Changing attitudes towards gay marriage

[Bolonium238]

You left some parts out: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)

The unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will also not inherit the Kingdom.  So if you posted in the drunk thread, or mentioned how much you covet some cool firearm, you are SOL. 

Sorry for this being my first post; I've been a looooong-time lurker on this board, and have been well and truly intimidated to join this merry band, based on the tight-knitedness.  As I am "other," I'll just have to hold my breath, jump in, and blame Fistful if I drown.

Above, there are a lot of compelling arguments, for and against a lot of things, but as far as MillCreek (with whose views and beliefs I am unfamiliar) saying that drunks or firearms covetors or anybody else in the Rogue's Gallery of sinners goes, I disagree with that as vehemently as my username is weapons-grade.  The important thing about that passage above is that because one is washed (baptized), sanctified (bestowed with the grace, knowledge, and action of the Holy Spirit), and justified (absolved of sin by the human suffering of Christ), one inherits the Kingdom of God, regardless of the constant sins we commit as imperfect beings.

That just is.  You don't have to choose it--some might say you can't even choose it--because God already laid it on you.  Kind of a like-it-or-not thing, given freely, and without action required on your part.  All you have to do is accept it.  Of course, the beauty of not living in a theocracy is that, hey, you don't wanna, no sweat.

Sorry for being so heavy right out of the gate, but hey, that's mass for you.

[Ron]

A lot of folks still want to pick and choose commandments from the OT.

It is baffling, as to me even a casual reading of the NT epistles makes it clear that we are not subject to the OT law, esp as non Jews.

Yet here we are still talking about commands to stone the sinners, commands even the Jews did away with in the first century (probably because it was so ineffective in stopping the spread of that sect called The Way).

[zahc]

I've struggled with this myself, and I consider it a huge topic, that I don't personally see addressed very satisfactorily. Consider even the way the ten commandments are taught...is it valid to teach that to our children as God's commandment to us, and then hand-wave away dozens of other commandments to the Isrealites? Did WE just pick out those commandments to observe (cafeteria Christianity) because they flatter our cultural preferences, and ignore the rest? If so, we are putting ourselves in the place of God in deciding what is moral and writing the scripture ourselves.

Either the Old Testament is totally valid and binding (stonings, kosher, and usury and all), or it's totally irrelevant and retained as a historical document, or else there is a third middle ground where there is some coherent, biblical-or-revealed praxis for interpreting the Old Testament.

I'm still looking for said praxis and becoming more and more gruntled over the issue. 

[Ron]

When Jesus was asked about his disciples harvesting some food to eat on the sabbath (which wasn't allowed) this is how he replied:

The Sabbath was made for the good of man. Man was not made for the Sabbath.

That pretty much wraps up the point behind the commandments.

You want to know what the most important commandment is? Love God with all your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.

How do you do that? Follow the example set by Jesus. It has become a trite bumper sticker slogan but it is true nonetheless. When faced with moral or ethical questions "what would Jesus do?" is a good guide. That of course presupposes a working knowledge of the life and purposes of Jesus time on earth as recorded in the NT.

Focus on others, lay down your life as a living sacrifice, serve God not materialist goals.

Children need rule books, God has said don't be children, love one another. This isn't license to do whatever we want, it is a more sobering call to look past the letter of the law and focus on the motivations, the intentions of the heart. Studying both the old and new testaments they become mirrors reflecting back how we really are and what we need to change.

Just my take as a non sectarian follower of Jesus.

[longeyes]

A suggestion: read the Gnostic Gospels.

[Ron]

A suggestion: read the Gnostic Gospels.

Meh, I don't know, nothing of real interest in them IMHO. Like the above discussion about cults, even back then folks were trying to appropriate Jesus for their own particular religious flavor of the day. As a matter of fact the dichotomy between the material and spiritual world found in post modern theology is a very gnostic concept. The gnostic gospels don't really line up very well with most NT books and don't reflect the traditional view of God espoused by most Jews of that day.    

The Book of Enoch is probably the most interesting of the writings of those not included in the official canon. it is more like the books of the prophets in the OT than the gnostics.  

[Bolonium238]

I've struggled with this myself, and I consider it a huge topic, that I don't personally see addressed very satisfactorily. Consider even the way the ten commandments are taught...is it valid to teach that to our children as God's commandment to us, and then hand-wave away dozens of other commandments to the Isrealites? Did WE just pick out those commandments to observe (cafeteria Christianity) because they flatter our cultural preferences, and ignore the rest? If so, we are putting ourselves in the place of God in deciding what is moral and writing the scripture ourselves.

Either the Old Testament is totally valid and binding (stonings, kosher, and usury and all), or it's totally irrelevant and retained as a historical document, or else there is a third middle ground where there is some coherent, biblical-or-revealed praxis for interpreting the Old Testament.

I'm still looking for said praxis and becoming more and more gruntled over the issue. 

