17 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioAnd I don't think you are generally interested in my theology which is that ALL of God's laws passed down in the scriptures are based in love and what he thinks is best for society at large.
I don't think you're genuinely interested in examining the sexual laws put in place. I think you're interested
in preserving the comfort zone you've established around yourself.
Nemesio[/b]
17 Jul 07
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI wonder what the percentage would have been in Mosaic times when judging and dealing with sin was much more harsh?
85% of high school heterosexual males and 75% of high school heterosexual females have had sex
with more than one partner by the time they graduate. By the time they graduate college, they average
seven heterosexual partners. How much more promiscuous before it's dangerous?
There is a conundrum of sorts when dealing with sinful practices. On the one hand, one does not want to interfere with the free will God has given us but on the other hand, when such free will is practiced in such a way as to be detremental to society at large there presents a problem. Do we continue to let such detremental practices continue that we know will only continue to spread if not dealt with or do we prevent them from continuing such practices. In our society today, such practices as adultery and homosexual sex and fornication etc. are not illegal in any way and, therefore, no penalties associated with them even though they may contribute to socities ills at large. As a result, these practices have a tendency to only expand and grow when not dealt with. On the one hand, it is nice living in a freer society. On the other hand, one abhors the consequences of such a permissive society such as the thought of our teenagers getting pregnant or obtaining an STD etc. while thrown into that society or even getting molested.
From a human perspective, we tend to assimilate the morality of what is percieved as the authority over us. For example, in the US, abortion was once seen as immoral. However, when it became legalized it later became seen as the woman's choice and not necessarily immoral. Conversly, when slavery was the law of the land it was not seen in large part as immoral, especially in the South where it was abundant. However, today it has been made illegal for generations upon generations and, therefore, we have adopted the societal notion that it is abhorent. The same goes for sexual practices. The more we see certain sexual behavoir as being "the norm" the more likely we will be in engaging in that activity. For the Christian, however, our moral authority should be God's word first and foremost and not those that sit upon the Supreme Court.
As a result of the knowing this, I say that as a society we must pick and choose the laws that reign over us with great trepidation. We must realize that the practices we make legal or do not make illegal will impact the morality of future generations. Then when we make our choice we should not then scream, "FOUL!" at the consequences for our decisions.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperHomosexuality is only a sin if you see it as a sin and/or God sees it as a sin. So I guess you are free to decide for yourself. I am merely giving you my perspective on the issue. Ridicule me if it pleases you.
Do you use the biblical passage in question to correct women with short hair and men with long hair in your church? Actually, are they even allowed in your church? If they are allowed in, may they teach a Sunday School class? Are they allowed to get married in your church...?
The mental gymnastics you guys are willing to do to make sure homosexuals are still sinners is really silly...and telling.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou have a very irritating way of not answering the question:
I was merely speculating as to why Paul said these things. My hunch, however, is that his objection was based in love. Perhaps the way in which he told people to pray was already a social norm, thus, breaking this norm that was seen as "natural" would create strife and division. However, this also is a speculation by me and it is my interpretation in terms ...[text shortened]... auls day, I would try to pracitce public prayer within the social norm as instructed by Paul.
1) It's really a sin for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair;
2) St Paul was totally wrong on this issue; or
3) What constitutes sin has changed over time.
Is it #1 and thus is still a sin or is it #3 and it's okay for women to have short hair today?
Which?
Nemesio
17 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAh.
And I don't think you are generally interested in my theology which is that ALL of God's laws passed down in the scriptures are based in love and what he thinks is best for society at large.
So if society becomes increasingly comfortable with homosexual partnerships, begins to afford them
the rights and privileges that heterosexual partnerships enjoy, and are generally well accepted by the
community -- that is, does not impact the society at large in a negative way -- then you would be
willing to recognize the love between them?
That is, are you willing to admit that possibly or even probably that two men or two women can love
each other with the sort of purity and devotion that a heterosexual couple can, that they can include
God as the third member of their union just like a heterosexual couple can?
That perhaps, just like the Pauline restrictions on hair, the sexual restrictions that were a product of
their time might simply be impeding the expression of love between two people that imitates 'Christ's
love for His Church?'
