Oak

I am a type 6, in enneagram

must admit that I'm not very familiar with Anselm's work; I get my ideas about the Atonement from the clear teaching of the New Testament and related commentaries.

The works of Anselm have been used by the reformers to support their opinion of the atonement..

The New testament has a background and an intent ..

The bacground is the society of the 1st-2nd century, and the intent is to affirm the message of the gospel is for all the human beings..

The author can use metaphoric expressions, and in these times a lot of these expressions were understood as metaphoric..

(For Apostle Peter "The flow is a metaphor for baptism" , and it doesnot relate to the real existence of a flow who would have covered all the earth.. (Has Himalaya been drowned under water ? Is it possible ??)

But for the Apostle Peter , The Flow is a Metaphor for Baptism.. We could find more and more metaphors in the New Testament and in the Old)

Such writings as litterature, are litterally metaphoric..

Is it good to understand them as from a naturalistic point of view ??

Old and New testament in the firsts century were understood as metaphors..

(see Philo of Alexandriae, Origen)

And it couldnot be understood in another way..

The Old Testament had been written/edited after Exile, in order to support some theological opinions..

(We can understand easily how prophecies match, if the scrolls have been composed after - in order to create the massoretic text -

And some parts could have been written after..

The value of the Old Testament in the 1st Century is the value people give to the text .. and no more..

Some parts of the New Testament are not valuable as translation of the Old testament ..

Isaiah 7 cannot translate "ALMAH" by "PARTHENOS" , if the author of the NT has translated like this it means only he didnot know Hebrew..

So the popular legends, myth and tales have imbibed the authors of the New Testament..

Till the belief in "the virginal birth " appear..

So i think we can compare the making of the belief in "The Virginal Birth" and the making of the belief in Anselm conception of the Atonement..

Several centuries after , Anselm makes his conceptions and this conception is accepted by some people including Reformers..

(Who were not ready - challenging papacy - to challenge this opinion)

Some points have not been answered in fact by people who support the "theory of the human sacrifice"..

Anybody can support the theory of Anselm of Canterbury (he has been the first to support the theory of the "human sacrifice")

But he has to accept the consequences :

- The image of God bult from this theological construction is a contradictory god - with an unethical behaviour.. Accepting an human sacrifice what is else ?

- prescribing human sacrifice for the atonement of the sin , when the opposite is asserted in the Torah, in the Jew people

- the concept of a human sacrifice to redeem the sins of all men, is opposite to some teachings aa Ezechiel "The sinning soul will die"..

The verse of Hosea 6 relates to the Exile times when there were no bleeding sacrifices at all, and the Covenant has been kept.. (without bleeding sacrifice..)

Evangelicals must accept the consequences of their theology, either change it in order to improve it..

I try to post regularly, but english is not my native language so i need time and i can make some mistakes..

I am very glad to hear this..cause I did not know if they did or not. But I am very glad to hear they do

Yes they are - but remember one fact - I am in Europe, and when I talk about Baptist or Conservative , i talk about Conservative denomination in Europe..

We have left 20 years ago the "Left Behind Theology", I remember the issues of the "Left behind " theology have been disputed 20 years ago.. And now anybody can grow his own opinion in plurality..

The choice is open , some books (in french - in don't know the equivalents in english) show side by side all the point of views about the "end of times questions"..

They include

- "The left behind theology " (aka Premil- Dispensationalism)

- Historical Premil (Iraeneus of Lyon - early fathers)

- Amil position (The position or the Reformers)

- Post Mil position (Not a lot of representation - may be in the Restoration movement..)

Most of the evangelical conservatives unions are a-mil (now) in fact they relate to the reformers tradition.. The" Left behind " theology has been discarded with good exegetical arguments..(and hot debates)

A joke , a good friend of mine (English) was applying for an American organization .. They have asked him :

- "Are you Pre-mil or amil ?" and he has answered "I am British"

This post has a great interest, have you noticed, the people involved were British , for my own I have been taught with the fundamentalist point of view , and after studying greek, and exegetical arguments I have changed my mind to conditionalism..

And my Conservative Baptist denomination has not expelled me, as member of the Evangelical Alliance they consider both opinions can be supported..

In fact , Conservative Baptists in Europe think both opinions can be supported, there is a real difference between denomination ..

The same denomination can support different view on this point, depending on the place they are located..

