- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75I wonder whether, in your eagerness to preach, you sometimes forget to engage with the point made to you?
Of course he wouldn't know the extent of how this practice would be today but he would have known it existed in the past and in his day also.
He would also be familiar with God's teaching and laws and things that God did in the past as with the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah. A clear sign of a clear warning....
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
13 Aug 10
Originally posted by Conrau KThat seems reasonable to me. Of course the prohibitionists would argue that Paul is right in giving homosexuality as an example of sin and would back this up with other passages for which they would give a teleological interpretation. You know all the god created them male and female stuff.
Yes, and in fact, I think there are two obvious textual clues which would suggest prohibitionist have taken this out of context. Firstly, Paul is addressing the issue of paganism, which will begin his discussion of the need for faith and grace for virtue and moral life. The focus of this passage therefore is paganism, not homosexuality. He is saying 'The pa ...[text shortened]... of God leads to sin, without endorsing Paul's assumption that homosexuality is a sin?
I suspect that the fundamental principle operating here is:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php
14 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe OT also condemns homosexuality. I take it God did not know either about the 'nature of homosexuality' as it has only recently become available. Had God known the truth it would not be a sin ?
Well some of the evidence about the nature of homosexuality has only recently become available. I don't think it is credible to suppose Paul knew about it. Do you agree?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkYes, for sure. I believe Paul did think homosexuality activity sinful; I just do not strictly think this particular passage can be described as an explicit teaching against homosexuality.
That seems reasonable to me. Of course the prohibitionists would argue that Paul is right in giving homosexuality as an example of sin and would back this up with other passages for which they would give a teleological interpretation. You know all the god created them male and female stuff.
I suspect that the fundamental principle operating here is:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php
On another note, I wonder about this talk of teleology. This was certainly a big area of moral philosophy in the classical period but, as far as I can think, classical authors spoke of 'telos' (or 'finis'😉 generally in relation to virtue and when it was popular in the Latin world, as when used by authors like Cicero, usually for political and social thinking rather than sexual morality. Are we perhaps being anachronistic in suggesting any teleological reading of Scripture at all?
As for that article, definitely yes. Obviously notions of 'nature' are coloured by person prejudice. We could also draw on post-modern theory. It is one of the major insights of post-modern thinking to reject these kinds of metaphysics of 'nature' because these are simply part of a discourse to marginalise and oppress those deemed unnatural. Some are inclined to call homosexuality 'unnatural', not on the basis of any firm moral reasoning, but rather as a rhetorical strategy of othering the homosexual.
14 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm not ignoring the posts - some things I just don't have enough time for and I have a tendency to forget. So please stop with your own accusing attitude and false assumptions. I may not answer right away, so instead of taking the simpleton approach and assume I ignored you, just give me some time. I may not answer right away and may have forgotten, so chill with the ignoring crap. I'm not as young as I used to be.
[b]You must be talking about this - I forgot about it so sue me
No sense getting all defensive about it. I asked those questions a couple of posts back and you ignored them even after being prompted again - just as you've ignored the following:
[quote]I wish more would embrace the teachings of Jesus. The world would be a much better place. Does it ed? If you answer is "yes", can you support that belief via the teachings of Jesus?"[/b]
The teachings of the Church is to not condone sin but it's members should not judge either. Jesus Christ himself did not condone sin, just like what the Church teaches. However, Jesus also would not stop helping others either, even if they were sinners. This is what the Church believes and I believe the same thing - I do not condone sin, but I also would not hesitate to help those in need whom ever they are.
The LDS church does indeed follow and embrace the teachings of Jesus. I have been a member for many years and I believe this.
Regarding the teachings of Paul. When Jesus Christ came to Earth, He overwrote many laws that were in the OT. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality as one of the changes. I believe that since Jesus never mentioned it, it did not change. How we treat each other, including homosexuals did change though. Jesus spoke mainly on loving everyone, regardless of who they are. Jesus' actions certainly reflected this and the LDS Church does likewise. I believe Paul's teachings reflect the teachings of Jesus. I believe my answer was satisfactory. You may not like it, but that's your opinion. I gave you an answer I believe is satisfactory enough.
Keep in mind though, even though I believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and believe it is true, I also believe that it's members are not perfect, including the prophet. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect - no one else.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOriginally posted by Conrau K
Yes, for sure. I believe Paul did think homosexuality activity sinful; I just do not strictly think this particular passage can be described as an explicit teaching against homosexuality.
On another note, I wonder about this talk of teleology. This was certainly a big area of moral philosophy in the classical period but, as far as I can think, classical ...[text shortened]... firm moral reasoning, but rather as a rhetorical strategy of othering the homosexual.
