. Yes, there are exceptions (pedophilia screams to mind, as do a few others), but in a country based on freedoms and choice...frankly, the churches and the courts should lose all "authority" over marriages among consenting, functional adults. Being trapped in a toxic, irreparable relationship should never be mandatory due to some paper or ceremony.
Ever.
I do believe that all considerations possible should be addressed prior to marriage (including sexual compatibility, possibly also day-to-day living compatibility), but people do grow and change...and if it can't be fixed, let them move ahead before the law and/or their religion(s) make it too complicated to escape.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
You accuse me of crafting straw men, then respond with a series of them. Still, how do you know for sure Christ didn't love hookers for their parties?
As we liberals fight alongside "the evil one" for things like healthcare, a living wage and principled leadership, it's good to know what "genuine" Christians think. I always wonder. Interesting to me that you are so UNwilling to believe Christ's new testament call to "welcome the stranger" could possibly apply to immigrant and refugee policy, and yet seem SO willing to accept ancient old testament condemnations of things like homosexuality, which appears alongside similar condemnations of mixed fabrics and shellfish. It just smacks of bigotry to me. Unless of course you are equally burn-in-helly about wearing polycotton socks.
Your "fight" for those things isn't evil. The "evil" part is when you try to impose those things onto Jesus. THAT is the work of the Evil One, who brought sin into the world with a very simple question: "Did God really say...?" "Genuine" Christians are not those who have the right political stances; they are the ones who believe that the Bible is God's Word and treat it accordingly. If I gave you the impression that fighting for those things was "unChristian", I apologize.
As for the rest of your post: you have to decide if you want America to be a theocracy or not. You cannot- on the one hand- say that Christ's call to welcome the stranger (among His other teachings that I won't spend the time to list here) should be our country's "law"... and then, on the other hand, say that individuals should be free to make whatever sinful choices they want (regarding their sexuality, abortion, divorce, etc). Either we should enshrine Christ's teachings into our nation's laws... or we shouldn't. You can't pick and choose which commands of His that you like (and, therefore, impose them on the entire country)... and throw out the ones you don't. I, for one, do NOT want a theocracy. I believe that God has given people the freedom to choose to follow Him... or reject Him. When I talk about abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc... TO OTHER CHRISTIANS... I do so in the context of defending what the Bible says about those things (against those who would try to say that any of those things are "OK with God"). My goal is not to make sure that the country obeys God's Laws in their own personal lives. If someone wants to be gay (or just simply "is" gay), I'm not in favor of any law that would punish them for it. Same thing with divorce. As a Christian pastor, it is my job to tell people what God says about divorce, too. But I don't want any laws created that would punish people who get them.
On the other hand, science can easily prove that an unborn child is a human life... so- for that reason- I am comfortable working towards laws that will protect that life.
As for the rest of your comments, the NT has multiple admonitions against homosexuality. It's not based solely on the OT laws given to ancient Israel. So it is completely rational (and appropriate) that a Christian would acknowledge that it is a sin. Either you know that the Bible has more to say about homosexuality than just what's written in Leviticus (are being intellectually dishonest with your comments)... or you really don't know the Bible. Either way, it is sad that you think calling a "sin" a sin... is bigotry. As I have said many times: the Bible calls any sex outside of marriage "a sin". It also says that divorce is a "sin" in most cases. Why would it be "bigotry" to say that homosexuality is also a sin? Every single person commits sin... and none is a greater sin than the other. THAT is what the Bible says. If calling "a sin" a sin is bigotry... than the Bible is "bigoted" against every human being that ever lived.
By the way, I freely acknowledge that SOME (too many) "Christians" have focused on the sin of homosexuality... while completely ignoring other sins. In those cases, I do believe that bigotry is at work. I have seen it in my own church members: they are OK with denying marriage to gays... but have no problem opening up our church for those who are living together (and- depending on the situation- for those who have been divorced). For the record: I have told my members that I won't do a wedding for either situation- because BOTH are against God's will.
So "the Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it?" We've had this conversation before, but you're a literalist when it comes to the Bible. I'm not.
I can take to heart Christ's messages of redemption, salvation, grace, treating others as I want to be treated, welcoming the stranger, etc. And also acknowledge that parts of the OT are just no longer relevant in a modern society. Most no longer believe that God created the earth in six literal days as we know them today. Reading that “literally” prevents one from accepting the idea of evolution, which we all know to be true now. We no longer use the Bible to justify slavery and segregation. We don't put sabbath breakers to death, keep women a rung below men, among other things. Homosexuality is on that list as well. It is very clearly not learned behavior.
I like what Pete Buttigieg said about it: "If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. And that's the thing I wish the [Pumpf's] of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me -- your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
So "the Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it?" We've had this conversation before, but you're a literalist when it comes to the Bible. I'm not.