The founders of the church have been imbibed by the doctrine of immortality of the soul, but this argument is not asserted in the Bible,neiter in the Old Testament, neither in the New Testament..

And the opposite is affirmed clearly : (1 Tim 6:16)

15which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

So immortality is not a part of the nature of man , immortality has been brought by christ (2 Tim 1:9-10)

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

The central problem of man is death , even in Eden the death was existing, in order to support the life, the human beings need the relation to God, in the christian perspective this relation is restored by the Apokastasis (the restoration of all the things, includint life and resurrection)

Conditionalist can challenge the old assertions and fundamentalist views with good basis..

The question of Gehenna ? Gehinom was a special place near Jerusalem were the rubbish of the cities were burned .. A place of destruction , the idea Jesus wants to show, is - as he has revealed God, the place for opponents or so called "wicked" is a place for destruction, a similae place, ..)

Centuries of centuries .. Aion - Aioniom in Greek , it doesnot mean eternity , but relates to a long time..

Supporting the fundamentalist assertion of Everlasting Torment in the Biblical Frame need to support the idea :

- humans are mortal, even the soul

- so to punish them with an everlasting torment, God has to raise them, again and again for them to suffer again and again.. An eternity of work to raise people to life ..

Doctrine of the Everlasting Torment - in my opinion - is an insult to the majesty of the God Jesus Christ has revealed..

Jesus Christ has not revealed a God who whould be "The Sadistic Torturer of the centuries"

In my experience, liberal churches are far more likely to cover safe sex matters and STD prevention in their youth sexuality workshops than conservative churches are.

I agree with this ,my union of churches is conservative , and the programs do cover the safe sex matter and STD prevention , basically , a church cannot do less than the educational program do in high school.

Should I suggest there are more and more young people in conservative churches than in liberal churches..

Basically liberal churches are seen as "growing older and older" while conservative renew their members (picking young people from other churches for example..)

The same problem met by mainstream denominational churches, challenged by evangelical or fundamentalist group ..

Why do you go to the "evangelical " church ? Because the music is good and i dislike the incense fragrance ..

So I imagine that many users of this site are just as dismayed as I am that the Christian Right has become the voice of Christianity. How do we as progressive Christians counter this trend? How do we help articulate an alternative vision of religion in America that will appeal to folks in "middle America"? I guess I'm not willing to retreat into a shell... not yet.

So I imagine that many users of this site are just as dismayed as I am that the Christian Right has become the voice of Christianity.  How do we as progressive Christians  counter this trend?  How do we help articulate an alternative vision of religion in America that will appeal to folks in "middle America"?  I guess I'm not willing to retreat into a shell... not yet.

I do regret you have this picture, the Christian Right cannot be "the voice of christianity" for some reasons..

Basically, in Europe and America we have common roots , we have had to deal with the same problems , persecution of non-conformists was one..

All the european middle ages is rooted in the notion of "christianity", a mix beween civil religion and christian religion..

Early , in 18th centuries , Baptists , (and Mennonites) have challenged this view, churches and religion must be separate from the government..

Separation of Church and State, in order to protect the churches and the believers from the influence of the government (state religion), or to protect the citizens from the influence of an all-powerful religion group..

Christianity, in its european sub-modalities, has supported separation of Church and State , even if some people are more conservative, or more liberal, or social-democrats , or ecologist..

In order to protect the civil liberties, european evangelicals christians (baptists, methodists, free churches) have no nostalgy thinking to the middle-ages.. And all the times they have been persecuted by the "christian " politically admitted religion..

In 380 AD Emperor Theodosius has produced a decree ("Christianity had to be the sole religion of the Empire"),

The results have been, persecution of heathens, persecution of reformers, so much problems..

Leading people to leave their country to have a new life..

Laicity, the word comes from "laos" (the people) , and the church is not "laos", the church in greek is "ekklesia" - those who are called outside..

For what reason , i could suggest "to be an example " , in compassion, in social justice..

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

As my Professaors of Bible were saying, a text , without a context , is only a pretext..

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus

The whole text is about the acceptance of humanity,

The Assertion "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement" don't relate to the world of the OT

Killing Calf and burning it Lev 9

7 Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."

8 So Aaron came to the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself

A priest has to sacrifice the victim - Lev 14

7 Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded."

8 So Aaron came to the altar and slaughtered the calf as a sin offering for himself.

The offering has to be burnt (and Jesus has not been burnt) Lev 16

23 "Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. 24 He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people. 25 He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar.

