Originally posted by NemesioWho cares what they thought in terms of who belongs to what group? The fact remains that within certain societies, murder is not only not frowed upon, but also praised. Look at Palastinians who are praised for blowing themselves to smithereens, all in an attempt to kill the infidel. You can explain away such murder by saying they are fighting one another but it is still murder and it has been justified by a particular society.
Well, murder isn't societal. Unlike your claim earlier (that sexual mores were consistent in all times
and places), murder within one's propinquity group has always been frowned upon. That having been
said, Israel didn't consider the Midianites as part of their propinquity group, just like the Nazis didn't
consider the Jews as part of their group. Both erred as far as I'm concerned by not taking a sufficiently
broad understanding of group.
Originally posted by NemesioIt all boils down to ones interpretation of scripture. I think such commands as how to dress and wear your hair have to do with how one is recieved in a particular society and not how God recieves you. Conversley, you have equated who I choose to have sex with in regards to how I wear my hair. I find the comparison to be ludicrous beyond measure.
God's command through revealed Scripture seems to be something one ought not to quarrel with, no?
St Paul is unequivocal. I just find it amusing beyond measure that you feel comfortable ignoring the
parts of Scripture that you happen to find trivial or driven by a particular societal perspective, but
frown upon other people who do the same thing on other topics.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by whodeySure. You want to dismiss the parts of Scripture convenient to you but
It all boils down to ones interpretation of scripture. I think such commands as how to dress and wear your hair have to do with how one is recieved in a particular society and not how God recieves you. Conversley, you have equated who I choose to have sex with in regards to how I wear my hair. I find the comparison to be ludicrous beyond measure.
you wish to frown on those who dismiss the parts convenient to them,
even though they both use the same reason: a change in societal norms.
You want to assert that St Paul was really speaking God's mind in regards
to sexual action for all time and all peoples, but that he was only speaking
to his time and his people about hair.
And all of this without giving so much as a justification.
Bravo, hypocrite.
Nemesio
Originally posted by checkbaiterI agree with you 100%.
The Pharisee's had gone to the extreme interpreting the law of God and completely missed the heart of God.
And so, I ask if perhaps in light of developments amongst homosexuals
that perhaps the viewpoint on their orientation may also need revision.
Many want to have loving, nurturing relationships with one other person
until death parts them. This is very different than the hedonistic pagan
homoeroticism that St Paul observed. Can the heart of God be present
in a modern homosexual relationship?
Can the heart of God be present in a long-haired male or a woman who
doesn't cover her head when she prays?
St Paul says unequivocally 'no' to both. I say, 'Why not?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyWell, then you're ignoring St Paul's Scriptural admonition in which he is
I think such commands as how to dress and wear your hair have to do with how one is recieved in a particular society and not how God recieves you.
thoroughly clear about the unnaturalness of women with short or uncovered
hair.
He makes it clear that it's not just about custom and that it has no place
in the churches of God.
So I guess the Holy Spirit wasn't with him in these verses, huh?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioConversly, you seem to only want to focus on obscure teachings that are controversial and completly ignore the genereal theme of the NT which is Christ and his sacrifice for our sins and his subsequent resurrection. You seem to go out of your way to disembowel the message of the good news in favor of legalistic discourse that deos nothing but lead to disputes. I'll tell you what, you can focus on the doctrine of long hair and I will focus on what Christ has done for me in terms of delivering me from my sin and one day resurrecting me from death, hell, and the grave!!
Sure. You want to dismiss the parts of Scripture convenient to you but
you wish to frown on those who dismiss the parts convenient to them,
even though they both use the same reason: a change in societal norms.
You want to assert that St Paul was really speaking God's mind in regards
to sexual action for all time and all peoples, but that he was only ...[text shortened]...
And all of this without giving so much as a justification.
Bravo, hypocrite.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyDoes this mean you no longer consider homosexual sex a sin? Or are you just changing the subject to avoid having to think about it?
Conversly, you seem to only want to focus on obscure teachings that are controversial and completly ignore the genereal theme of the NT which is Christ and his sacrifice for our sins and his subsequent resurrection. You seem to go out of your way to disembowel the message of the good news in favor of legalistic discourse that deos nothing but lead to dispute ...[text shortened]... erms of delivering me from my sin and one day resurrecting me from death, hell, and the grave!!
Originally posted by whodeyIf one has a right to do X, then anyone preventing you from doing X is acting immorally. That does not mean that doing X is moral in itself.