On another note, I wonder about this talk of teleology. This was certainly a big area of moral philosophy in the classical period but, as far as I can think, classical authors spoke of 'telos' (or 'finis'😉 generally in relation to virtue and when it was popular in the Latin world, as when used by authors like Cicero, usually for political and social thinking rather than sexual morality. Are we perhaps being anachronistic in suggesting any teleological reading of Scripture at all?
Maybe, can I blame Aquinas?
14 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeWhen Jesus Christ came to Earth, He overwrote many laws that were in the OT. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality as one of the changes. I believe that since Jesus never mentioned it, it did not change.
I'm not ignoring the posts - some things I just don't have enough time for and I have a tendency to forget. So please stop with your own accusing attitude and false assumptions. I may not answer right away, so instead of taking the simpleton approach and assume I ignored you, just give me some time. I may not answer right away and may have forgotten, s not perfect, including the prophet. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect - no one else.
Earlier in this thread, when TW asked about Christians using "Leviticus to justify homophobia", you responded as follows:
I believe the OT laws were just that...Old laws. Christians get their name from Jesus Christ who was in the NT. Jesus Christ himself over wrote the Old laws (Law of Moses/Mosaic Law) when he gave the Sermon on the mount in the NT.
Now it seems that you've reversed yourself. What's up with that?
Also, I have to wonder how far you'd be willing to take the concept of Jesus having to specifically mention a given law for Him to have changed it. Would it also apply in the case of wearing garments made from more than one fiber or trimming the hair on the sides of ones head (both Leviticus) for example?
Regarding the teachings of Paul...Jesus spoke mainly on loving everyone, regardless of who they are. Jesus' actions certainly reflected this and the LDS Church does likewise. I believe Paul's teachings reflect the teachings of Jesus.
I asked you to support your belief via the teachings of Jesus. It makes little sense to respond with the teachings of Paul even if you believe them to be reflective of the teachings of Jesus. Paul taught what he taught and Jesus taught what He taught. You're avoiding the issue. If you had asked me to back something up with the teachings of Jesus and I responded with the teachings of someone else, say Ghandi, because I believed his teachings were reflective of the teachings of Jesus, would you find that acceptable? Remember, you keep claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus, not Paul.
Do you believe that the following teaching reflects the teachings of Jesus? It seems to be antithetical to what you've been saying.
1 Corinthians 5
9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
Jesus spoke mainly on loving everyone, regardless of who they are. Jesus' actions certainly reflected this and the LDS Church does likewise...Keep in mind though, even though I believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and believe it is true, I also believe that it's members are not perfect, including the prophet. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect - no one else.
From what I can tell, the LDS is willing to excommunicate practicing homosexuals. This also seems antithetical to what you've been saying about the teachings of Jesus.
So once again, does it bother you that the LDS does not do likewise? Have you spoken out against the LDS position?
I'm not ignoring the posts - some things I just don't have enough time for and I have a tendency to forget. So please stop with your own accusing attitude and false assumptions. I may not answer right away, so instead of taking the simpleton approach and assume I ignored you, just give me some time. I may not answer right away and may have forgotten, so chill with the ignoring crap. I'm not as young as I used to be.
Once again, there's no sense getting defensive about it. It is what it is.
14 Aug 10
Luke 12:51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
14 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999You can't have it both ways. Condemn mixed fibres and eating shellfish if you want though...
The OT also condemns homosexuality. I take it God did not know either about the 'nature of homosexuality' as it has only recently become available. Had God known the truth it would not be a sin ?
16 Aug 10
2 edits
To ThinkofOne unquoted to save space.
"Now it seems that you've reversed yourself. What's up with that?"
How did I reverse myself? You are misreading. There are old laws in the OT. There are also laws such as the Ten Commandments, which are also in the OT. I believe the Ten Commandments are applicable today. I never reversed what I said. You only misread what I wrote. The Laws I specifically stated was the Law of Moses/Mosaic Law.
"Also, I have to wonder how far you'd be willing to take the concept of Jesus having to specifically mention a given law for Him to have changed it"
I believe if the Homosexuality sin had changed, it would be important enough to mention.
"I asked you to support your belief via the teachings of Jesus. It makes little sense to respond with the teachings of Paul even if you believe them to be reflective of the teachings of Jesus. Remember, you keep claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus, not Paul. "
Just because I said I follow the teachings of Jesus does not mean I don’t follow what others say. You are really grasping at straws with this one.
"So once again, does it bother you that the LDS does not do likewise? Have you spoken out against the LDS position? "
I don’t believe the LDS Church is going against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never condoned sin. Perhaps you would like to explain how the Church is going against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
"Once again, there's no sense getting defensive about it. It is what it is."