According to the other laws - given by God - too - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ cannot be accepted ( Mankind is not a kind to be sacrificized, Jesus died by asphyxiation, )

And the necessity for sacrifices had always be removed in the OT , if see Oseah 6:6..

No real problems happened during the 70years exile in Babylon, and the post-babylonian community had started to accept this idea..

So the basis to understand "Jesus is a sacrifice for atonement" is inexistant, no exegetical basis found in the OT..

The way Jesus Saves is another problem ..

Basically - apart from the theory of the sacrifice (St Anselm Of Canterbury produced it, but it is not the only one .. more theories have been produced..)

The theory of the ransom (Origen)

Christ has paid the ransom of humanity to Satan

The theory of Abelard

"Once raised , the Christ will attract all the men to him"

And the global conception of Auler "Christus Victor"

If we want to keep the explanation given by Apostle Paul, we have to understand he was using a metaphor, a common style used in these times by many Jews writers (cf Philo)

We have a lot of explanations based on the Bible..

Exactly! No easy solution for this.

Exactly!  No easy solution for this.

The solution can be found easily, the UNO protects human rights and the declaration of human rights has some article about marriage.

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16 Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 12 and article 16 protects people .

Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

A marriage contracted in Holland or in France is protected by international laws , even on the territory of USA..

And the cases can be submitted to the "International Court of Human Rights "In LaHaye..

Marriage can contracted in Canada or Europe, the Government of a State, if this state wants to stay in UNO, under rules, protection and legitimacy must have these rules inforced..

International Court of LaHaye has sentenced people like Milosevic (Serbian dictator), Bogdan Bogdanovitch..

There is a good judicial basis for gay marriage , contracted in other countries , be recognized.;

We believe that lesbian, gay and bisexual people share with all others the worth that comes from being unique individuals

Absolutely, all people have infinite worth since they were created in the image of God.

 

We recognize the presence of ignorance, fear and hatred in the Church and in our culture, and covenant to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, nor any other irrelevant factor

The Church should not be discriminating against individuals, since the Church is a community of sinners who have themselves been forgiven. However, a distinction should be made between the individual and their behavior, and I wouldn't classify sexual orientation as an "irrelevant factor". Not because evangelicals are bigots or homophobes, but because of the clear teaching of Scripture: Paul made several references to the subject, and Jesus Himself affirmed the sacred union of a man and a woman when he quoted Genesis concerning Adam and Eve.

The Church should not be discriminating against individuals, since the Church is a community of sinners who have themselves been forgiven. However, a distinction should be made between the individual and their behavior, and I wouldn't classify sexual orientation as an "irrelevant factor".

Not because evangelicals are bigots or homophobes, but because of the clear teaching of Scripture: Paul made several references to the subject,

Yes Paul has made references to the subject , a part of theses reference

- Romans : Talk about believers wo leave monotheism to enter in fertility cults, these fertility cults were including sexuality

- Corinthians : He talks agains rapes and abductions , so from the original text , we see that rape, abductions and prostitution are condemned vy the scriptures

(I have learned this in my Biblical Institute - Evangelical) and there is a good discussion on this point, the biblical stance here

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Romans

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

Corinthians

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

From matthew 8, we can see Jesus has helped an homosexual

and Jesus Himself affirmed the sacred union of a man and a woman when he quoted Genesis concerning Adam and Eve.

No problem with this, this argument relates to the sacred character of the union of a mana and a woman..

The sexual orientation of people exist and , cannot be changed , if people have same-sex attraction, of other-sex attraction, or both they have to be responsible..

But it is not an effect of their own choice..

The NIV has accepted these results (about rape and abduction), so the scripture is clear, and we have at last a verse against rapes and sexual abuses..

Of course - the authority of the scripture, in their original language, in the context of their civilization..

For theses times it was the meaning , but from now where is the actualization for the scriptures we have to do ?

The concept of homosexuality in the civilization of the first century, is not the same concept we have today..

Jesus Christ was subversive he has accepted women (despised), romans (hated), tax collectors (scorned), prostitute , and this inclusive attitude had a cost..

Yes, but he only accepted the humble and those who knew that they needed redemption. He criticized the self-righteousness of the religious leaders. You mentioned the prostitute... When Jesus saved her from being stoned to death, He did not say, "I affirm your sexual promiscuity." He said, "Go, and sin no more." He did not turn a blind eye to sin, but accepted sinners who knew that they needed forgiveness.