I can take to heart Christ's messages of redemption, salvation, grace, treating others as I want to be treated, welcoming the stranger, etc. And also acknowledge that parts of the OT are just no longer relevant in a modern society. Most no longer believe that God created the earth in six literal days as we know them today. Reading that “literally” prevents one from accepting the idea of evolution, which we all know to be true now. We no longer use the Bible to justify slavery and segregation. We don't put sabbath breakers to death, keep women a rung below men, among other things. Homosexuality is on that list as well. It is very clearly not learned behavior.
I like what Pete Buttigieg said about it: "If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. And that's the thing I wish the [Pumpf's] of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me -- your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."
Ah, but you ARE a Biblical literalist... at least about the things that you already to believe to be true. For example: how do you KNOW what Jesus' messages regarding redemption, salvation, grace, etc. are? How do you KNOW that He warned about the dangers of being rich... or that He wants us to love our neighbors and pray for those who hate us? Because "the Bible said it". If not for the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Yet you believe- with all your heart, I'm sure- that He is gracious, loving and forgiving. So, my question is: why do you believe- unquestioningly- the things that you do about Jesus (which can only be found in the Bible)... yet you doubt the "literal-ness" other parts?
The OT laws are irrelevant- but not because we have "evolved" past them. They are "irrelevant" because they were given to ancient Israel as their set of laws. We are not ancient Israel; therefore, the laws do not apply to us anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that God DID give those laws at one time. And, rather than dismiss them with the arrogance of modernity, perhaps "scholars" should take a look at WHY God gave those laws in the first place.
As for evolution, it is a "fact" that Darwinian evolution is no longer accepted as likely to be true. That doesn't change people's faith in "evolution"... but that IS what it is: faith. But if we want to discuss the scientific problems with evolution, I would prefer to do it in another thread. But I will say this: evolution is a fact... as much as "global warming" is a fact. There: we can probably agree on that.
And as I've stated before: YES, the Bible has been used by ignorant- or evil- people for thousands of years to justify their own desires / feelings. No argument here. But the Bible was never the problem; those distorting it for personal gain was. As for homosexuality, there are 2 problems with your theological views regarding it. First of all, you lump homosexuality as one of those "Old Testament" issues that no longer applies. Well, the same person who declared that we are saved by grace through faith (the doctrine of justification, upon which the Church stands- if it gets it right- or falls) is the same person who declared that homosexuality is a sin: the Apostle Paul. How can you believe one of the things he preached... and reject the other? I think I know the answer: you believe that some of the Bible is true... and some of it isn't. But how do you know which is which? Aren't YOU the one making that decision? And, if so, then it's not really "God's Word" anymore, is it?
The other theological problem you have is that you do not take into account Original Sin. God doesn't "make" anyone gay... just like He didn't fill my heart with anger or lust. Those are things that I have inherited as part of my sinful nature. But that doesn't make them any less sinful, just because I was "born" with those traits. In fact, I'll take it one step further. It is clear from observing children... that we are all selfish people. That is beyond dispute. So... wouldn't that mean that "greed" is natural? And, therefore, it could never be considered a "sin"... because I was "born that way"?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
So "the Bible said it. I believe it. That settles it?" We've had this conversation before, but you're a literalist when it comes to the Bible. I'm not.
I can take to heart Christ's messages of redemption, salvation, grace, treating others as I want to be treated, welcoming the stranger, etc. And also acknowledge that parts of the OT are just no longer relevant in a modern society. Most no longer believe that God created the earth in six literal days as we know them today. Reading that “literally” prevents one from accepting the idea of evolution, which we all know to be true now. We no longer use the Bible to justify slavery and segregation. We don't put sabbath breakers to death, keep women a rung below men, among other things. Homosexuality is on that list as well. It is very clearly not learned behavior.
I like what Pete Buttigieg said about it: "If me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. And that's the thing I wish the [Pumpf's] of the world would understand. That if you got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me -- your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."
Ah, but you ARE a Biblical literalist... at least about the things that you already to believe to be true. For example: how do you KNOW what Jesus' messages regarding redemption, salvation, grace, etc. are? How do you KNOW that He warned about the dangers of being rich... or that He wants us to love our neighbors and pray for those who hate us? Because "the Bible said it". If not for the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Yet you believe- with all your heart, I'm sure- that He is gracious, loving and forgiving. So, my question is: why do you believe- unquestioningly- the things that you do about Jesus (which can only be found in the Bible)... yet you doubt the "literal-ness" other parts?
