CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[T.Lex]

"enlightenment"

We live in a post-Christian society.

I think the word you're looking for is "reformation"?

 

[Dead Duck]

I think the word you're looking for is "reformation"?

I think you misspelled Damnation.

 

[historian]

I think the word you're looking for is "reformation"?

OHHHHH....I'll Be Frozone! I think you are looking for "1054".

 

[2A_Tom]

It's not so much a rule, as it is an inherent design. Marriage is model that is designed into life. It mirrors Christ and his love for the church (his bride).

I've stopped being anti-gay marriage, and pro-"historical Biblical model" marriage. It really makes a big difference when you change your POV.

I believe that Biblical Marriage has always been the issue and that anti-gay is a social construct of the left.

Just like they paint Pro Life as anti women's rights.

 

[2A_Tom]

Do you think some liberties were taken with regards to interpreting the Biblical model? Like taking some things very literally, and others not-so-much, in order to influence modern policy?

No.

Please show where I took the Scriptures I quoted out of context, or where they can be interpreted more liberally.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No.

Please show where I took the Scriptures I quoted out of context, or where they can be interpreted more liberally.

Not really arguing it... but how many gays were around back then? Perhaps, as population grew, so did that group... and the very strict adherence to the words "man" and "woman" have more behind it?

Or maybe it even means "person 1" and "person 2", I learned in this thread that some translations weren't perfect.

You say yourself... out of context... doesn't modern context need some weight in it? How things are vs how things used to be?

 

[T.Lex]

I think you misspelled Damnation.

Reformation, damnation, let's call the whole thing off.

 

[JettaKnight]

I believe that Biblical Marriage has always been the issue and that anti-gay is a social construct of the left.

Sadly, that's clearly not the case. The church has done a real bad job at this.


Instead of promoting the values of marriage, we've turned a blind eye to failing marriages in the church, we've come up with cutsie slogans like, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", instead of loving someone and helping them deal with sin, we've shunned them and told them to, "pray the gay away", rather than inviting them to our dinner tables, we've berated them with, "God hates fags!", rather than showing them they can be forgiven, we've been heard preaching that, "homosexuals go to hell", rather than promoting the wondrous joy of marriage, our message from the backwoods county clerk is, "no marriage for you!" Rather than focusing on the overwhelming sin lurking in the pews, we've focused on a safe, external enemy.

Even today, what's the litmus test for churches? "Are you for or against gay marriage?" Instead why isn't it, "Are you supporting God-honoring marriages?"

 

[JettaKnight]

Not really arguing it... but how many gays were around back then? Perhaps, as population grew, so did that group... and the very strict adherence to the words "man" and "woman" have more behind it?

Or maybe it even means "person 1" and "person 2", I learned in this thread that some translations weren't perfect.

You say yourself... out of context... doesn't modern context need some weight in it? How things are vs how things used to be?

Sure, there's issues with an article, and, "does this mean 'but' or 'yet' or ..." But to say that "man" and "woman", or "husband" and "wife" are mistranslated is stretch beyond imagination.

Eph. 5 is pretty clear.

Also, you say that the modern culture is more liberal, sexually. However, when the Bible was written, it was written in a much more liberal society. Christianity imposed limits on it - one man, one wife. Oh, and men were suppose to love (gasp!) wife.

Hard to believe but Christianity was quite radical in how it addressed society. Some things were directed to be unrestricted (slaves), or things restricted (marriage).

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sure, there's issues with an article, and, "does this mean 'but' or 'yet' or ..." But to say that "man" and "woman", or "husband" and "wife" are mistranslated is stretch beyond imagination.

Eph. 5 is pretty clear.

Also, you say that the modern culture is more liberal, sexually. However, when the Bible was written, it was written in a much more liberal society. Christianity imposed limits on it - one man, one wife. Oh, and men were suppose to love (gasp!) wife.

Hard to believe but Christianity was quite radical in how it addressed society. Some things were directed to be unrestricted (slaves), or things restricted (marriage).

So aren't there aspects of Christianity that modern Christians understand don't fit today like it might have back then... So we do adjust to fit that? Be it with modern laws, civility, etc...

Again, not arguing it... but curious how many parts are taken strictly, and how many are loosened to fit the changing times. The "man & woman" part seems to be unflinchingly strict for some people.

Are there parts of the Bible and its versions that modern Christians are presented with, and react in a "yeah we ... don't really agree with that part anymore." sort of way?

 

[2A_Tom]

Not really arguing it... but how many gays were around back then? Perhaps, as population grew, so did that group... and the very strict adherence to the words "man" and "woman" have more behind it?

Or maybe it even means "person 1" and "person 2", I learned in this thread that some translations weren't perfect.

You say yourself... out of context... doesn't modern context need some weight in it? How things are vs how things used to be?