From a strict point of view all humanity needs redemption,

Usually we say ancient sacred text need actualization, and I am not sure at all the word homosexuality used in the OT and in the NT relates to the same reality we have today..

1- Homosexuality in the OT, relates to idolatry in Israel, sacred prostitution,

2 - In the OT the crime of Sodom is to be hard to the poor

Crime of sodoms (according to Ezekiel)

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

In the NT, according to the best interpereters , the words used by Paul relates to man abduction, homosexual rape and prostitution.. (In the pastoral Epistles)

And in Romans it relates to believers (monotheistics !) who go and participate to sexual rituals of fecundity ..

This is not the actual reality, there is no temple with rituals of fecundity .. And the crimes against poor and needy are still performed..

We can say abduction, rape and prostitution cannot be admitted ,

- the sin of prostitution is a sin commited by the pimps (and the customers) and not by the prostitute..

- the sin of rape is a crime committed by the raper and not by the victims..

The reality is not the same, in the society of the NT and now, we have an ethical attitude to grow..

Each people has to live with love, acceptance and dignity, his relations, the relation with fellow believers must be kept, and the Church has not to add sufferings to the sufferings people live.

When the LAW was saying "lapidate them", Jesus has said "The Son of the Man is the mater of the law".. And he has transmitted this responsability to Peter.

19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[4] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[5] loosed in heaven

To Bind and to Loose , are the way we have to behave, for the propagation of the gospel ..

It relates to ethics - We know that (apart for Bi-sexuality where people have a "real" choice, homosexuals don't change their attirance, just like heterosexuals do..)

We have an ethical choice to do :

1- Applying the concervative interpretation of law and say to homosexuals "you are rejected, you will go to hell, there is no place for you with the fellow believers in Jesus Christ"

2- Or affirm the Gospel is for all people who need redemption and it includes,white, asian, blacks, women and men, homosexuals and heterosexuals..

We are not perfect, just acting to grow..

Excerpt from the UCC , Declaration

We know, with Paul, that as Christians, we are many members, but are one body in ChristÑmembers of one another, and that we all have different gifts. With Jesus, we affirm that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, that we are called to act as agents of reconciliation and wholeness within the world and within the Church itself.

We know that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are often scorned by the church, and devalued and discriminated against both in the Church and in society.

We commit ourselves to caring and concern for lesbian, gay and bisexual sisters and brothers by affirming that:

We believe that lesbian, gay and bisexual people share with all others the worth that comes from being unique individuals,

We welcome lesbian, gay and bisexual people to join our congregation in the same spirit and manner used in the acceptance of any new members,

We recognize the presence of ignorance, fear and hatred in the Church and in our culture, and covenant to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, nor any other irrelevant factor, and we seek to include and support those who, because of this fear and prejudice, find themselves in exile from a spiritual community,

Sorry for the confusion... I did not mean to say merely that they believed Jesus' death on the cross was real, but that what His death meant (namely, an atonement for sin) was a reality, not just a "reality for them". This was not simply a result of post-death speculation on their part... Christianity probably would've died with Jesus if that was the end of it. It was the claimed bodily resurrection appearances that enabled them to, as you stated, live and die by that belief. It was those appearances that transformed Jesus' demoralized disciples into powerful propagators of the Gospel; and Saul, a persecutor of Christians, into Paul, the greatest champion of the Christian faith.

Sorry for the confusion...  I did not mean to say merely that they believed Jesus' death on the cross was real, but that what His death meant (namely, an atonement for sin) was a reality, not just a "reality for them". 

I think the confusion ha grown , the death on the cross was real, in fact this point has been shown (just alike tens of thousands of jews who have been crucified by romans..)

The crucifixion of Jesus is not a single event , but quite a common way to kill rebels..

Can jesus be "the lamb of the sacrifice " ?

According to the Old Testament : Man is not a kind to be sacrificied

According to the Gospel he died asphyxiated , the ritual of sacrifice of the OT included e bleeding sacrifice

So there are at least three problems..

1- Asphyxiate / vs Bleeding

2- Mankind is not agreed as a kind to be sacrificed for atonement

(the most important because it relates to ethics)

And 3 - The early authors of the New Testament relates "he is the Lamb of God"..

