Arrest me and throw away the key

[Lincoln]

Jesus clearly taught that one of the greatest sins is hypocrisy and self righteousness. This gay bashing stuff should be allowed so that people can expose the hypocrisy in most of the people preaching it. Outlawing sermons is counterproductive to the cause of gays. Has the inquisition taught us nothing? On the other hand if people want to go to a Christian church and be preached to they should not complain if they are taught about sin and hell as well. If you don't want to hear it then don't go to a Christian church. Society should not micromanage religious sermons. Inciting violence is one thing, but from what I have read of his sermon here he clearly was not doing that. Sweden and Canada are taking a wrong turn here.

And thanks for the quotes, Cybershy and others. I don't think that Jesus would be preaching against homosexuality if he were here today. I believe that he would be exposing hypocrisy in the churches like he did before. Sin is a problem for all of us.

[Ben Kenobi]

I doesn't? It does for me. I have sex for phsyical and mental reasons. To physically connect with someone like that and exchange pleasure is an emotionally fulfilling thing.

In my life, the talk of getting laid applies more to the physical need, rather than emotional, particularly between men. It's rare to hear someone appreciate the other side.

It's one of the reasons why I want to wait because of that emotional connection, so it's nice to see we have something in common.

Nope, I meant emotional repsonsibility. That's a big part of sex.

What do you mean by that? I'm curious.

"Opiate of the masses," as it were.

A cold description that leaves much unsaid. People have been saying that for a long time, that if Christianity had any meaning, then the unwashed masses would not go.

Yet they do, because they find what they are looking for, and longing for better here than anywhere else. Unlike some, they are unfulfilled with the world and find fulfillment in Christ.

I found I could meditate and get more mental fulfillment than reading the Bible could ever give me (especially since I realized, as I was reading, that it was a bunch of hooey).

Do you think that my main pleasure in Christianity has come from just reading the bible? Some things, yes, but most of the pleasure has came from elsewhere. Like I said, different people respond in different ways.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Which is an expression of sexuality, unless you see marriage as merely a legal contract.

I see it as a contract, albeit a rather unique one given the level of commitment, but the fact it has a sexual component is irrelevant. But he didn't say it was the only valid expression of sexuality, he was talking to a group of people - Pharisees? - enquiring about divorce law. That was the subject to which he was responding, not people asking him to list all valid expressions of sexuality.

In what occasion does this exception apply? In the case where the bond has been broken by marital infidelity. Yes, Christ wants marriage to not be broken by men, but through infidelity, the guilty partner has already broken the union. The divorce recognises the breach which has already occurred, rather than the divorce constituting the breach.

Divorce always recognises a breach has occured, he merely limited it to infidelity. But man is still breaking what God created, so man can break what God created.
So when he told people to not break what God created, he offered an exception to allow man to break what God created. The reason behind this exception doesn't mean the exception doesn't exist.... Btw, in his day women rarely if ever divorced men since they were still looked upon as property and men often divorced their wives for no other reason than finding a younger woman. Would Jesus tell a married woman who is constantly battered to remain married? No way! He was addressing an unjust practice - men dumping their wives for little or no reason...

No we haven't. We merely agreed that lust can be sinful when thought, and not only when acted upon.

Wait a minute, you think it's sinful for a man to lust for the woman he wants to marry? How does marriage occur without lust? You think it's sinful for a boy to lust for a beautiful girl before either can marry?

I don't really see the difference between the first and the second context. The second context seems to apply only to a single person who has not promised himself in marriage. If he has already promised himself, then he's not single anymore.

But people don't promise themselves to marriage without first lusting for their future spouse.

If we have already said that it is sinful to lust after someone in your thoughts, then you would be correct in this assessment here, that the masturbation would be sinful in this aspect.