Nemesio
P.S., My theology is predicated on the idea of God's perfect Love.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyHomosexuality is only a sin if God sees it that way. Period. If I thought murder wasn't a sin, it would
Homosexuality is only a sin if you see it as a sin and/or God sees it as a sin. So I guess you are free to decide for yourself. I am merely giving you my perspective on the issue. Ridicule me if it pleases you.
still be a sin. Period.
The only ridicule you deserve is for insisting that a holy love cannot exist between a man and man
or between a woman and a woman, that God cannot be fully present in that relationship.
Nemesio
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeySo, I guess, you ignore this part of the Law, too, huh? At least, you don't participate in the stoning.
I wonder what the percentage would have been in Mosaic times when judging and dealing with sin was much more harsh?
Do you oppose such stonings in Arabic communities?
Nemesio
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeySo even attributing the mind and will of God is idolatry? Is Christ listed in this category for saying that he is to be about the will of the Father?
So even attributing the mind and will of God is idolatry? Is Christ listed in this category for saying that he is to be about the will of the Father?
Being a Christian, my defintion of idolatry is placing anything or anyone ahead of my God. Thus the commandment to love the Lord with all of your heart and soul and mind applies as well as loving your neigh ...[text shortened]... ity, how is it that we cannot relate to him in some way and perhaps even know what his will is?
“Were it not for. . .”
Being a Christian, my definition of idolatry is placing anything or anyone ahead of my God.
Part of my problem is that I hesitate to accuse any individual of idolatry, since I don’t know what is going on in their head. So, I kind of let the shoe fit or not—and I don’t attempt to fit the shoe...
The test for you—not for me, nor for you to defend yourself to me, or whatever—but strictly in your own mind, can be presented by re-wording this statement of yours as follows—
“Being a Christian, my definition of idolatry is placing anything or anyone ahead of my conception of my God.” However and wherever you derive or acquire a mental construct/concept of God. . . That is only something that you can address—seriously, continuously, ruthlessly and honestly—for yourself.
In other words, if you love me you will try to please me but doing what you know pleases me.
Just as an aside, on the human level this can be a disastrous notion of love.
God doesn’t want or need your God-pleasing behavior; it isn’t as much about what God wants from you as what God wants for you. Nevertheless, I think you are on the right track here. . .
You believe that there is not an entity or personality, rather, he is simply the whole sum of existence that is infinite...
I’m not that “bottom-up.”
...where I lay claim that he is a personality that can be interacted with even though I concede that he is infinite.
What you or I lay claim to is not the point. “Laying claim” is in the domain of thought—and thought is “about”: about and about and about.
It’s quite possible that a great deal of my own beliefs in the (even quite recent) past have been idolatrous: “ground of being” can be as idolatrous a concept as “a person.”
As long as religion is a game of concepts, thoughts, definitions—how can it not be at least tinged with idolatry?
Neither accept nor dismiss Rav Kook’s comments. Ponder them; let them percolate. Think of the idolatries he is referring to within his own religious paradigm (Orthodox Judaism), as well as others.
18 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioPaul is outlining the proper worship procedures, according to the significance of the unique roles of men and women as children of God. All are equal in God's eyes, but this side of heaven we each have a role to fulfill. If I am a woman, it is proper for me to submit to the authority of a man; meaning, if I have a word from God to share I must do so with a covering on my head as an outward sign of inward submission. If I am a man, I must not cover my head when sharing a word from God because this is not proper for me to do, since I was not made for woman, but she for me. These are the proper procedures for conducting worship. God is a God of order, and he has proper ways of doing things. I believe this is not merely a local custom, but the ineffable word of God; meant to be obeyed.
I was perusing Scripture and came upon the following:
...Any man who prays or propehsies with his head covered brings shame
upon his head. But a woman who prays or prophesies with her head
unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one in the same thing as
if she had had her head shaved...Judge for yourselves: is it proper for
a woman to pray to al disgrace.'
What do Biblical literalists have to say about this?
