EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[LosBlancos]

When will Christians be considered accepting of gays? Do we need a gay disco in the centre of Vatican City for it to viewed as accepting to young Britons. There are places where gays are hung or stoned to death and I can assure you it's not followers of Jesus commiting these abhorrent acts.

 

[Sammy G]

Um, Jamaica? Uganda? Numerous other African states?

Or are they not true followers of Jesus because they're black?

 

[rickolasnice]

When will Christians be considered accepting of gays? Do we need a gay disco in the centre of Vatican City for it to viewed as accepting to young Britons. There are places where gays are hung or stoned to death and I can assure you it's not followers of Jesus commiting these abhorrent acts.

Yeah ok you understand what we're talking about perfectly..

Jolly good 8)

 

[LosBlancos]

Um, Jamaica? Uganda? Numerous other African states?

Or are they not true followers of Jesus because they're black?

Neither Jamaica nor Uganda have death penalty for gays. In Jamaica the offence of "abominable buggery" carries a maximum penalty of ten years hard labour. Uganda had death penalty proposed recently but the bill was never signed into law.

 

[Sammy G]

You never mentioned the death penalty. You referred to gay people getting stoned to death and hanged.

Which they do, by Christians, in the name of Christ, daily.

 

[Vurtual]

When will Christians be considered accepting of gays? Do we need a gay disco in the centre of Vatican City for it to viewed as accepting to young Britons. There are places where gays are hung or stoned to death and I can assure you it's not followers of Jesus commiting these abhorrent acts.

Christains are free to think and say anything they like about gays - but everyone else is also free to disagree with it, and they do (the vast majority of people in this country accept gay people, without a 'no sex' clause). Christians or christian organisations are just not allowed to use their power to materially discriminate against gays/other races/disabled people, same as any other organisation in britain

 

[LosBlancos]

You never mentioned the death penalty. You referred to gay people getting stoned to death and hanged.

Which they do, by Christians, in the name of Christ, daily.

A few unfortunate killings in an unstable violent region is to me different than state sanctioned hangings done in the public square with tacit approval of the whole populace.

 

[Shambles]

*waves at msb*

Atheist Tory MP Warns Commons About Bigotry Against Satanists

 

[Raasyvibe]

When will Christians be considered accepting of gays? Do we need a gay disco in the centre of Vatican City for it to viewed as accepting to young Britons. There are places where gays are hung or stoned to death and I can assure you it's not followers of Jesus commiting these abhorrent acts.

Um, Jamaica? Uganda? Numerous other African states?

Or are they not true followers of Jesus because they're black?

Man, I can't believe I just read that. Sammy are you really that ignorant? For all your supposed bible knowledge, is it not clear to see that Jesus opposed capital punishment?? And those executing it, are not really true followers as they aren't following his teachings?? Would that not make more sense than "because they are black"?

Problem with these debates, is some people argue not for the sake of sense and logic, but for the sake of taking a side. Defending their own biased opinion blindly, ahead of any common sense. This is a perfect example of how bias interferes with sense. Crazy post.



Virtual and rickolasnice, lengthy responses pending. Little too busy to get my head round all this today, but will look forward to answering Q's and particularly discussing Paul and his supposed misogyny, and can we look to the NT as the word of God etc etc.

 

[Sammy G]

Racist insinuations? Get to fuck. I grew up next door to a Ugandan family, and actually have Jamaican friends, some of whom the older guys taunt because I know more of their culture than them. So get fucked.

These acts are sanctioned by The Bible. Jesus never outright condemns The Law, does he?

 

[Vurtual]

...some people argue not for the sake of sense and logic[...] Defending their own biased opinion blindly, ahead of any common sense...

Glasshouses and all that - get round to my answers when you like, though i'd like to pin you down to a sect/denomination if you wouldn't mind

 

[Raasyvibe]

Man, I can't believe I just read that. Sammy are you really that ignorant? For all your supposed bible knowledge, is it not clear to see that Jesus opposed capital punishment?? And those executing it, are not really true followers as they aren't following his teachings?? Would that not make more sense than "because they are black"?

Problem with these debates, is some people argue not for the sake of sense and logic, but for the sake of taking a side. Defending their own biased opinion blindly, ahead of any common sense. This is a perfect example of how bias interferes with sense. Crazy post.