We haven't said that, apparently you just did.
Don't you think the placement of that bar is a bit too high? Seriously, any "God" who says what EVERYONE does naturally is sinful is a "God" who needs to re-evaluate that standard. It's easy to accuse people of being born sinners when you declare their very essence/nature to be sinful... Might as well say people are sinners because they exist. That turns sin into a meaningless concept... So, are homosexuals guilty of sin if they lust outside of marriage? If so, does that mean you think marriage should not only be legal for homosexuals, but encouraged lest you share responsibility for their sin?

Well, I don't see any other way to categorically define sin, without reference to God. If there is no God, then there can be no sin.

Why? Immorality exists with or without God... If we assume God exists we're stuck figuring out how God defines immorality/sin. For you, the Bible is your guide. But what proof do you have that God's definition of morality is contained within that book? None, it's taken on faith. But for those who need proof, it doesn't help one bit. So they need some other means of defining morality, for me, logic is the means. But this creates a chasm between us, while I use logic to define morality and can therefore offer reasoned explanations regarding morality, all you can do is say, "the Bible says so".

Divorce is an expression of sexuality, in that it represents the regulation of such expression, and the severance of a former union. To assume that it does not assumes that divorce has nothing to do with the sexual union, an is merely the dissolution of a contract. If one assumes that divorce does have something to do with the sexual union, then it must be like hacking off a limb.

And this has what to do with what I said?

Does he affirm marriage as the sole realm for sexual expression?

No, he didn't. As I said, he was asked about divorce law and he changed the OT requirements for divorce. He was not providing a list of morally acceptable expressions of sexuality. Look at the question posed by his audience...it provides the context for his response...

If so, then it would seem logical that all other forms would be sinful. That's the argument, and you have not addressed his affirmation of marriage.

The argument was about divorce law and what is acceptable to justify divorce and why. Frankly, his explanation shows a God who ain't exactly moral. God allowed men wide latitude when divorcing their wives because God knew their hearts were hard. Huh? Let men dump their wives because men were bastards?
He was not responding to a question about what are moral expressions of sexuality...

That's a different term. Immoral! = Sin.

I equate the two, but if you prefer the word "sin", have at it.

I can make the argument along Kantian lines, that because homosexuality is not universaliseable, it cannot be a moral action. Ergo, homosexuality is immoral.

But then heterosexuality would be immoral because it lacks this universality. Darn near everything would be immoral since we don't all share the same values or desires...

Well, I hope this is a better attempt than before.

No comment.

Primitive Christians affirmed miracles, and the direct action of God upon the world. I'm not sure that I have ever seen Jefferson preach this intervention of God.

Not all, there were gnostic Christians who saw the "miracles" as deeper statements like how Jesus used parables - for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, i.e., for those wise enough to understand the hidden meanings. For example, a gnostic interpretation of the wedding at Cana that some more modern Christians have adopted because they don't like the implication that Jesus gave alcohol to a bunch of people was that the turning of water into wine meant the gospel was for everyone, not just an elite class.

But Apostle Paul says that while we are not to judge those outside the church, we are supposed to expel the immoral brothers inside. We do this through brotherly love, because we acknowledge the damage that sin does to him. We want to see his relationship with Christ restored, so in a desperate measure, you have to exclude him so that he recognises just how far off the path he has trod.

Discipline does not mean a lack of love, but rather, confirms the love that you have for one another.

This was not what Christianity became once it had the power of the state behind it. This "discipline" became jail or worse when what it originally meant was a turning away from the offender who refuses to acknowledge their sin... Within days/months of Constantine's proclamation 2 Christian armies spent several days slaughtering each other over which "sect" would get the power... Separation of church and state was brilliant, for both religion and the state...

I guess you won't be trying to explain why homosexuality is sinful/immoral, but using what Jesus said about divorce doesn't even come close to showing that the Founder of your religion condemned it. Btw, why would Jesus point out that lust by a spouse for anyone other than their spouse = adultery = immorality when according to you, all lust outside of marriage is immoral? Furthermore, read what some of his disciples said about the way Jesus loved Mary differently than how he loved them.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

It's one of the reasons why I want to wait because of that emotional connection, so it's nice to see we have something in common.