Again. The links are usually included in my bible quotes so that you can see G-d's Context. He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. Man's context does not matter at all.

The Constitution can be amended, G-d's Word cannot.

Genesis 2:24 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

If you click on the word man and wife it will take you to a dictionary explaining the Hebrew words.

Genesis2:24

[FONT=&amp]Therefore shall a man leave[SUP]4[/SUP] his father and his mother, and shall cleave[SUP]1[/SUP] unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[/FONT]

Sadly, that's clearly not the case. The church has done a real bad job at this.

That may be the case with you and your church, but it has always been the one man with one woman issue to my knowledge.

 

[historian]

Sadly, that's clearly not the case. The church has done a real bad job at this.


Instead of promoting the values of marriage, we've turned a blind eye to failing marriages in the church, we've come up with cutsie slogans like, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", instead of loving someone and helping them deal with sin, we've shunned them and told them to, "pray the gay away", rather than inviting them to our dinner tables, we've berated them with, "God hates fags!", rather than showing them they can be forgiven, we've been heard preaching that, "homosexuals go to hell", rather than promoting the wondrous joy of marriage, our message from the backwoods county clerk is, "no marriage for you!" Rather than focusing on the overwhelming sin lurking in the pews, we've focused on a safe, external enemy.

Even today, what's the litmus test for churches? "Are you for or against gay marriage?" Instead why isn't it, "Are you supporting God-honoring marriages?"

This. I wish the church would be firmer on things like divorce and remarriage (even the RCC has gotten very, very lax). I know preachers who would go hellfire and brimstone against homosexuality (and same sex attraction) but wouldn't touch divorce and remarriage. I mean, I hold a harder line on marriage than most every pastor I know and it isn't even close.

So aren't there aspects of Christianity that modern Christians understand don't fit today like it might have back then... So we do adjust to fit that? Be it with modern laws, civility, etc...

Again, not arguing it... but curious how many parts are taken strictly, and how many are loosened to fit the changing times. The "man & woman" part seems to be unflinchingly strict for some people.

Are there parts of the Bible and its versions that modern Christians are presented with, and react in a "yeah we ... don't really agree with that part anymore." sort of way?

Most parts are taken strictly. Some people think that it doesn't work because we don't keep the Mosaic dietary law (who doesn't love BACON!!!!), but in reading the whole of the Bible one sees that what was unclean is now clean. Other parts of the Bible are reinforced by the New Covenant (Marriage for instance. Other areas if you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it takes the law and ratchets it up to 10. "Do not commit adultery, but I say, don't even lust!" [Historian Standard Version]).

 

[2A_Tom]

So aren't there aspects of Christianity that modern Christians understand don't fit today like it might have back then... So we do adjust to fit that? Be it with modern laws, civility, etc...

Again, not arguing it... but curious how many parts are taken strictly, and how many are loosened to fit the changing times. The "man & woman" part seems to be unflinchingly strict for some people.

Are there parts of the Bible and its versions that modern Christians are presented with, and react in a "yeah we ... don't really agree with that part anymore." sort of way?

A person can disagree with G-d if they wish, they may decide to not live by the Bible if they choose.

Have you trusted Christ as your Saviour?

Have you been baptized after Salvation?

Have you joined yourself to a local assembly of believers (Church)?

Do you tithe?

Do you witness to others for Christ?

 

[JettaKnight]

So aren't there aspects of Christianity that modern Christians understand don't fit today like it might have back then... So we do adjust to fit that? Be it with modern laws, civility, etc...

Again, not arguing it... but curious how many parts are taken strictly, and how many are loosened to fit the changing times. The "man & woman" part seems to be unflinchingly strict for some people.

Are there parts of the Bible and its versions that modern Christians are presented with, and react in a "yeah we ... don't really agree with that part anymore." sort of way?

Slaves, Women and Homosexuals.

There's a whole chapter or two about why do we have to follow this passage, yet we don't lock women in a shed once a month? Or, why did OT dudes have a lot of wives? Or do women have to wear skirts all the time?


The short answer is, you can't just ignore the parts that don't fit in your modern society. The slightly longer answer is that you need to look at the hermeneutics and the culture in which it was written.

The Bible told slave holders to ease up and not beat their slaves ----> God wants us to treat others as ourselves ----> time passes, society evolves ----> we should not tolerate any slavery

The Bible says, one man, one women ----> God wants us to stop all the polygamy, homosexuality, adultery ----> time passes, society evolves ----> marriage still should be one man, one women

In other words, if 0 AD society is at point K, and God says, you should be at point T, the direction is clear. You can't just turn around and ignore that direction and move to point D. No, by now you should be progressing to point Z.

