Originally posted by FMFreally, what positive things have they said about Jehovahs Witnesses, thanks in advance.
stellspalfie doesn't "hate" me and nor does stellspalfie "hate" you. Proper Knob doesn't "hate" you, RJHinds doesn't "hate" you, divegeester doesn't "hate" you, ThinkofOne doesn't "hate" you, avalanchethecat doesn't "hate" you, Agerg doesn't "hate" you, I don't "hate" you. And so on. What are you on about when you talk about "hatred"? Who are you referring to?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyes they continually post negative, derogatory and critical remarks. Now do you have any evidence that they don't, all you need is to produce some positive remarks, thanks in advance - robbie.
Do you have any evidence that they "hate" you, robbie, yes or no?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAbsence of "positive remarks" is not "hatred, robbie. That they disagree with you or are critical of your mind map or your behaviour does not mean they "hate" you.
yes they continually post negative, derogatory and critical remarks now do you have any evidence that they don't, all you need is to produce some positive remarks, thanks in advance - robbie.
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, "Love Free or Die" centers around Gene Robinson:
I even had to do some scouring of the web to find out.
There is a deep schism in the Episcopal Church these days over homosexuality. There are those who embrace the liberal viewpoint and those who endorse a more archaic standard. This division has spawned the Anglican Communion of North America, basically composed of those more conservative churches wh ...[text shortened]... st, Gene Robinson, was ordained a Bishop. I'm guessing that is what it's about.
The film follows Robinson’s personal story as American churches debate whether or not lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are equal to heterosexuals in the eyes of God while our nation debates whether LGBT people are equal to heterosexuals in the eyes of the law.
In LOVE FREE OR DIE, Bishop Gene steps onto the world stage as he travels from small-town churches to Washington’s Lincoln Memorial to London’s Lambeth Palace calling for all to stand for equality – inspiring bishops, priests and ordinary folk to come out from the shadows and change history.
http://www.lovefreeordiemovie.com/about/
So basically, the Episcopal Church is torn on the issue, as is the rest of the Anglican Communion. Their main ideas though, despite those in the ACNA, seem to tend away from calling homosexuality a sin. And others are calling that a dealbreaker. Stay tuned, is all I can say.
Yeah, I couldn't find anything definitive either. Thanks for looking.
Originally posted by FMFI have to disagree, on the basis that people who like each other no not continuously year after year subject the persons that they like to derogatory and critical remarks. Interesting that you could not find a single positive remark, I rest my case.
Absence of "positive remarks" is not "hatred, robbie. That they disagree with you or are critical of your mind map or your behaviour does not mean they "hate" you.
Originally posted by SuzianneIn a way, but there's more to it than that. I'll give you a rough explanation.
Even if robbie doesn't see what you're saying, I think I do.
The time has come to evolve past this thinking. Not accepting homosexuality is as archaic as these laws, and if you subscribe to one, maybe you should subscribe to the others as well. Is that what you're getting at?
The things in this post come from the Mosaic laws, though, and they have n ...[text shortened]... did follow the kosher regimen, except of course if they were Jews before becoming Christian.
DG made the following claim:
Any one can seek out god of course, but that has nothing to with homosexuality being condemned in both the old and new testaments which is why large segments of Christendom also do.
The problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the Bible that is condemned should be condemned. Yet they condemn homosexuality purely on that basis. They pick and choose to support their prejudice whether they want to admit it or not.
For that matter, in general they pick and choose what teachings to believe and not to believe. As an example I cited the belief that "women should be silent in the church." This comes from Paul. Paul said a number of things about women that, from what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians do not believe are true. They typically dismiss Paul's beliefs about women as being a product of the prejudices of his time and culture. But aren't Paul's beliefs about homosexuality also a product of the prejudices of his time and culture? Once again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.
1 edit
-Removed-The difference is that I explained why your refutation of my argument failed. Since your refutation failed, my argument still stands and I'm still content with standing by it:
Those "large segments of Christendom" who do not similarly condemn the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber or the eating of shellfish, who do not believe that women should be silent in the church, etc. show themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.
If you disagree with the above then refute it. Does your having repeated the same failed refutation really make sense to you?
8 edits
The problem with condemning homosexuality purely on the basis that it's condemned in the Bible is that there are many other things that are condemned in the Bible that they don't similarly condemn, e.g., the wearing of garments made of more than one type of fiber, the eating of shellfish, etc. So clearly they don't actually believe that everything in the Bible that is condemned should be condemned. Yet they condemn homosexuality purely on that basis. They pick and choose to support their prejudice whether they want to admit it or not.
If you read the Gospels carefully you will see that Jesus underplayed rituals and ordinances of the law of Moses. But the moral aspects He heightened and made more penetrating.
So we see Him do things "on the Sabbath" to the annoyance of the religionists. But when it came to teaching about murder - He went deeper into the inward motive of anger.
Similarly we see Him down play rituals concerning washing of the hands and diet. These was more ritual. Yet when it came to adultery as a moral issue, He made it more penetrating. He went beyond the outward act to the inner motive of lust and gazing with inclean thoughts.
These two examples. Christ downplayed certain ceremonial and ritual like ordinances. But Christ made more accute and penetrating moral matters.
