Originally posted by robbie carrobie Its actually very simple FMF, the act of homosexuality, more specifically sodomy for those wishing to get technical, is condemned throughout scripture, eating pancakes is not.
When did Jesus condemn it? Almost all Christians pick and choose as they see fit from the OT, so leave that out of it. And I am not going to be convinced by Paul and his post-Jesus efforts to set up Corporate Christianity. When did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie eating pancakes is not [condemned throughout scripture].
Oh. So it's fine for JWs to participate in pagan rites or commemorations? The JW that TOO quoted was deviating from JW doctrine? Your version is the correct interpretation?
Originally posted by FMF When did Jesus condemn it? Almost all Christians pick and choose as they see fit from the OT, so leave that out of it. And I am not going to be convinced by Paul and his post-Jesus efforts to set up Corporate Christianity. When did Jesus condemn homosexuality?
On what basis are you willing to disregard the principles of the Mosaic law? and those as espoused by Paul? that they condemn the act and nothing more, simply because its inconvenient for you? because you wish to establish your own morality which supersedes that of scripture? do tell! Simply because the Christ does not mention it specifically is neither here nor there and is a very convenient if weak argument used by so called liberalists to water down the Biblical condemnation of the act, for it uses as its basis that which is omitted, not what is actually written. Never the less, Christ himself alludes to the divinely instituted arrangement of marriage in which he upholds the creation record, stating that it is for men and women, exclusively. As a Jew he would have upheld the mosaic Law which condemns the act with the utmost severity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie On what basis are you willing to disregard the principles of the Mosaic law? and those as espoused by Paul? that they condemn the act and nothing more, simply because its inconvenient for you? because you wish to establish your own morality which supersedes that of scripture? do tell! Simply because the Christ does not mention it specifically is n ...[text shortened]... . As a Jew he would have upheld the mosaic Law which condemns the act with the utmost severity.
I would at least have thought he is able to disregard the mosaic law, with respect to any conversation with yourself, based on the fact you claim (with respect to other matters) that the mosaic law is no longer binding!
Originally posted by FMF Oh. So it's fine for JWs to participate in pagan rites or commemorations? The JW that TOO quoted was deviating from JW doctrine? Your version is the correct interpretation?
No its not, but who is participating in pagan rites? I have explained to the thinkofone in vain, that there are many principles which may come into play, which he, having no knowledge of, fails to comment upon and simply wishes to make rules governing every instance, like the Pharisees of old. For example if i choose to eat pancakes on Pancake Tuesday because i like pancakes, is it really the case that i am engaging in a pagan rite, is it? If I am a waiter and I accept a Christmas tip because people like to celebrate it and give things am i really celebrating Christmas, am I? do tell FMF, what principle might a discerning Christian need to weigh in his conscience?
Originally posted by Agerg I would at least have thought he is able to disregard the mosaic law, with respect to any conversation with yourself, based on the fact you claim (with respect to other matters) that the mosaic law is no longer binding!
not quite Agers, for when I state that its ordinances are no longer binding, that does not mean that the principles no longer are. You need to understand the difference between a law and a principle.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie not quite Agers, for when I state that its ordinances are no longer binding, that does not mean that the principles no longer are. You need to understand the difference between a law and a principle.
Is there any clear, unambiguous demarcation line between what is a principle (a guideline so to speak), and what was a (now void) law written in to your Bible on these matters? Or is it the case you individually decide for yourselves?
Originally posted by Agerg Is there any clear, unambiguous demarcation line between what is a principle (a guideline so to speak), and what was a (now void) law written in to your Bible on these matters? Or is it the case you individually decide for yourself?
The ordinances are gone, we no longer sacrifice animals, stone people to death for adultery, need to run to a city of refuge if we accidentally kill someone etc, the principles are still binding though, we offer a different type of sacrifice, one with our lips (a sacrifice of praise), adultery is still wrong, the circumstances of unintentional manslaughter still need to be investigated etc.
08 Mar '11 11:27
Pancake Tuesday
Back to Top