The Bible lays out a clear arc of where marriage should be go - one of an equal partnership between a man and woman; gay marriage is in the opposite direction.

Does that make sense? I'm trying to quickly explain that concept and feel like I'm doing a terrible job.

 

[JettaKnight]

This. I wish the church would be firmer on things like divorce and remarriage (even the RCC has gotten very, very lax). I know preachers who would go hellfire and brimstone against homosexuality (and same sex attraction) but wouldn't touch divorce and remarriage. I mean, I hold a harder line on marriage than most every pastor I know and it isn't even close.

Or a husband that belittles and abuses his wife, or any number of sins that are make us squirm to discuss.


Like I've said, the church has done a real ****ty job at helping people with their sin. We've become experts in kicking them while they're down.

Most parts are taken strictly. Some people think that it doesn't work because we don't keep the Mosaic dietary law (who doesn't love BACON!!!!), but in reading the whole of the Bible one sees that what was unclean is now clean. Other parts of the Bible are reinforced by the New Covenant (Marriage for instance. Other areas if you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it takes the law and ratchets it up to 10. "Do not commit adultery, but I say, don't even lust!" [Historian Standard Version]).

Acts 11:5-7 is my life verse(s).

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. I am mostly seeking to learn, get your perspectives. I see there are different views among you, which is refreshing.

The Bible says, one man, one women ----> God wants us to stop all the polygamy, homosexuality, adultery ----> time passes, society evolves ----> marriage still should be one man, one women

The middle part... was that the interpretation? Who decided what all is included in that interpretation? Did they leave out animals? I know this sounds silly... but how does Christianity feel about beastiality? Same rules? Not trying to sound snarky, but just wanting to see how things are included/left-out.

 

[T.Lex]

Does that make sense? I'm trying to quickly explain that concept and feel like I'm doing a terrible job.

You suck.

Let me elaborate.

You suck because I already repped you, specifically with the message that I have to be careful which post I rep, because you usually have other posts that I want to rep after I rep you.

I would've rather repped you for this post, instead of the one I actually repped you for.

Anyway, I think you're doing a fine job. I've typed up a couple different posts for this conversation, but found them all lacking. (I may try pottery next.)

The one thing I will say that dovetails (maybe) is that it is analogous to how God reaches people where they are. In terms of society, He directed them to do certain things more in line with His will, based on what the society was doing at that time. Indeed, societies do change, but God's instructions can be applicable (and indeed, that's part of the greater glorification - that they ARE applicable) to modern society.

There's almost an infinite list of differences between the various societies listed in the Bible and modern society (including treatment of elders, widows, the poor, etc.) But, the message... the truth... of the Bible is applicable.

 

[JettaKnight]

That may be the case with you and your church, but it has always been the one man with one woman issue to my knowledge.

Not my point.

I'm not saying everyone, I'm not saying you, I'm not saying me. But the church as a whole in America, and how our message has been received. This isn't a left thing, it isn't a right thing. It's about how we deal with sin and how we deal with our brothers and sisters who struggle with temptation. It's about the message we've sending out to the lost and hurting: you're not welcome here.


My point was the protestant, evangelical church's message has been, "Don't be gay!" for the past 20 years. That's a fact, Jack.

Not, "we value marriage", but "we don't allow gay marriage". We've done everything we can to marginalize gays.


Part of the problem is human nature; one bad preacher (e.g. Westboro Baptist, that crackpot fundie church in Hammond) can undo the good preaching of 500 honorable, loving churches.

 

[JettaKnight]

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. I am mostly seeking to learn, get your perspectives. I see there are different views among you, which is refreshing.



The middle part... was that the interpretation? Who decided what all is included in that interpretation? Did they leave out animals? I know this sounds silly... but how does Christianity feel about beastiality? Same rules? Not trying to sound snarky, but just wanting to see how things are included/left-out.

No interpretation necessary. The epistles are quite explicit about what a Christian should abstain from.


My view on sex is clear: If it's just you and your spouse, play ball! (edit: even the German / Japanese stuff )

How does animals work in that theory? I really, really don't want to ponder that question.



EDIT (to not post whore): As to that book I keep touting, I'd recommend it to my brothers here. It does a decent job at helping understand how the Bible applies to you, in your life, in your time - even thought the letters were written to someone else, in another language, in another time. I don't agree with all the conclusions (e.g. egalitarianism), but thought provoking.

 

[Dead Duck]

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. I am mostly seeking to learn, get your perspectives. I see there are different views among you, which is refreshing.



The middle part... was that the interpretation? Who decided what all is included in that interpretation? Did they leave out animals? I know this sounds silly... but how does Christianity feel about beastiality? Same rules? Not trying to sound snarky, but just wanting to see how things are included/left-out.

.....and Inanimate Objects.
Can we still hump our vacuum cleaners?