The "He is " relates to the way they see him , and not to a naturalistic reality, even we could think that pious jews or proselytes would have neve agreed with this idea..

So the meaning "a sacrifice for atonement" is a metaphor they have used , for them "he is the Lamb of God" and they profess this truth..

The authors talk about their personal meeting with Jesus.

Bodily resurrection is claimed by the first writers, and this meeting after Jesus Death has changed their life.

From the works of the Psychatrist JG Sinford

http://jgford.homestead.com/

Reparative Therapy is a pseudo science.. And don't change anything, there is a proof in the ex-gay christian ministries..

Some promoting these ministries..have been going on homosexuality.. Without any solution apart from guilt..

Their orientation had not been changed at all, human beings are quite complex, people can be attracted by the opposite sex, attracted by the same sex, attracted by both or attracted by none ..

Someone who is potentially "attracted by both" can change , it relates to his/her identity and the meanig of their life.. So "Miracles" can happen..

Jesus Christ was subversive he has accepted women (despised), romans (hated), tax collectors (scorned), prostitute , and this inclusive attitude had a cost..

Being inclusive..

Religious people of the time has reproached him his attitude..

I am concerned by this question for some reasons: I am straight, and have an action as counsellor, and I hate hypocrisy , after years of private practice in churches..

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-20

 

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. Romans 3:25

From the strict point of view of the Torah, the sacrificial law, an human sacrifice has never been prescribed by God..

The list of the species to sacrificize is quoted, human beings don't belong to this list..

During 70 Years , a Gap has appeared in the sacrificial system (During the Deportation in Babylone) and , prophets like Hosea have expressed the idea that the sacrifices were no more useful..

God has kept the convenant in Babylon, without any sacrificial system..

Hosea 6:6

 

6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,

and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Affirming litterally "The cross is a sacrifice of atonement" is in contradiction with scriptures..

There is a real problem of interpretation, for my own I could suggest the authors of the New Testaments, relating the traditions of the Early Church use a metaphoric language..

Metaphoric language was very common in the Jewish litterature..

Jesus has spoken in "parables" (Metaphors) and all the authors of the New Testaments use metaphors..

Metaphors of the NT (some)

- The flood is a metaphor of the baptism (Peter)

- The marriage of Abraham with Agar and Sara are an image of the Old Convenant and of the New Covenant

- Jesus "The Lamb of God" ( John)

..

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

Metaphors and Parables are known to be poweful instruments of change, when applied to life..

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Some observations:

 

1. The GOP campaigned heavily to sway Evangelical and Conservative Christians to vote for them via appealing to their being "the party of moral values."

 

2. What they meant by this, and how others wanted to hear it,

was that they are the party that opposes gay marriages and abortions.

 

3. Yet, from a truly Biblical point of view, banning civil marriages for homosexual couples makes about as much sense as is does to do what we're currently doing; i.e. to allow heterosexual couples to divorce for reasons other than adultery.  Also, in several states, heterosexual couples who live together for a certain period of time can opt to be recognized as legally married (e.g. in Colorado). Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, legally denying homosexual civil unions makes about as much sense as legally allowing divorced straight persons to remarry.

 

Denying gay marriages makes about as much sense as doing these things.  Alas, we live in a HYPOCRITICALLY "Christian" nation..

 

In case our gentle readers didn't know, each of the things that I've mentioned in these last two posts are equally considered as being sinful according to the Bible (though I'd argue that homosexuality was less egregious to Jesus than divorce was). 

 

But, since the majority of Bible readers are straight people, they rationalize their sinful behaviors (remarrige, divorce for reasons other than adultery, premarital sex, etc.) by focusing the attention upon the 5-8% of our population who are homosexual; i.e. straight people make them the scapegoats in order to fool themselves into thinking that they are "righteous".. Disgusting.

</span>

3. Yet, from a truly Biblical point of view, banning civil marriages for homosexual couples makes about as much sense as is does to do what we're currently doing; i.e. to allow heterosexual couples to divorce for reasons other than adultery.  Also, in several states, heterosexual couples who live together for a certain period of time can opt to be recognized as legally married (e.g. in Colorado). Moreover, from a Biblical perspective, legally denying homosexual civil unions makes about as much sense as legally allowing divorced straight persons to remarry.

In fact in doesnot make sense at all, Europe has christian nations too, and these nations were christians before USA appear..