In this light you can see why there is far less emphasis in the New Testament on diet, clothing materials, holy days and ritual ordinances. However morality of self control, marriage, faithfulness, clean heartedness is not skirted over as less relevant.
Paul certainly spoke of a high morality. Yet concerning ordinances which seperated the Jews from the Gentiles, Paul says Christ nailed them to the cross, taking them out of the way.
"For He [Christ] Himself is our peace, He who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition [between Jew and Gentile], the enmity,
Abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace ..." (Eph. 2:14,15)
This means that many ordinances in the commandments of Moses which set the Jews apart in culture from the Gentile nations, Christ nullified on His cross.
He did not nullify the high moral standard one lives by walking by the Spirit of Christ to live the highest level of morality on the earth. He did put out of the way many rituals regarding laws of ceremonial ordinances.
This addresses your complaint that Christians ( sometime wrongly ) seem inconsistent about which old testament laws they feel are binding.
For that matter, in general they pick and choose what teachings to believe and not to believe.
I would agree that some do this. It does not mean that if you or I become Christians we MUST follow that example. We can be discerning concerning what is really there in the New Testament as to how we should live.
As an example I cited the belief that "women should be silent in the church." This comes from Paul.
Yes. That is ONE of the many things Paul wrote. In that particular passage we could regard this as Paul speaking of his personal custom. He could have been saying that it was his personal custom to teach the women to restrict their speaking in corporate meetings.
His latter word to Timothy as an aged senior apostle was " Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; But I .... do not permit a woman to teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in quietness." ( 1 Tim. 2:12)
Perhaps this could be considerd Paul speaking of his way, his custom as an apostle - " I do not permit a woman to teach ..."
It is very hard for me to imagine that Paul never heard women prophesy or speak or pray in the meetings of Christians. Luke was his traveling companion and wrote of four daughters of Phillip the evangelist who prophesied (Acts 21:8,9). Paul was there to witness it.
Paul mentions the female name of Junia as being with her husband (probably) with a reputation among the other apostles (Romans 16:7) . It is hard to imagine she was "note among the apostles" if he and the other apostles never heard Junia say anything.
In Romans 15:3 Paul mentions the name of the wife before the husband - "Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus."
It is likely that he recognized the woman of that pair as possibly being the more dedicated, more consecrated. My opinion is that he heard her speak sometime and he listened. But perhaps she was the wealthier of the pair. I don't know.
But because Paul is the darling whipping boy of the modernists, I like to take all things into consideration.
Paul said a number of things about women that, from what I can tell, the vast majority of Christians do not believe are true. They typically dismiss Paul's beliefs about women as being a product of the prejudices of his time and culture.
Out of the same pen came the exhortation that in the proper Christian church there CANNOT BE oppression of male against female any more than there cannot be oppression of free man against master or Greek against Jew -
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There CANNOT BE Jew nor Greek,
there CANNOT BE slave nor free man,
there CANNOT BE male and female;
for you are all one in Christ." (Galatians 3:27,28 my emphasis)
Old patterns of social rank and oppression CANNOT BE in the normal church life.
Same apostle Paul writing here. Let's take all his thoughts into consideration.
4 edits
But aren't Paul's beliefs about homosexuality also a product of the prejudices of his time and culture? Once again they pick and choose to support their prejudices whether they want to admit it or not.
Paul's words on homosexuality were certainly grounded in he perception of God's will and the Hebrew Bible.
But when he lists it as a lifestyle which endangers one from inheriting the kingdom of God it is not above or beyond other errors of apparent equal seriousness:
"But fornication and all uncleaness or greediness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints, And obscenity and foolish talking or sly, filthy jesting, which are not becoming, but rather giving of thanks.
For this you realize, knowing that every fornicator or unclean person or greedy person (who is an idolater) has not inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God,
Let not one deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." (Eph. 5:3-6)
Homosexuality is not mentioned here. But in a parellel passage of the same nature it is -
" ... the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers, for murders, for fornicators, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing that is opposed to healthy teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God ..." (See 1 Timothy 1:9-11)
The "lawless and unruly" and "the unglodly and sinners" and the "unholy and profane" must include -
ie. liars, perjurers, and people who hit their parents.
It also includes "fornicators, homosexuals, kidnappers" .
Is the list exhaustive ? Of course it is not an exhaustive list for Paul adds in an open ended way " and WHATEVER OTHER THING that is opposed to the healthy teaching" .
We certainly could add a few more items like snorting cocaine, beastiality, peeping tomism, pick pocketing, hacking into people's computers to steal their private information, dropping eggs off of a bridge to hit pedestrians below, sniffing glue, preaching with the intention of extorting money ( Like Reverend Ike), orgies, bullying, hate mongering, .... the list could go on and on ... AND WHATEVER OTHER THING that is opposed to the healthy teaching of the Chistian Gospel.
The goal is not that we be centered on any one particular sin. We should not be "sin centered" but look away from our failures and weaknesses - looking away to Jesus Christ.
The wise believer has no confidence that she or he can overcome any besetting sin. We must turn to the Lord Jesus. We must turn our hearts toward the Overcomer, Christ. He is the victorious One.
I would not encourage anyone to focus on their sin, whatever it may be. That is like pulling at a tight ball of yarn. It only gets tighter and more difficult. Rather the believer in Christ should open their heart fully to trust Jesus for victory.