Uh oh, Ben, did you just admit that you feel physical lust before acquiring an emotional connection?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, I could really use a Swede here...

This has to be one of the rarest phrases in the english language.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In my life, the talk of getting laid applies more to the physical need, rather than emotional, particularly between men. It's rare to hear someone appreciate the other side.

Sex is best when there's some emotional connection, but I'm not talking love here. I'm guessing that's where we differ. But you're taking the "getting laid" phrase a bit to literally.

What do you mean by that? I'm curious.

The emotional responsibility refers to the two (or more) people involved being honest about their feelings and desires, trusting of others with their bodies and cognizant of the physical and emotional feelings of their partners. That means the avoidance of: leading people on and making them think it's more than it is to you (i.e., making people think you want a relationship to trick them into the sack); allowing your partner to take control of your body as much as you take control of theirs during the act; and making sure your partner receives as much pleasure from it as you do.

People have been saying that for a long time, that if Christianity had any meaning, then the unwashed masses would not go.

I'm not sure if you said this correctly...if it had meaning, they wouldn't go?

I'm sure people find meaning in it, but the question is, is it an intrinsic meaning, or are people finding meaning in anything that might help them muddle through? I believe the latter, because there's no intrinsic "meaning" to anything, there's only what we bring to the table.

Do you think that my main pleasure in Christianity has come from just reading the bible?

It was just an example, BK, not the whole.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


This has to be one of the rarest phrases in the english language.

Well learners, or those of a timid persuasion, would use a brussels sprout.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh oh, Ben, did you just admit that you feel physical lust before acquiring an emotional connection?

For that particular connection? I can't say.

For things up to that point, it tends to be mixed together. Whether one comes first depends on the relationship before.

Generally I've been friends first, but that really hasn't got me that far lately.

[Ben Kenobi]

This has to be one of the rarest phrases in the english language.

I felt the same when typing this.

There are not many issues that happen in Sweden with consequences around the world.

[Ben Kenobi]

That means the avoidance of: leading people on and making them think it's more than it is to you (i.e., making people think you want a relationship to trick them into the sack);

Agreed.

allowing your partner to take control of your body as much as you take control of theirs during the act; and making sure your partner receives as much pleasure from it as you do.

I would add something to this. Trusting someone to show your emotions from the sexual side, rather than the more comfortable ones of a warm and fuzzy relationship. I'm surprised you didn't bring this up, since this tends to be harder for us cooped up Christians to do with each other.

[Ben Kenobi]

I see it as a contract, albeit a rather unique one given the level of commitment, but the fact it has a sexual component is irrelevant.

Hardly. For without the sexual component than marriage is meaningless. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in both body and spirit.

But he didn't say it was the only valid expression of sexuality, he was talking to a group of people - Pharisees? - enquiring about divorce law. That was the subject to which he was responding, not people asking him to list all valid expressions of sexuality.

Their question was whether it would be lawful to for a man to divorce his wife, and under what grounds. They desired to trap Christ with the question, that he would either favour one of the groups of the Jews, over the other. Instead, Christ astonished them all with the statement that because your hearts were hard, did God permit divorce! Rather than affirming divorce as part of God's plan, he saw it as contrary, though a concession to the sinfulness of man. He shows them the ideal, or God's plan for marriage in Adam and Eve.

Now, hidden behind all this is the assumption, that we do not make today, that all sex outside of marriage is against the law. The Jews took this to be true, and Jesus did not have to make this point. Where they disagreed is how God intended marriage to be.

But man is still breaking what God created, so man can break what God created.

Men can always break the commandments if they chose to. Christ says, "Let no man break what God has put together, " as a command to be followed. It does not follow that all will be able to follow the commandment.

So when he told people to not break what God created, he offered an exception to allow man to break what God created. The reason behind this exception doesn't mean the exception doesn't exist.... Btw, in his day women rarely if ever divorced men since they were still looked upon as property and men often divorced their wives for no other reason than finding a younger woman. Would Jesus tell a married woman who is constantly battered to remain married? No way! He was addressing an unjust practice - men dumping their wives for little or no reason...