Because I use my God-given instinct and intellect to judge for myself what makes sense and what just doesn't ring true. I think God wants us to. Whereas once I did, I no longer believe in a literal pit of fire. I no longer believe that righteous Jews, for example, who spend their entire lives helping people, are going to be tortured eternally in that pit of fire. Some things just don't make sense.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Ah, but you ARE a Biblical literalist... at least about the things that you already to believe to be true. For example: how do you KNOW what Jesus' messages regarding redemption, salvation, grace, etc. are? How do you KNOW that He warned about the dangers of being rich... or that He wants us to love our neighbors and pray for those who hate us? Because "the Bible said it". If not for the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Yet you believe- with all your heart, I'm sure- that He is gracious, loving and forgiving. So, my question is: why do you believe- unquestioningly- the things that you do about Jesus (which can only be found in the Bible)... yet you doubt the "literal-ness" other parts?
Because I use my God-given instinct and intellect to judge for myself what makes sense and what just doesn't ring true. I think God wants us to. Whereas once I did, I no longer believe in a literal pit of fire. I no longer believe that righteous Jews, for example, who spend their entire lives helping people, are going to be tortured eternally in that pit of fire. Some things just don't make sense.
Thank you for answering my question. I just hope that you can see the issue you have regarding Jesus' words: you only agree with / accept the ones you like / agree with... and then disregard the ones that you don't like / disagree with. Lots of Christians do that; so you're not alone. But is that really "Christianity"... or some version of it that people have created for themselves?
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Ah, but you ARE a Biblical literalist... at least about the things that you already to believe to be true. For example: how do you KNOW what Jesus' messages regarding redemption, salvation, grace, etc. are? How do you KNOW that He warned about the dangers of being rich... or that He wants us to love our neighbors and pray for those who hate us? Because "the Bible said it". If not for the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Yet you believe- with all your heart, I'm sure- that He is gracious, loving and forgiving. So, my question is: why do you believe- unquestioningly- the things that you do about Jesus (which can only be found in the Bible)... yet you doubt the "literal-ness" other parts?
Because I use my God-given instinct and intellect to judge for myself what makes sense and what just doesn't ring true. I think God wants us to. Whereas once I did, I no longer believe in a literal pit of fire. I no longer believe that righteous Jews, for example, who spend their entire lives helping people, are going to be tortured eternally in that pit of fire. Some things just don't make sense.
Thank you for answering my question. I just hope that you can see the issue you have regarding Jesus' words: you only agree with / accept the ones you like / agree with... and then disregard the ones that you don't like / disagree with. Lots of Christians do that; so you're not alone. But is that really "Christianity"... or some version of it that people have created for themselves?
Because most of Christ's message rings true to me, even 2000 years later. That God, who probably doesn't look like us at all, and might just be a universal force of love, logic, beauty, and....maybe, consequence?... would choose to introduce Himself to the world as a vulnerable baby born in straw poverty rings true to me. The notion of grace, love, the golden rule, our treatment of the poor, sermon on the mount, the beatitudes, etc., all ring true to me. And the world is very likely a better place because of them. But 6 literal days that discount what we know about evolution, Peter and Paul's endorsement of slavery, fires of hell, etc.? Nope.
I actually think if Christians focused more on Christ's message and less on fires-of-hell literalism, Christianity would stop shrinking at an alarming rate, especially in places like Europe, for example.
Too many religions come across as a tragic combination of desperate recruitment combined with vicious exclusion.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Because most of Christ's message rings true to me, even 2000 years later. That God, who probably doesn't look like us at all, and might just be a universal force of love, logic, beauty, and....maybe, consequence?... would choose to introduce Himself to the world as a vulnerable baby born in straw poverty rings true to me. The notion of grace, love, the golden rule, our treatment of the poor, sermon on the mount, the beatitudes, etc., all ring true to me. And the world is very likely a better place because of them. But 6 literal days that discount what we know about evolution, Peter and Paul's endorsement of slavery, fires of hell, etc.? Nope.
I actually think if Christians focused more on Christ's message and less on fires-of-hell literalism, Christianity would stop shrinking at an alarming rate, especially in places like Europe, for example.
Again, I thank you for your willingness to continue this dialogue. As to your last statement, if the "fires of hell" wasn't "literal"... then why did Jesus die on the Cross? Orthodox Christianity says that it was to save us from the consequences of sin (of which "Hell" is the primary one- as Jesus, Himself- said on many occasions).
As to the rest of your comment: if our focus is only on living a good life, that still leaves the other question: what makes Christianity different from, say, Confucianism (which also has alot of good, moral messages)?
Quote: @Zanary said:
Too many religions come across as a tragic combination of desperate recruitment combined with vicious exclusion.
That seems to be something that's more human nature (for a lot of the population) than it does to be religious based.
People like me are awesome, be like me, those with different viewpoints suck and they're most definitely dumber than me, because I'm awesome.
Just pick any thing that gets divided left-right and look at how desperate people are for other people to agree with them, while damning the opposite side.
|