Racist insinuations? Get to fuck. I grew up next door to a Ugandan family, and actually have Jamaican friends, some of whom the older guys taunt because I know more of their culture than them. So get fucked.

No I never said you were being racist. I said that you were "insinuating" that MSBLosBlancos may have been racist, in not counting African states, while neglecting the truthful fact that Jesus was against capital punishment and condemns that part of the law.

It really shows your inclination on the subject, to demean a Christian with racist insinuations about their faith, before actually looking at the basics of the bible.

These acts are sanctioned by The Bible. Jesus never outright condemns The Law, does he?

We've been through this time and time again, for nearly 3 years now, Sammy.

Jesus does indeed outright condemn capital punishment of The Law; so much so he went through crucifixion himself to exemplify his sincere opposition to our sins.

His opposition to capital punishment in The Law is best exemplified in John 8

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

[Sammy G]

The first part of your post honestly doesn't make much sense, but then bullshit sophistry can be like that.

When I refer to The Law, I mean the whole of it, most specifically the hateful, homophobic parts. Jesus never condemns this outright, merely implies that the responsibility for judgement of sin falls on God alone.

That's pretty short of condemnation, don't you think?

 

[Vurtual]

As a proscription of capital punishment it sounds a bit vague; sounds like 'we really need to get us some executioners who've sinned less!'. He could have said 'thou shalt not do capital punishment' but we have that vague parable instead; not that i don't believe that's what was meant, just that it indicates the difficulty of deriving moral certainty from such an incoherent compilation of mistranslated and edited writings by authors with contradictory agendas.

John had his own agenda differing from the other gospels (semi-gnostic/neoplatonic). And dissing the pharisees is an indication of the factionalism in the early christians: it's very likely that the jesus of the beatitudes was from the same pharisee tradtition as Rabbi Hillel (or he just pinched their best phrases) - the simplification of the pharisee=baddy is part of the bias by roman/greek-inclined christians to push the blame onto the jews for the crucifiction (the earliest gospel mark blames romans (though that wass 30 years later)).

There's a story of jesus that we just don't know, but we can glimpse some suggestive edges: eg the romans sent a legion to the garden of gethsemane to deal with the disciples; and peter got his sword out (ooer) if i remember rightly, so they weren't all peace and love; also, my favourite jesus quote 'i come not to bring peace, but fire and the sword!'.

Do you ever think maybe you got the wrong messiah?

Put simply, it seems that King Herod claimed to be the messiah or “Christ” before Jesus was born and, according to the 1st century historian Josephus, King Herod’s grandson, Herod Agrippa, was hailed as a “messiah” after Jesus was crucified. It’s logical, therefore, to assume that King Herod’s son, Herod Antipas, also thought of himself as a messiah or “Christ”. This would go a long way to explain why Antipas turned Jesus over to the Romans, who sent him to the cross. It seems that the clash between Jesus and Antipas was not one between a revolutionary and the regime. Rather, what the Gospels are describing is a clash between two individuals – both claiming to be messiah.

http://www.simchajtv.com/king-herod-a-messiah/

 

[NightsEpiphany]

Re the gay issue in the church. 'God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so none should perish but have everlasting life'.. Its an open invitation as far as I can see from that verse (John 3:16)... He calls us out of spiritual death..but do we respond? One response is to love and not judge...to reflect Him and not our old carnal nature. Admittedly some Christians ( I won't italicise that word) don't accept Gays.

Surely the Way for us Christians is to welcome and not bombard them with scriptures about sexual activities* ...That is between them and their teacher ( God) if they have truly come to the cross and declared their need for Jesus Christ and a new mind,will and to be regenerated into real life eg born again as Jesus told Nicodemus. The gift of being baptised in the Spirit and knowing as a new creation in Christ you are thoroughly pleasing to God the Father and guilt shame and condemnation are things of the past is utterly priceless ( a pearl of great price)

He just wants to see us whole and living life to the full. There can be crucibles on that journey where we are challenged in terms of shame, guilt, fear and all that..but He promises to 'bring to completion'** the work He starts in us.

*If you are certain that God is leading you to show the Leviticus verses applicable ( balanced with the verses on grace and Life in Christ) then do so gently..lovingly.