With a long tradition , a long transmission - the second century of the church at least -(ca a nation be more christian than Italy ? Or Spain ? or France ? Ireland ? Sweden ? Germany ? UK ? Finland ?)

There are conservatives , I suppose you have heard about Buttiglione and his statements (against gays, "women role it at home"), he has had to dismiss his role of Comissioner and representative of the EU..

A president bashing gays had to resign.

When the discussion about "the christian roots of Europe " came on the table, the President of Eire, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Spain have agreed for another way to relate to "the common spiritual heritage" and in these nations people have a deep commitment to christianity..

We can have a rela commitment to the christian roots of our countries and having another attitude the so-call "biblical attitude" is not "biblical at all"..

Either ?

- Why people don't enslave Mexicans or Canadians ? (enslaving his neighbours ..it is biblical)

- And people who wear clothes with two different materials ? (it is biblical to lapidate or to burn them ?)

- So people who cut the edges of their beard ? (it is biblical)

- And raped girls will they have to marry the man who has raped them? (dt 28)

It could be a joke

The "biblical" stances are not christian at all ,

- denying even the simple messages rules found by christian thinkers about the christian attitude in politics

- refraining evil AND promoting justice

- denying the message of Jesus Christ, restricting the christianity to a set of rules..

I know I am probably going to make a lot of people mad talking about this.

I am so sad about all these states passing anti-gay-marriage bills. And how people want to make a federal amendment. They say it's to "protect marriage". Protect it from what and from who? How am I a threat to anyone's marriage ? I don't even know these people.

Am a going to personally track down people I don't know and do some kind of hoodoo on them so they get a divorce?

Why are people so scared of me? Why do people hate me so much that they would pass laws to make my family illegal? What have I ever done to anyone of these people?

They say it's about "christian values" but lots of people get married in front of a judge or in a pagan ceremony and they have the same rights as anyone married in a church. I got my union blessed by my ministers in a christian ceremony but i have no rights at all.

What I am really afraid of are the states that passed bans against what they called anything approaching or resembling marriage like civil unions or doomestic partnerships. Does this mean my partner's company can't cover me on her insurance anymore?

 

I am just really sad and tired of being contantly beat on and used as a political symbol and whipping boy. It's getting old. And I'm getting tired

Armadillo

I mean it is difficult, feeling rejected is difficult

From an European point of view, "these things are awful", even conservatives in Europe don't act in such a way..

According to the laws "Marriage is a contract".. Most of countries in EU (France, Switzerland .. ) have set up contracts , of "civil union"..

But in France the State is separate from the religions, a pastor is not a civil servant,

Anyone can have the ceremony he wants in his own church, if he is gays, in a gay friendly church (there are some in Paris..)..

This question must not be a political stance, cannot be..

Conservatives doesnot like the word "Marriage" for homosexuals, ok let us call this "Civil Union"..

And the words, are separate..

I hope all people will find comfort and help in christian communities..(idealist ??)

The laws in Europe give rights to families (married or not..), the opposite would be segregation..

Church has been separate from State during centuries ..It is a good reason..

Bashing a minority is the best way to destriy democracy, in Europe

- Hitler was bashing Jews, Gays, Tziganes, and we know what has happened ..

After gays ? Who will be bashed ? Sentenced ?

- Jews ? Catholics ?

It looks like a witch trial (no proof .. only an inquisitor)

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." Martin Niemolle, Pastor and German resistant of the WWII

After Gays ? Single Mothers ? Who?

Basically UU christians relates to two families ..

1st is liberal protestantism, fueled by the writings of Fausto Sozzini ,

A good website on this subject (the content of the early reformers),

(Servetus, Sozzini, Sebastian Castellio)

http://www.socinian.org/socinian.html

UU christians relates to some sources 'General Baptism" and Universalists

http://www.uuchristian.org/

UU is non-dogmatic -

The difference with progressive christianity is - i think progressive christianity comes form mainline , mainstream christianity..

You mean all the ex-gays who go off and hang with the fundies for a few years and then later come back admit that their orientation has really been gay all along?

I don't know if it right to make such a mistake,

If I quote the logical levels from R Dilts (NLP)

We know that behaviour comes in a

- Context

- Behaviours

- Skills and Habilities

- Beliefs and Values

- Identity

- Mission and spirituality

"To be Gay" doesnot belong to the Identity area, /As "To be Straight" in the same time..