Not defensive, just pointing out you need to keep an open mind and understand there are other reasons why someone may not be answering your posts. It’s not always ignoring you. Keep an open mind and think ‘outside of the box’.
17 Aug 10
3 edits
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeI don’t believe the LDS Church is going against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never condoned sin. Perhaps you would like to explain how the Church is going against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To ThinkofOne unquoted to save space.
[b]"Now it seems that you've reversed yourself. What's up with that?"
How did I reverse myself? You are misreading. There are old laws in the OT. There are also laws such as the Ten Commandments, which are also in the OT. I believe the Ten Commandments are applicable today. I never reversed what I said. Y s. It’s not always ignoring you. Keep an open mind and think ‘outside of the box’.[/b]
I explained what I meant by that. It'd probably help if you didn't take statements out of context before responding to them.
Here's the statement in context:
From what I can tell, the LDS is willing to excommunicate practicing homosexuals. This also seems antithetical to what you've been saying about the teachings of Jesus.
So once again, does it bother you that the LDS does not do likewise? Have you spoken out against the LDS position?
Just because I said I follow the teachings of Jesus does not mean I don’t follow what others say. You are really grasping at straws with this one.
Once again, "It'd probably help if you didn't take statements out of context before responding to them." What's up with that?
Here are the statements in context:
I asked you to support your belief via the teachings of Jesus. It makes little sense to respond with the teachings of Paul even if you believe them to be reflective of the teachings of Jesus. Paul taught what he taught and Jesus taught what He taught. You're avoiding the issue. If you had asked me to back something up with the teachings of Jesus and I responded with the teachings of someone else, say Ghandi, because I believed his teachings were reflective of the teachings of Jesus, would you find that acceptable? Remember, you keep claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus, not Paul.
I believe if the Homosexuality sin had changed, it would be important enough to mention.
Once again respond to it in context:
Also, I have to wonder how far you'd be willing to take the concept of Jesus having to specifically mention a given law for Him to have changed it. Would it also apply in the case of wearing garments made from more than one fiber or trimming the hair on the sides of ones head (both Leviticus) for example?
How did I reverse myself? You are misreading. There are old laws in the OT. There are also laws such as the Ten Commandments, which are also in the OT. I believe the Ten Commandments are applicable today. I never reversed what I said. You only misread what I wrote. The Laws I specifically stated was the Law of Moses/Mosaic Law.
Listen, go back and reread what you wrote to TW and what you wrote to me. Here's a hint: It'll probably help if you put them in context of the questions that were asked.
Not defensive, just pointing out you need to keep an open mind and understand there are other reasons why someone may not be answering your posts. It’s not always ignoring you. Keep an open mind and think ‘outside of the box’
Go back and reread what I wrote. It wasn't about "not answering [my] posts" or "ignoring [me]". It's about ignoring difficult questions. Why characterize it as something it isn't?
What's more you've once again ignored a difficult question from my latest post:
Do you believe that the following teaching reflects the teachings of Jesus? It seems to be antithetical to what you've been saying.[/quote]
[quote]
1 Corinthians 5
9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
You can deny being defensive all you like, but it is what it is.
18 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAll I have time for is this: The LDS Church is not going against the teachings of Jesus Christ - I accept and approve of the LDS position. I can't be more clear than that. Why should I speak out against the LDS position when I agree with the position. Where did I post anything against the LDS Church? The LDS Church does not condone sin. I do not condone sin. The LDS Church welcomes people into the Church, I welcome people into the Church. Your answer of why you asked that question is unsatifactory. Explain better why I need to speak out against the LDS position if I accept the position, which I posted very clearly I did accept their position. Maybe you need to go back and read yourself mate.
[b]I don’t believe the LDS Church is going against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never condoned sin. Perhaps you would like to explain how the Church is going against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I explained what I meant by that. It'd probably help if you didn't take statements out of context before responding to them.
Here's the statement in uote]
You can deny being defensive all you like, but it is what it is.[/b]
My answer regarding Paul's teachings was satisfactory. I never stated you had to like my answer, but that is my answer. Quite crying about it. You either like it or not. It matters not.
18 Aug 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeJust a question though. After you welcome someone into the church who continues to live a life that your church does not condone, what happens then?
All I have time for is this: The LDS Church is not going against the teachings of Jesus Christ - I accept and approve of the LDS position. I can't be more clear than that. Why should I speak out against the LDS position when I agree with the position. Where did I post anything against the LDS Church? The LDS Church does not condone sin. I do not condon ...[text shortened]... swer, but that is my answer. Quite crying about it. You either like it or not. It matters not.