There are plenty of gay people that have braved joining a church community God bless em.. I just have no right to assume what their sexual activities are. They might be gay and celibate or gay and struggling. The response is always to Love and be led by God in the relationship.

Some years back you could find me with a different opinion. Now I see my approach was totally wrong and i'm sorry if I offended anyone with drug fuelled zealous posts.

**Phil 1:6

 

[Vurtual]

That more nuanced interpretation is more in keeping with the important bits of the gospels as i understood them, and shows a more fitting humility in the approach to 'god's 'truth' (strewth!). Whatever any detail says in any bit of the bible, the bits that jesus said about loving everyone and the like overrides them in practice imo. To nit pick, do you still think that homosexual lovers are sinners in a way married heterosexuals aren't? cos i personally think the love everyone bit cancels this distinction out too (i would have no problem with you having this belief if you applied your beliefs in the non-(directly)-judgemental way you described)

(i'm not sure how leviticus could really be applied lovingly though (and are we including the bits about mixed fibers?) (edit: you added the bit about grace, which should cancel out the horrible stuff, so why bother reading it then? - saves time to cut to the love everyone bit; less to explain to people (and they don't even need to know it's christianity))

 

[NightsEpiphany]

I think someone has already said the responsibility to judge lies with God as to who is a sinner or not. He has made it clear though by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through St Paul that 'There is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus'*. Outside of Christ for those who don't want Him or God or just don't believe..there is sin ( which has been made clear in great detail in the bible.)

Back to no condemnation for those in Christ though...there is a very real relationship..there is Love but in that lies conviction (knowing you are somehow not connected to His will ,,not in the vine) and it burns... its horrible to feel you have saddened Him in some way by your actions. There's discipline in Love . He makes His will known and in my experience we remain on the same step until we have overcome whatever it is that's causing a distance. I could theorise that a step might involve putting our sexuality on hold if its idolatrous..eg we are holding it in higher esteem and considering it to be more important than God... But actually I prefer to keep my nose out of other peoples very personal struggles unless they invite me to listen.

* Romans 8:1

 

[Vurtual]

... But actually I prefer to keep my nose out of other peoples very personal struggles unless they invite me to listen.

That's a good attitude - it sounds quite similar to quakers; the first paragraph stills sounds too exclusive for me - not much at all has been made clear to me by the bible if i have to include all books, as i've said before (not to mention all the apocryphal gospels i've got no reason to not consider). I prefer the way (some) quakers think about the bible (though i might substitute god with some other metaphor):

Almost overwhelmingly, Quakers hold that the Bible is a collection of writings of human beings in ancient times, trying to express in the best way they could their understanding of God, and God’s relationship with them specifically and humanity in general. Few, if any, Quakers see the Bible as the Infallible Holy Word of God – we see far too many inconsistencies in it for that – rather, it is a collection of words about God. For many it is an important and divinely inspired collection, and for some it remains the most important set of writings about God available to us. By and large, Quakers hold to what theologians call ‘continuing revelation’, meaning God didn’t start talking to us with the Book of Genesis and stop talking with the Book of Revelation, but rather God has also spoken, and continues to speak, to us over time through other writings, whether significant religious texts such as the Qu’ran or the Bhagavad Gita, or through other spiritual writings such as Khalil Gibran’s The Prophet, or through music, painting, sculpture, poetry, or even mainstream theatre or film.

http://www.aboutquakers.org.uk/

 

[Raasyvibe]

urgh, this thread feels like such a slog sometimes. I think I'm gonna quit by the time we get to book 3, so get your last questions ready. Nice to see you back Jess. yes I'm still at it here. I don't expect to convert anyone, but TBH this thread quells insomnia and gives me a reason to start looking at the bible again.

The first part of your post honestly doesn't make much sense, but then bullshit sophistry can be like that.

When I refer to The Law, I mean the whole of it, most specifically the hateful, homophobic parts. Jesus never condemns this outright, merely implies that the responsibility for judgement of sin falls on God alone.

That's pretty short of condemnation, don't you think?

You were referring to capital punishment against homosexuals in the name of Jesus.

Considering Jesus taught the complete opposite to capital punishment (John 8 ), I think it's pretty fair to say following Jesus can in in no way involve capital punishment.