A behaviour is an answer to expectations/experience of live and relates to beliefes and values..

And have not to be mixed - Even if a part of the identity resolves in a behaviour, it cannot be confused, identity cannot be confused with the behaviour.

Some people could say "and the Bible" .. We can talk about it but we could be surprised by biased translations.;

The main texts :

- "Romans" relates to former monotheistic believers who have been involved in fecundity cults

- "Timothy" talks about homosexual rapes and abduction (very common in the roman and greek world - especially for slaves)

- OT Talks about the fecundity cults and homosexual prostitution widely spread in Isreal before exile..

Do these texts help the spiritual seekers ?

Is it normal to be shocked when leaders of fundies churches say "churches are not for you .. go away"

or demanding people make changes in their lifes they have never asked to the other members..

Spirituality doesnot take the place or a therapy,

But therapy addresses the sufferings problems, when people suffer they have to be heard..

If people suffer from rejection , so we have something to do..

I know UMC, in fact most mainline denomination have demonstrated

opposition to war in Irak

(except SBC ..)

http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_artic...?articleid=1466

http://www.globalministries.org/mee/me021003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1015-04.htm

http://www.ctbi.org.uk/intaff/iraq/umn01.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2175084.stm

..

Just use http://www.google.com

and type "clergy against war"..

Hope it helps

What are the definition of :

1 - Feminism ?

2 - Biblical ?

How do you feel, what do you see , hear when thinking to "feminism" ?

How do you feel, what do you see , hear when thinking to "biblical" ?

Is there a relationship between the two words?

First, judism was (until ad 70) a sacrificial religion, atonement was undertaken through sacrafice. God, in offering a new covenent first fulfilled the old, why? Because God would have negated the essentiual concept of Logos without fulfillment, to simply declare the Levite law of the temple over would have meant that the order of Law under the Torah was cancelled, somthing God promised not to do. By accepting one, final and perfect sacrafice the Law was complete, not negated.

This assertion is not exact we could argue :(if we accept the idea of an human sacrifice)

Biblically, sacrificial death could only occur through the shedding of blood exclusively (Leviticus 17:11). Jesus' death by crucifixion cannot be considered a sacrificial death. His death may have been caused by either asphyxiation or by going into shock brought on by the traumatic physical events of his last hours, before and after he was nailed to the cross. In his case, shock would not have been brought on solely by blood loss. The Gospels indicate Jesus' blood was not shed to a degree that would make blood loss from the body the exclusive cause of death. Death solely by blood loss is the only biblical cause acceptable for an animal's sacrificial death.

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, the only animals permitted for sacrificial purposes are those that have split hooves and chew their cud. The carcass of an unclean animal defiles (Leviticus 11:26). On these grounds alone, human beings are disqualified for sacrificial purposes. Jesus, as a human being, was unfit for sacrificial purposes.

An animal blood atonement offering must be physically unblemished (Leviticus 22:18- 25). According to the evangelists, Jesus was physically abused prior to his execution (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1; John 20:25; Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, John 19:2). According to Paul, Jesus' circumcision constituted "mutilation" (Philippians 3:2) and is likened to "castration" (Galatians 5:12). As a result, Jesus would again be disqualified as a valid sacrifice.

The New Testament's claim that Jesus' death was "one sacrifice for sin for all time" (Hebrews 10:12) is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures. Mere death, no matter what was the extent of the preceding violence or pain, does not satisfy the biblical requirements for those times when a blood atonement sacrifice is offered. In a blood atonement offering the animal (clean species and unblemished) must actually die as a result of blood loss. That is why it is called "a blood atonement sacrifice."

Jesus ("unclean human species and blemished)" did not die within the Temple precinct, at the hands of an Aaronic priest, or through the shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar by the Aaronic high priest (Leviticus 16:18-19). Animal sacrifice, offered as a blood atonement, must conform to the biblical guidelines set down in Leviticus 17:11: (a) Bloodshed (by means of shechitah--Deuteronomy 12:21), ( Given solely to the Jewish people, © Blood sprinkled upon the Temple altar.

Jesus' humanity, the physical state of his body, and the manner of his death (crucifixion) do not satisfy any blood atonement provisions found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The assertion of an human sacrifice, useful for atonement , is opposite to Hebrew scriptures ..

The meaning of the Cross must be found elsewhere .. But where?