As you point out, the exception protects the women, since if she were divorced, she would not likely be taken up by another man.

I agree with you, which is why it is more remarkable that Jesus makes the connection as the two becoming one flesh. Rather than property, the wife is inseperable from her husband, and her husband from her wife.

As for battering, what man would batter himself, if he really saw his wife as part of him, and part of him in his wife? For that reason a husband is to love his wife, as if she were himself.

Wait a minute, you think it's sinful for a man to lust for the woman he wants to marry? How does marriage occur without lust? You think it's sinful for a boy to lust for a beautiful girl before either can marry?

Which is why it is better to marry than to burn, and to not be bitter or snide with folks who get married at a young age because they burn.

Don't you think the placement of that bar is a bit too high?

Do I think? Yes! But the standard is not mine to make.

Seriously, any "God" who says what EVERYONE does naturally is sinful is a "God" who needs to re-evaluate that standard.

Ah, but you assume that what is natural, or in nature must also be right. But nature, though she be beautiful, is still fallen. We cannot, by nature, be put right. If you admit that we have a sinful nature, then how can anything by that nature be good for us?

It's easy to accuse people of being born sinners when you declare their very essence/nature to be sinful... Might as well say people are sinners because they exist.

Which is what Christianity teaches, that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

So, are homosexuals guilty of sin if they lust outside of marriage? If so, does that mean you think marriage should not only be legal for homosexuals, but encouraged lest you share responsibility for their sin?

Ah, you are clever, and bring up an argument I held to dearly. It would work, if one could say that one could make things right.

For example, would it help sin to encourage sin? If one were to get off on banging animals, would it be helpful to provide that man a sheep so that he could continue to do so in the privacy of his own home? No, but the real question is why not?

You come back to the purposes of marriage. Marriage does provide a haven from lust, but not for all lusts. Marriage, as a union of a man an a woman can fulfill one of the purposes to which it was designed, in providing pleasure, and in procreation. You see this back in the garden.

Immorality exists with or without God...

Now that is an interesting preposition! Is it true that immorality can exist without God?

I have made that distinction for the purposes of this argument, since you seemed intent on questioning sin, and not morality.

If we assume God exists we're stuck figuring out how God defines immorality/sin.

True.

For you, the Bible is your guide. But what proof do you have that God's definition of morality is contained within that book?

I mentioned the proof up above in the thread. I suggest you refer to my earlier posts that confronted this question. It's a very good one, but I have already anticipated the point.

None, it's taken on faith.

They are many things that are taken on faith, but this is not one of them. We have the evidence that Christ claims about himself. Christ does not claim to be a prophet of God, but rather, the Son of God.

So my question to you, what are the logical explanations, for someone who claims to be God?

Now, Christ provides further evidence, but this requires one preposition, that I must ask you to grant.

In order for me to show your question to be true, I must ask you to concede that the bible ought to be considered an accurate historical source for the testimony of Christ. I am not asking you to accept that what Christ says about himself to be true, but rather, that he really said that about himself, that he really died on a cross, and that he really was buried, as it says in the bible.

Will you grant me this? If not, then this is the first point that must be discussed.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm sure people find meaning in it, but the question is, is it an intrinsic meaning, or are people finding meaning in anything that might help them muddle through?

How about this? Only something with intrinsic meaning will satisfy because people are not happy with themselves.

Why, if the only thing that came was from themselves, would they ever be satisfied by religion? Rather, something has to come from outside.

I believe the latter, because there's no intrinsic "meaning" to anything, there's only what we bring to the table.

Ever try it the other way? Looking beyond yourself for meaning?

[Ben Kenobi]

But then heterosexuality would be immoral because it lacks this universality. Darn near everything would be immoral since we don't all share the same values or desires...

Not so. Heterosexuality works because the system does not collapse in on itself when it is universalised. You are right, that this would never happen, but the system works for heterosexuality. You let people have babies, and they will keep having babies.