It's time to man up, and suck it up here, Sammy. You made a mistake, because you were too quick to put down a Christian input. It's ok and I forgive you as Jesus would.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-II-Exodus?p=11877888&viewfull=1#post11877888

Ok raas.. here's a few you still haven't answered: (Not that you've really answered any of them in any way other than making excuses)

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

In Matthew, Mark and Luke the last supper takes place on the first day of the Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7). In John's gospel it takes place a day earlier and Jesus is crucified on the first day of the Passover (John 19:14).

There are literally loads, loads more (There's around 4 different accounts on 3 different points about what happened at the tomb).. but i won't bury you in them just yet.

Did you ever find out why there are so many contradictions and impossibilities with the story of Jesus?

Hope all are well.

I'm no scholar, but first glance at those accusations and they don't make sense. You're telling me that when the Roman empire decides to fool the entire world by inventing Jesus.... or whatever it was... they're going to make such an obvious mistake as to get the dates wrong in 2 of the published gospels??? er... hello??

There has to be a more sensible answer to these discrepencies. And a quick rummage around the 'net predictably finds them answered swiftly.

The Governorship of Quirinius

In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable

Your problem is, Ricko, you don't you look into Christian responses yourself before presenting an argument. It would sound far more professional if you pose a question after having investigated both sides. You (being biased as hell) appear to accept everything said against the church, without challenging it. There's usually a lot more to consider into these arguments; I feel sometimes I'm doing the legwork for you, by digging out Christian responses that you could have looked up yourself. How can you progress on the subject if you only listen to one side?





You also asked about Paul and misogyny. I can't find your post, not even in your latest posts so you may have deleted it.

To answer it very quickly: reading in context, Paul's aim seems to bring out an attitude of humility in people. By saying a slave must obey his master, and a woman must obey her husband... I don't think there is a dark oppressive agenda here, I think he's trying to accentuate humility as - Jesus-inspired-Christianity became all about humble and meekness.












Vurtual,

Raas: You 'unanswered' the paragraph after the one you quoted when i said:

Self quote: Remember, saying what (you think) god thinks can't be used as an argument with non-christians (and is not logic) - i could just as easily say i'm right cos Eris said so, so they cancel out (you disprove eris' existence first, then i'll do jehova)...

No it's not like this. There is always some kind of sense behind Christian theology, bible verses and the way God intends. The bible is a guide; a pointer perhaps. Seeing it's sense is the next task of the individual. If Jesus teaches one thing, you should look into why to feel comfortable and accept it.

get round to my answers when you like, though i'd like to pin you down to a sect/denomination if you wouldn't mind

I'm not actually as involved with the church as you may think. I'm not affiliated with any denomination.




anything else? have I missed anythin

 

[Vurtual]

No it's not like this. There is always some kind of sense behind Christian theology, bible verses and the way God intends. The bible is a guide; a pointer perhaps. Seeing it's sense is the next task of the individual. If Jesus teaches one thing, you should look into why to feel comfortable and accept it.

Maybe it's only sense to you as a christian because christian theology implies a christian god which you believe in - if someone doesn't believe in that, it may not count as an argument (the bit where it gets to 'i think this because god said it in the bible' or 'this is true because jehova exists/jesus died for our sins') - though they may well agree with the sentiment nonetheless - and is it good theology to think you/anyone are able to parse god's will and apply it as a legalistic/logical arguments in such an intellectual fashion. You can derive a moral/logical argument from your theology, but you can only explain/justify it to a non-christian in moral or logical terms, not theological ones.

I'm not actually as involved with the church as you may think. I'm not affiliated with any denomination.

I had an idea you weren't particularly affiliated (probably told me before) - maybe you should focus in on a sect or shop around a bit; sometimes you seem to imply that there's a general truth of christianity including the whole bible that's easily accessed online, but there are various different interpretations around that are quite divergent (catholic, protestant, orthodox and their many daughters). Your tendency to assume every bit of the bible has truth and twisting to make them fit sounds like some evangelical people i've met (one of who is a friend (we talk about religion a lot)); i really think focusing on the love your enemy/turn the other cheek/do unto others/cast the first stone/beatitudes stuff that jesus said makes the whole rest of the bible redundant, or just important as backstory; i think this type of christianity (if it would still be that) would be better, logically, morally and spiritually