My understanding is that the covenant that God entered into with us through the suffering and death of Christ, combined with the promise of life and salvation expressed through His resurrection, negated the need for the Old Law.  The fact that we, as irredeemable sinners, are saved through the grace of God alone precludes the need to follow a set of laws in order to attain salvation (or avoid God's wrath).

However, I think that, discounting the salvatory aspects of Christianity, a Judeo-Christian foundation provides a lot of good material for building a just and moral society based on natural rights and laws.  There's probably more to it, but unfortunately, I'm an armchair theologian at best, and a miserable ignoramus at worst.

[longeyes]

Meh, I don't know, nothing of real interest in them IMHO. Like the above discussion about cults, even back then folks were trying to appropriate Jesus for their own particular religious flavor of the day. As a matter of fact the dichotomy between the material and spiritual world found in post modern theology is a very gnostic concept. The gnostic gospels don't really line up very well with most NT books and don't reflect the traditional view of God espoused by most Jews of that day.    

The Book of Enoch is probably the most interesting of the writings of those not included in the official canon. it is more like the books of the prophets in the OT than the gnostics.  

Jesus was anything but traditional.  The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Wasn't that around the same time that any mention of survival and rebirth (after death -- basically $LIVES > 1) in any form that could be construed as "reincarnation" was also ditched and declared anathema?

Been years and years since I read that.  Very fuzzy recollection.

[Perd Hapley]

Jesus was anything but traditional.  The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics lack of  connection to Christ or His apostles.

Fixed.

Wasn't that around the same time that any mention of survival and rebirth (after death -- basically $LIVES > 1) in any form that could be construed as "reincarnation" was also ditched and declared anathema?

When was reincarnation accepted doctrine among Jews and Christians, then?

[ArfinGreebly]

When was reincarnation accepted doctrine among Jews and Christians, then?

No idea.  Evidently there was some material of that kind around.  If there wasn't, I have no idea why it would be "banned" as a concept.

Trouble is, I can't remember the reference.  It was more than twenty years ago, so no Internet.

[Ron]

Jesus was anything but traditional.  The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics.  

There was politics for sure, there always is in human institutions. I pretty much reject any church institution as an authority.

Questions of internal consistency with accepted writings is also a big part of why some writings got left out of the official canon.

While I'm no Bible scholar I am pretty well acquainted with it, esp the NT. My personal reading of many of the apocryphal books left me feeling comfortable that they didn't belong in the canon.

Early on in my christian walk I was very attracted to gnostic ideas. Even in referencing some material while thinking about this thread I enjoyed reacquainting myself with some of the concepts. I live within easy driving distance of the Theosophical Society in Wheaton, Il and frequented the bookstore there often. Much of their material was gnostic in character, that and influenced by eastern religion.

I also enjoy learning about Buddhism and haunt some philosophy forums as a lurker.

Having said that I think there is more than enough instruction in the NT on how to follow Christ without muddying the waters with questionably sourced writings or merging different religious streams of thought with simple Christianity.

When I said "meh" I'm afraid I may have sounded a bit too dismissive.

  

 

[Perd Hapley]

No idea.  Evidently there was some material of that kind around.  If there wasn't, I have no idea why it would be "banned" as a concept.

I don't know what you mean by banned as a concept, but like Ron said, there were purported gospels and other works that clashed with what Christ taught. So those ideas were not accepted.

[Strings]

There's also the possibility of "other writings" that are currently unknown. So who knows what could have been, when talking about the Bible.

I know there are a LOT of archeologists working in the field in the Middle East, utilizing the Bible as a rough field guide. I hear about it regularly (side effect of having H2 on as background noise).

Of course, all I hear about lately is Revelations. Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to 22 Dec?

[Perd Hapley]

H2 - somebody mentioned that a day or two ago. History Channel 2? Is it all Biblical archeology or something?

[Strings]

Biblical Archeology is one of their favorite topics. And I have to admit to finding it interesting...

Lately though has been almost all "end of the world" topics...

[Jamisjockey]

H2 - somebody mentioned that a day or two ago. History Channel 2? Is it all Biblical archeology or something?

That, ancient history, and stuff like that.  More real history with less fluff, unlike the main history channel.

[Bolonium238]

Don't forget this guy:

[makattak]

Don't forget this guy:

Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.

[Strings]

Friday nights: where I spend a great deal of time turning to the TV with that "he didn't just REALLY say that, did he?" expression...

[TommyGunn]

Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.

He's not a Klingon?

[zxcvbob]

Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.

Half man, half horse's ass?  (I don't even know who that is, but I recognize a joke setup when I see it)

[red headed stranger]

Half man, half horse's ass?  (I don't even know who that is, but I recognize a joke setup when I see it)

This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centauri_(Babylon_5)

[Stetson]

H2 is not near as much fin as Youtube, depending on what you start with and where it goes from there....

Mt Sinai?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfPMKv2fBM