The question is with everyone being homosexual, would you still be able to sustain the act? I would have to say no, because eventually you will not have any homosexuals left.

Frankly, his explanation shows a God who ain't exactly moral. God allowed men wide latitude when divorcing their wives because God knew their hearts were hard. Huh? Let men dump their wives because men were bastards?

Compared with the nations around them? Why do you think this God stresses that one ought to protect the widow? He understood that this was a problem with the system, which is also why many of the things in the Sermon on the Mount are much higher standards than in the Mosaic code.

You do not start to learn something with the most difficult lesson first, rather you start with the easier ones. In permitting divorce, more would commit to marriage. Once people understood and committed to marriage, then you could bring things back to the ideal.

Not all, there were gnostic Christians who saw the "miracles" as deeper statements like how Jesus used parables - for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, i.e., for those wise enough to understand the hidden meanings. For example, a gnostic interpretation of the wedding at Cana that some more modern Christians have adopted because they don't like the implication that Jesus gave alcohol to a bunch of people was that the turning of water into wine meant the gospel was for everyone, not just an elite class.

Not what I see, but many eyes see farther than mine.

I rather like the conclusion over Cana we came to, that the wine came from God, and could make people drunk, if the people chose to become drunk from the wine. People can misuse the gifts given to them by God.

This was not what Christianity became once it had the power of the state behind it.

To which I agree that this change has been a welcome one.

I guess you won't be trying to explain why homosexuality is sinful/immoral,

Trying to with what you have given me, but it takes time.

but using what Jesus said about divorce doesn't even come close to showing that the Founder of your religion condemned it.

Jesus doesn't make idle reference to the Garden as the ideal. Going back, you find that command to be fruitful and to multiply.

Btw, why would Jesus point out that lust by a spouse for anyone other than their spouse = adultery = immorality when according to you, all lust outside of marriage is immoral?

I don't see what you are trying to say here. The two statements are equivalent. Read them again Berz, I can't see how the second says anything different from the first.

Furthermore, read what some of his disciples said about the way Jesus loved Mary differently than how he loved them.

Which quotes are you thinking of? There are many Marys, including the mother of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

He noted that the church has accepted stable same-sex relationships within the laity but not the clergy. He said: "If the Church's mind is that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful, then it is intrinsically sinful for everyone. It is that unwillingness to come clean that can't last. It is a contradiction."

Thought about this for awhile, and this does not work for several reasons.

It is based upon the first assumption, that the church has accepted these relationships among the laity. However, is this really true? Do all Anglican laity accept the premise that these relationships ought to be accepted?

And secondly, why does he apply the label to stability? How does one define what is stable and what is not? Who sets this standard, the Archbishop?

Third, one can make another argument that the clergy ought to be held to a higher standard than the laity. Even protestant denominations make this case, and not just the Catholic church. So it is not clear that what is acceptable among the laity ought also be acceptable to the clergy.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Hardly. For without the sexual component than marriage is meaningless. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in both body and spirit.

That's why I called a rather unique contract But marriage isn't meaningless if it lacks a sexual component, consider all the old married people beyond their sexual prime...

Their question was whether it would be lawful to for a man to divorce his wife, and under what grounds. They desired to trap Christ with the question, that he would either favour one of the groups of the Jews, over the other. Instead, Christ astonished them all with the statement that because your hearts were hard, did God permit divorce! Rather than affirming divorce as part of God's plan, he saw it as contrary, though a concession to the sinfulness of man. He shows them the ideal, or God's plan for marriage in Adam and Eve.

Now, hidden behind all this is the assumption, that we do not make today, that all sex outside of marriage is against the law. The Jews took this to be true, and Jesus did not have to make this point. Where they disagreed is how God intended marriage to be.

Ah, so your proof Jesus condemned homosexuality is "hidden". You've gone from claiming the Bible contain's God's definition of morality to making assumptions about "hidden" definitions of morality, i.e., you're playing God. Jesus was addressing a specific issue, divorce law; he was not offering a list of acceptable expressions of sexuality... It can't be more clear... Your "assumptions" have led you to argue that even lust between single people is morally unacceptable, this ignores that we all lust and do so before we ever get married...