So what is the difference between saying that a certain act is moral and saying that you have the "right" to do a certain act?
Originally posted by whodey
Conversly, you seem to only want to focus on obscure teachings that are controversial and completly ignore the genereal theme of the NT which is Christ and his sacrifice for our sins and his subsequent resurrection.
I think that you do, too, when you opine that loving homosexual expression
is an impediment to embracing this general theme. You 'disembowel'
the message of love, forgiveness, generosity and compassion when you
opine that those living a 'homosexual lifestyle' separate themselves from
God and His Son.
I'll tell you what, you can focus on the doctrine of long hair and I will focus on what Christ has done for me in terms of delivering me from my sin and one day resurrecting me from death, hell, and the grave!!
I think the 'doctrine' of hair is uninspired. It sounds like you do, too. But
I also think the 'doctrine' of homosexuality is uninspired -- an equal
product of St Paul's time inapplicable to today's world. Somehow, you
don't.
This makes you a hypocrite. Say hi for me to the Pharisees when you see
them in the afterlife, bud.
Nemesio
Originally posted by TheSkipperI can't believe you'd accuse him of changing the subje... wait a second,
Does this mean you no longer consider homosexual sex a sin? Or are you just changing the subject to avoid having to think about it?
he sure did! He's trying to make me look like the bad guy here while
he goes to a perverted church that allows women to pray with uncovered
heads! Here I am, trying to point out the error of his ways, how he ignores
'Divine Revelation' and he accuses me of embracing the Pharisees!
The nerve!
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyStep to the plate, whodey. Is St Paul's proclamation -- that 'nature itself'
Conversly, you seem to only want to focus on obscure teachings that are controversial and completly ignore the genereal theme of the NT which is Christ and his sacrifice for our sins and his subsequent resurrection. You seem to go out of your way to disembowel the message of the good news in favor of legalistic discourse that deos nothing but lead to dispute ...[text shortened]... erms of delivering me from my sin and one day resurrecting me from death, hell, and the grave!!
cries out against a man with long hair or a woman with short hair -- divinely
inspired? Is St Paul's proclamation that a woman must have her head
covered when she prays 'because of the angels' divinely inspired?
Yes or no.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with you on the long hair and the uncovered head. I don't think this is sin. I think this was just Paul. The homosexuality part? No. I believe this is wrong. I believe it is sin because it takes something holy, like marriage between a man and a woman and turns it into something deviant. There is much in the Old Testament concerning homosexuality. It is conflicting with nature. It is not profitable. It is demonic to it's core.....
I agree with you 100%.
And so, I ask if perhaps in light of developments amongst homosexuals
that perhaps the viewpoint on their orientation may also need revision.
Many want to have loving, nurturing relationships with one other person
until death parts them. This is very different than the hedonistic pagan
homoeroticism that St Paul observed. Ca ...[text shortened]... d when she prays?
St Paul says unequivocally 'no' to both. I say, 'Why not?'
Nemesio
Originally posted by checkbaiterHow is marriage holy?
I agree with you on the long hair and the uncovered head. I don't think this is sin. I think this was just Paul. The homosexuality part? No. I believe this is wrong. I believe it is sin because it takes something holy, like marriage between a man and a woman and turns it into something deviant. There is much in the Old Testament concerning homosexuality. It is conflicting with nature. It is not profitable. It is demonic to it's core.....
So you pick and choose which parts of Divine Revelation are amenable to
you, right? Your opinion is that St Paul's testimony regarding head-
coverings is not a reflection of God's attitude.
That is, the Holy Spirit failed to intervene on St Paul's false assertion,
that it is unnatural for a woman to have short or uncovered hair when she
prays.
Am I summing up your position correctly?
Whodey, what about you?
Originally posted by checkbaiter
There is much in the Old Testament concerning homosexuality. It is conflicting with nature. It is not profitable. It is demonic to it's core.....
Interesting that you say 'conflicting with nature' just like St Paul says about
hair...
The stuff in the Hebrew Scriptures is in the context of the Old Law. To
appeal to that material would require you to keep kosher.
The word used to describe homoerotic activity in the OT is 'abomination.'
Do you eat abominable things (Deut. 14:3-20 or Lev. 11:2-42)? Do
you think that it is an abominable thing to have intercourse with a menstruating
woman?
Is your attitude truly in accord with the Bible, that homosexuals should
be put to death as Leviticus 20:13?
In short, do you truly embrace the Old Law or only select the portions that
are convenient to you (like you do with St Paul)?
Nemesio