Sexism Is Bad, Liberal Sexism Is Bad And Stupid...

[des]

In fact, one could argue that Jesus was quite a bit a skeptic on some Hebrew Bible texts, saying things like The Law says this, but I say that. However, at other times says things like I come not to destroy but to fulfill. There is a bizarre little story about one of the disciplines dreaming of some (forbidden by the Law) food and going out and eating it. Seems to imply we can eat shrimp. :-) Oherwise, we would keep the Laws set forth in the Hebrew Bible.

 

 

--des

[Kay]

An interesting perspective emerges when you delve into what Jesus meant by "You have heard it say, but I tell you ..." And also what the words "abolish" and "fulfill" would have meant to Jesus a(nd to the Jews he was talking to). It's quite a bit different than what western, modern brains tend to interpret it as.

 

Peter's dream (vision) of the unclean foods, on a blanket, descending from Heaven ... quite an interesting progression of events unfold after Jesus death, as to whether or not the Law must be observed by Gentile converts ...

[des]

Kay, are you implying, perhaps, a nondualistic viewpt.? If so, interesting! (and i'll get back with you

when I understand it. :-))

 

As for the Gentile converts. Also interesting considering that most Christians are now Gentiles-- and not

Jews.

 

 

--des

[jamesAMDG]

Some of this may not deal with everything in the order posted. If I miss something, bear with me and I will try and get to it.

 

davesletzer:

 

Here is a lesson in mercy: His mercy is everlasting! How big is that? Infinitely so. His mercy is infinite. That means to me that God forgives sin. How much? Infinitely much. God's mercy is greater than our ability to sin. God has mercy on me and you.. greater than our capability to sin. Our sin is bound by our mortality but God's mercy is greater than all of mortality. God's mercy is huuuuuuge!

 

I don't think I ever disagreed that God is all merciful and all-forgiving. My point is that forgiveness must be freely given (by God) and freely received (by us) if we refuse to acknowledge that what we have done is wrong we cannot accept forgiveness, this is why Pride is so pernicious.

 

Do you believe the desire for homosexuality is any more serious than the desire for heterosexuality? I do not.

 

If you mean lust, then no, homosexual and heterosexual lust are both gravely sinful. Jesus said that if you lust you have already committed adultery. So of course this is a problem. However, homosexual lust is sinful in a second way, which is that it is against the natural function and complimentarity of the sexes.

 

Let me try an analogy here, heterosexual lust is misusing the God-given gift of human sexuality but it's a misuse of a natural desire. This would make it like putting the pieces of a puzzle together in the wrong fashion. Homosexual desire means that would have already thrown in a handful of pieces from another puzzle before putting them together wrongly. In neither case will the picture turn out, but in one it will be more distorted.

 

But as for either one being worse than the other in relation to our salvation? Plenty of sins can damn our souls to Hell, if they all carry the same effect how do we measure wrongness?

 

October:

 

It should be noted here that DCJ mentioned that homosexuality (desires and actions) are an abomination, not that homosexuals themsleves are an abomination. In this he (or she) is echoing something from the Catechism

 

Chastity and homosexuality

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

No one is (or should be saying) that having these inclinations is a sentence to Hell. We all have all sorts of base inclinations, Christ strengthens us to climb above them.

 

Not to be nit-picky, but to you have some sort of source for backing this up?

Considering that same sex contact existed quite openly in Jesus day if he had an opinion on it he would have said something.

 

God says gay people should be allowed to marry. End of Discussion.

 

 

Russ:

 

Apparantly the author feels there is an iron-clad connection between his sacred scripture and history, in other words, the Bible IS history.

 

I appreciate you speaking me for here, but I can do it myself (although somewhat belatedly). The history I was referring to is the constant teaching and practice of the Church which was founded by Christ on the Apostles. But yes, of course, I do believe that the events recounted in the Bible are historical.

 

What Bible? What version? Written by who?

The Vulgate of Saint Jerome and translations thereof, notably the Douay-Rheims in English. The prophets and apostles.

Are we to believe the Bible was written by God and is not to be questioned?

The Bible was written by holy men under the ispiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

Such statements are simply the repitition of official positions taken by various and sundry denominational churches who stand to loose their monopoly on their faith business.

 

Oh yeah, the Vatican is crazy on power. They get so much respect from everyone these days. That's working out great for them.

 

Once people of Faith begin to question, investigate, look closer, debate, research, and formulate outside of and apart from the authority of the Vatican, the pulpit, the corporate mega-church, the faith-o-tainment performance artists on Sunday morning TV, we begin to build a truely personal Faith.

 

Do mean by "personal faith" a personal religion, where we pick and choose the God of our convenience and personal tastes?

 

All we need in order to have Faith is God

 

For you revelation plays no part in Faith? What is the point of Jesus coming if there weren't something we could figure out on our own? Do you not rely on any number of teachers to shape and mould your ideas, or do you actually have a perfect spiritual sounding board?

 

Read post #21 in this thread for the whole thing about picking fights.

 

October:

 

The notion that Jesus held the scripture to be God's Word is an interesting concept, allbeit a misconception. [...] The idea of "God's Word" didn't exist at the time.

 

This statement is demonstrably false. "The Lord spoke [...]" is all over the OT. Exodus and the commandments given to Moses on the mountain are a classic example. Unless you are claiming that most fo the OT is a modern forgery.