Men can always break the commandments if they chose to. Christ says, "Let no man break what God has put together, " as a command to be followed. It does not follow that all will be able to follow the commandment.

But after saying that he made an exception to allow the breaking of a marriage, his reason is irrelevant.

As you point out, the exception protects the women, since if she were divorced, she would not likely be taken up by another man.

I agree with you, which is why it is more remarkable that Jesus makes the connection as the two becoming one flesh. Rather than property, the wife is inseperable from her husband, and her husband from her wife.

As for battering, what man would batter himself, if he really saw his wife as part of him, and part of him in his wife? For that reason a husband is to love his wife, as if she were himself.

So there's another reason for divorce, not just infidelity. But Jesus said ONLY infidelity!

Which is why it is better to marry than to burn, and to not be bitter or snide with folks who get married at a young age because they burn.

"Burn"? You mean lust? Lust precedes marriage except in some "arranged" marriages common back then... How do you get around that?

Do I think? Yes! But the standard is not mine to make.

But you're making it with your assumptions about hidden meanings.

Ah, but you assume that what is natural, or in nature must also be right. But nature, though she be beautiful, is still fallen. We cannot, by nature, be put right. If you admit that we have a sinful nature, then how can anything by that nature be good for us?

I'm not a Christian so I don't accept the notion that we are sinners by virtue of our existence. If nature is fallen,
then the creator of nature is fallen... Place blame where it belongs...

Which is what Christianity teaches, that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam.

But God created Adam, so we inherited our nature from that which created Adam...

Ah, you are clever, and bring up an argument I held to dearly. It would work, if one could say that one could make things right.

For example, would it help sin to encourage sin? If one were to get off on banging animals, would it be helpful to provide that man a sheep so that he could continue to do so in the privacy of his own home? No, but the real question is why not?

You come back to the purposes of marriage. Marriage does provide a haven from lust, but not for all lusts. Marriage, as a union of a man an a woman can fulfill one of the purposes to which it was designed, in providing pleasure, and in procreation. You see this back in the garden.

But the reason God threw Adam and Eve out of the garden was because they procreated, that's what the figleafs and apple meant. So, it's your position that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because even though marriage reduces sin by giving us a loophole to lust "morally", homosexuality is sinful. But lust is sinful too according to you... So why have marriage to reduce the sin of lust but not the sin of homosexuality (read what Paul said about why marriage is allowed, it had nothing to do with procreation)? If you know homosexuals lust and also know the only way they can lust morally is via marriage, not allowing them to marry makes you a party to their sin. As for animals, when you find a talking animal that gives it's consent, let us know.

Now that is an interesting preposition! Is it true that immorality can exist without God?

Yup, murder is immoral even if your God says it isn't. If he says it is immoral, score one for God.

They are many things that are taken on faith, but this is not one of them. We have the evidence that Christ claims about himself. Christ does not claim to be a prophet of God, but rather, the Son of God.

So what? That isn't proof of anything, the Jews viewed themselves as the children of God. They were the sons and daughters of God, nothing new there. Besides, anybody can claim to be the son of God...

So my question to you, what are the logical explanations, for someone who claims to be God?

Don't you mean the son of God? They're the son of God, they're loony, they're lying, or they're talking in parables or using symbolism. Probably a couple more, but we have no proof to support any of these possibilities.

Now, Christ provides further evidence, but this requires one preposition, that I must ask you to grant.

In order for me to show your question to be true, I must ask you to concede that the bible ought to be considered an accurate historical source for the testimony of Christ. I am not asking you to accept that what Christ says about himself to be true, but rather, that he really said that about himself, that he really died on a cross, and that he really was buried, as it says in the bible.

You want faith, I want proof.

Will you grant me this? If not, then this is the first point that must be discussed.

If we are to accept the veracity of the Bible, wouldn't that mean accepting the veracity of both what Jesus said and your interpretations of what he said? Granted...