Nemesio
Do all churches practice this? No. Does God reject his children for failing to do what is proper? No. Nevertheless, Paul teaches what is proper because inquiring minds want to know.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI have an irritating way of answering questions because you have an irritating way of asking questions. For example, #3 asks if what constitutes sin has changed over time. For me it is like asking me to answer yes or no, have I stopped beating my wife? The question posed does not permit me to answer the way in which in order to reveal the truth about the matter. What constitutes sin has not changed, however, peoples concept of what sin is does. As I have said repeatidly, I think Paul gave this teaching because there may have been those who thought it a sin to wear their hair a certain way or not wear a hat during prayer/worship. As I said before, if social custum were the same today as it was in Pauls day then I think it would be a sin to purposefully offend those I worship/pray with by ignoring their social custom. However, today this does not seem to be the case so today I would not deem it a sin. The sin in question is offending those in the faith that may cause them to stumble and not what your hair looks like or whether or not you have a hat.
You have a very irritating way of not answering the question:
1) It's really a sin for a woman to have short hair or a man to have long hair;
2) St Paul was totally wrong on this issue; or
3) What constitutes sin has changed over time.
Is it #1 and thus is still a sin or is it #3 and it's okay for women to have short hair today?
Which?
Nemesio
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI included the notion that a sin is only a sin if you think it a sin for those who do not believe that God exists. You are right, if there is a God then if he thinks it a sin then it is a sin. Period.
Homosexuality is only a sin if God sees it that way. Period. If I thought murder wasn't a sin, it would
still be a sin. Period.
The only ridicule you deserve is for insisting that a holy love cannot exist between a man and man
or between a woman and a woman, that God cannot be fully present in that relationship.
Nemesio
I would say that insisting that two people who love each other MUST be afforded the notion that God condones a sexual union between them under any and all circumstances is ridiculous.
18 Jul 07
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioBefore answering this question I am curious, can you answer this question? How has the laws concerning homosexuality changed in regards to the Bible? Choose from the following
Ah.
So if society becomes increasingly comfortable with homosexual partnerships, begins to afford them
the rights and privileges that heterosexual partnerships enjoy, and are generally well accepted by the
community -- that is, does not impact the society at large in a negative way -- then you would be
willing to recognize the love between them?
Tha ch?'
Nemesio
P.S., My theology is [b]predicated on the idea of God's perfect Love.[/b]
1. The Mosaic laws were not inspired by God nor were the Pauline letters.
2. The Mosaic laws and Pauline letters were inspired by God to some degree but not in regards to the teaching that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.
3. The concept of sin has changed either in the minds of believers or of God.
4. Homosexuals referred to back in Mosaic times and Pauline times were generally "wicked". Today, however, their are some that are "righteous".
5. Christ destroyed the Mosaic laws and Paul had not realized this as of yet.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI am a follower of Christ and as I have said, he has introduced a new method for dealing with such sin. It is a little known thing called "grace". As a result, no, I would not be in favor of stoning just as Jesus was not.
So, I guess, you ignore this part of the Law, too, huh? At least, you don't participate in the stoning.
Do you oppose such stonings in Arabic communities?
Nemesio
Also, Christ was not destroying the Mosaic law as I am also not because the spirit of the law was not broken which was to stop the sinning. Only the letter of the law was broken not the intent of the law. Through Christ we are able to destroy the sin without destroying the sinner. Do you agree that Chirst has the power over sin and death?
18 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo God does not reject His children for being practicing homosexuals?
I believe this is not merely a local custom, but the ineffable word of God; meant to be obeyed.
Do all churches practice this? No. Does God reject his children for failing to do what is proper? No. Nevertheless, Paul teaches what is proper because inquiring minds want to know.
Would you attend a church with women with short hair or men with long hair?
Would you attend a church with individuals who have remarried?
Would you attend a church that has open, practicing homosexuals?
Would you attend a church with a woman in a position of spiritual leadership?
Would you attend a church that blesses same-sex unions?
Nemesio
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, if social custum were the same today as it was in Pauls day then I think it would be a sin to purposefully offend those I worship/pray with by ignoring their social custom. However, today this does not seem to be the case so today I would not deem it a sin.
Okay, so then that's a solid yes to #3. It was a sin but today it's not a sin.
Good.
Now, given that you can believe that something used to be sinful but is not sinful, do you think that
it's possible that one day homosexuality will not be viewed as a sin?
The sin in question is offending those in the faith that may cause them to stumble and not what your hair looks like or whether or not you have a hat.
Okay. Is it possible that a pair of homosexuals who have a loving, devoted, charitable relationship
with each other and with God can serve to be an inspiration to other couples -- hetero- and homosexual?
Nemesio