 

des and Kay:

 

In fact, one could argue that Jesus was quite a bit a skeptic on some Hebrew Bible texts, saying things like The Law says this, but I say that.

 

and

 

An interesting perspective emerges when you delve into what Jesus meant by "You have heard it say, but I tell you ..." And also what the words "abolish" and "fulfill" would have meant to Jesus a(nd to the Jews he was talking to). It's quite a bit different than what western, modern brains tend to interpret it as.

 

(I think Kay might agree with me here, if I'm following your line fo thought but you both commented on this)

 

It seems clear to me that Jesus is not a sceptic about the OT Law but rather is explaining the full scope of what the Law should be. The format used "It was said... I say..." is meant to show that He is teaching with the authority of God. That's why it twigged off so many Pharisees, because they knew Jesus was taching as though He was eauql to God. That's the origin of the blasphemy charge used at His trial.

[Quaker Way]

1. But yes, of course, I do believe that the events recounted in the Bible are historical.

 

2. Do mean by "personal faith" a personal religion, where we pick and choose the God of our convenience and personal tastes?

 

3. For you revelation plays no part in Faith? What is the point of Jesus coming if there weren't something we could figure out on our own? Do you not rely on any number of teachers to shape and mould your ideas, or do you actually have a perfect spiritual sounding board?

 

My personal feeling on these points are...

 

1. The Bible is not a historical account, although it is based on past human events. I also do not believe the writings of the New Testament to be exact historical eye witness accounts either, but a combination of legend, historical events, personal experiences, and attempts to interpret the Divine in our human way. Although the writings of the Bible may be Divinely inspired, I do not believe they are Divinely written. The Bible is not only the legends, myths, traditions, and oral history of the Jewish people, it contains the same legends, myths, traditions, and oral history of the early Christian church. And there's nothing WRONG with that. I do object when the legends, myths, traditions, and oral history of the Christian church are portrayed as being Truth while the legends, myths, traditions, and oral history or other religions are portrayed as being false. All religions are human attempts at interpreting the Divine...Christianity included.

 

2. Faith is not the same as religion. Faith is based on a personal journey for and toward a Spiritual Truth and can also be augmented by personal experience. I have experienced both the Hand of God and Divine inspirations in my life. These transformative revalations define Faith for me and many others: Transformation. While myths and legends may help bring someone to a place further along the path of their Faith Journey, transformation is based upon a deeply personal experience that cannot be given, taken, or mediated in any way by another human. Religion is simply the best that we can do as humans in our attempts to interpret the Spiritual Truth. I continue to attend church BECAUSE I understand that it as a human expression in the form of song, ceremony, spoken word, communal worship, fellowship, community service, etc. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but understand and make allowances for that human cultural expression. Religion can be a way TO Faith as a stop along a personal journey for people, but it certainly cannot be presented as the definition of such a journey. In an era of searching for such transformation, the fact that so many people have left denominational churches speaks for itself. Religion as presented by today's Christian churches just doesn't hold out much in the way of personal transformation. The Hand of God passed through my life when I was an atheist...it had nothing to do with the Christian church.

 

3. Who said that Jesus is coming? I don't accept the writings in the New Testament as being completely factual nor do I believe in the written predictions of the New Testament as being anything more than part of the legends, myths, traditions, and oral history of the Christian religion. And my personal Faith doesn't rely on TOTAL, unquestioning acceptance of the written stories that make up much of the New Testament, either. Having teachers and advisors along the journey can take the form of a one time casual conversation with a complete stranger and Wisdom can be found anywhere and in anything. 'When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.' This does not have to be just what is put forward as the canons of the Christian church by the Christian church. I, too, believe that we do not 'pick and chose' as you say, but come to believe in a God of our own personal understanding as God is revealed to us in our lives by God. This will not be the same for everyone and that transformative experience will not be the same for everyone. By having a human entity in the form of a religion, the Christian church and its canons, for example, define God for us leads us only to believe in a god that has human origins by definition. When we seek out God in our lives and try to establish a personal relationship with the inner Spirit that is within each and every one of us, then we will come to believe...not be required to believe. By the way, I really do have the perfect Spiritual sounding board...and so do you. I chose to call it God. After all, we are all Spiritual Beings having a human experience away from our One True Home.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Russ

[Kay]

Kay, are you implying, perhaps, a nondualistic viewpt.? If so, interesting! (and i'll get back with you

when I understand it. :-))

 

Actually I was not. Weird eh?

 

It seems clear to me that Jesus is not a sceptic about the OT Law but rather is explaining the full scope of what the Law should be. .

 

This is somewhat I had in mind.

 

There is/was a rabbinical teaching method of "binding and loosing," ( and of "abolishing and fulfilling"). All these teachings (whatever the Rabbi bound or loosed as far as the Law goes) made up the teacher's "yoke." Jesus said his yoke was easy and light, and that the truth of it would set you free.

 

Although Jesus' teachings were not unique (in that they are found in the OT), they were uniquely presented. What he presented, and how he presented them had a ring of authority that many pharasees did not like. He called himself God's son. He forgave sins. And not only did he let loose certain laws ("You have heard it said ... but I tell you), but he gave his disciples the authority to do so (the keys to the kingdom).

Edited August 30, 2006 by Kay