02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFThe Point was that you wanted a teaching of Jesus, and thus you are bound to look at the boundary conditions of his life. Otherwise you could argue that Jesus approved of atomic bombs, where is his teaching against?
We don't live in "the Jewish Society of Jesus time". I am not an ancient Hebrew. If the Bible isn't a book for the 21st century world, then what is it?
Originally posted by PonderableDid Jesus teach against parents putting to death their "stubborn and rebellious" children? No. Do Christians put their children to death? No.
The Point was that you wanted a teaching of Jesus, and thus you are bound to look at the boundary conditions of his life. Otherwise you could argue that Jesus approved of atomic bombs, where is his teaching against?
Did Jesus teach against homosexuality? No. Do Christians condemn homosexuality? Some do, some don't.
There is no teaching on this issue with Jesus as its source. It's not enough to simply say the ancient Hebrews were like this, the ancient Hebrews were like that. Especially when there is so much cherry-picking that then goes on. It's a complete shambles.
You can't condemn the sexual orientation of 200-300 million human beings based on a morally shambolic hodge-podge of Hebrew folklore.
And I have no idea what Jesus would have thought about atomic bombs. I note that Christians differ on the matter. 😉
Originally posted by PonderableIts quite interesting. I am not sure what it might be but it sounds like a kind of cherry picking and an argument from ignorance. First of all Jesus teachings form an important but comparatively small portion of the entire Bible upon which Christians base their faith. To isolate Jesus teaching and to make a case for something while ignoring the greater body is cherry picking. Secondly stating that something is true because someone never said anything about it or never expressed a contrary opinion about it is a blatant argument from ignorance.
The Point was that you wanted a teaching of Jesus, and thus you are bound to look at the boundary conditions of his life. Otherwise you could argue that Jesus approved of atomic bombs, where is his teaching against?
It is clear that Jesus upheld the original standard of the union of male and female, for in response to a question regarding divorce he cites a verse from the book of Genesis, '“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matt 19:4-6
Thus logically, Biblically and as you mention historically the case for the acceptance of homosexuality cannot be made on the basis of what Jesus did not say and its ludicrous to think that it can.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSuperstition is no reason for people to think they have to live according to the mores of the ancient Hebrews. If Jesus' audience was - as Christians claim - people hundreds and thousands of years into the future, then where is the guidance?
Thus logically, Biblically and as you mention historically the case for the acceptance of homosexuality cannot be made on the basis of what Jesus did not say and its ludicrous to think that it can.
One logical conclusion then is that he was a maverik rabbi teaching an ancient people about stuff he mostly did not need to iterate. And then he died. Meanwhile, we live in the 21st century and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Hebrews offer us a culture or code of morality for us to model our society on or live by.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is clear that Jesus upheld the original standard of the union of male and female, for in response to a question regarding divorce he cites a verse from the book of Genesis, '“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matt 19:4-6
So he explicitly "upheld" some stuff people already knew about marriage in an answer about divorce but he pointedly did not uphold anything about homosexuality. Ouch. This is surely not a point that supports Ponderable's point.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFOne logical conclusion then is that he was a maverik rabbi teaching an ancient people about stuff he mostly did not need to iterate. And then he died.
Superstition is no reason for people to think they have to live according to the mores of the ancient Hebrews. If Jesus' audience was - as Christians claim - people hundreds and thousands of years into the future, then where is the guidance?
One logical conclusion then is that he was a maverik rabbi teaching an ancient people about stuff he mostly did not ne ...[text shortened]... at the Hebrews offer us a culture or code of morality for us to model our society on or live by.
When did we change the meaning of "logical conclusion " to "patently, demonstrably and ridiculously absurd"?
The rejection of established historical facts such an ignorant view requires is beyond anything resembling possibility or plausibility.
And that's just a small part of the problem, as it is otherwise impossible to account for the spiritual impacts attributed and related to Christianity.
While some may call this an attempt at revisionism, it's more akin to burying one's head... somewhere which otherwise prohibits vision.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe rolling back of ugly, anachronistic religionist attitudes and superstitions regarding homosexuality - regardless of "the established historical facts" surrounding their origin, rationale and propagation - is to be welcomed.😉
The rejection of established historical facts such an ignorant view requires is beyond anything resembling possibility or plausibility.
And that's just a small part of the problem, as it is otherwise impossible to account for the spiritual impacts attributed and related to Christianity.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFIf your only interest is in sloganeering inflammatory claptrap, I'm afraid you'll need to find another sandbox pal.
The rolling back of ugly, anachronistic religionist attitudes and superstitions regarding homosexuality - regardless of "the established historical facts" surrounding their origin, rationale and propagation - is to be welcomed.😉
02 Aug 16
We have the highest ever recorded figures for HIV amoung gay men in the UK and we are supposed to celebrate it? and all these secular liberal bufoons can do is bitch about religion, man clearly the irony is wasted on them.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are the one peddling prejudice for your own psychological reasons, not me. You have to make the case if you want people to subscribe to the same prejudices as you feel. If it's something to do with the ancient Hebrews, go for it. 😛
If your only interest is in sloganeering inflammatory claptrap, I'm afraid you'll need to find another sandbox pal.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll angels, including fallen ones, are regarded as "he". Regarding the 144,000, you have a skewed view if this because you're a JW, who believes toy are one of these 144,000 (along with other beliefs most Christians don't agree with, like Jesus merely being an angel).
Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible,
angels are actually genderless.
The Trinity is comprised of males,
while I do not profess belief in the trinity personification does not mean personality otherwise ships really would be female.
the special "144,000" are all men
No they are not they are infact bought from man ...[text shortened]... don't mean to be rude, really i don't but your post has more bull than a herd of Texan longhorns
The bible says these 144,000 didn't "defile" themselves with women. Clearly, this means they're men.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho's asking anyone to "celebrate" the figures for HIV among gay men in the UK?
We have the highest ever recorded figures for HIV amoung gay men in the UK and we are supposed to celebrate it? and all these secular liberal bufoons can do is bitch about religion, man clearly the irony is wasted on them.
02 Aug 16
Originally posted by FMFPeddling prejudice.
You are the one peddling prejudice for your own psychological reasons, not me. You have to make the case if you want people to subscribe to the same prejudices as you feel. If it's something to do with the ancient Hebrews, go for it. 😛
How positively adorable.
How does it feel knowing you are acting out a role from a book?
Of fiction?
Your silly attempt at politically correct double-speak is as sheer as a cheap negligee, and provides just as much warmth.