Arrest me and throw away the key

[Berzerker]

Ben, before I get into your latest posts, you said defilement of the body was sinful, i.e., homosexuality is sinful and you used "breaking" the body God owns as your argument. I played alot of basketball when I was young and as a result my knees are shot. Did I sin by playing basketball? But let's not end with sports, are people who have jobs that ruin their health also defiling their bodies?

That's the point I was looking for. A violation of the marriage agreement.

Would you agree with me that the only legitimate sexual expression in Christianity is through marriage?

Not sure... People lust before getting married... Some people never get married but still lust...

This brings us back to this point of defilement. Every thing outside of marriage would then defile the body.

That's not what Jesus said, defilement has a definition and he didn't define it that way. He said defilement is what comes from a man's mouth, i.e., wicked thoughts about others. Before one does evil, they have to think about doing evil and just the thought constitutes defilement.

The same way as any other form of sin, with respect to our free will.

I disagree, free will does not include violating free will - therefore the act of murder is not free will any more than it is an act of freedom.

So, the temple sellers were hardly asking for Christ's help. I still don't see him advocating a live and let live philosophy.

They weren't living and letting live. The live and let live philosophy does not require us to allow others to trespass against us.

Fair enough. However, Christ challenged his beliefs about God in that one passage, and about his own desires. Remember the list of commandments he gave to the wealthy man, which did he omit? 'Thou shalt not covet.'

Live and let live doesn't mean we can't challenge each others beliefs either. The coveting commandment meant coveting someone else's property, not your own.

Then you have to see his response. The man walked away because he loved his money more than he trusted God. This is why Christ says at the end, that what is impossible through men is possible with God.

And as I said, Jesus let him make the decision - live and let live.

Matthew 10:13-5

If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.


Hardly a mellow approach.

Quite mellow, Jesus' followers were told to preach and go on if the message was rejected - that's live and let live. What happens on judgement day is for those who judge to decide. But doesn't Jesus' prediction about judgement day imply those who are rejecting the message are guilty of something far worse than merely not listening? Or is Jesus equating Sodom with people who lead moral lives on their own without hearing his message? If so, that's an indictment of Jesus...

Well, why are we of two genders? If we were meant to use our sexuality with others of the same sex, why does that approach bear no fruit?

Those who abstain bear no fruit either, yet that is a requirement for Catholic priests. And we aren't of two genders, not only do we find hermaphrodites in nature, we find some people are born that way.

Granted, but it just makes it a little more difficult on some areas.

I'm not certain I can explain sins without some conception of God, and who he is.

You can use God, but just use logic too... Why? Because your conception of God requires the Bible and that requires us to have "faith" that God wrote or inspired the entire Bible and we lack proof of that. So, first show that the founder of your religion condemned homosexuality as immoral or sinful, then prove the condemnation is rational.

Now, for the Christian teaching on marriage, or at least Christ's affirmation of marriage, is here:

Matt 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

He wasn't affirming marriage as the only way to live (remember abstention), he was addressing divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

But let's not end with sports, are people who have jobs that ruin their health also defiling their bodies?

In a sense...

Would you not say there is something wrong about a job that to do the job, requires one to destroy your body?

The same about the sports. If you continue to reaggravate your injury by playing certain sports, then you are not doing yourself much good.

Would it not be better to seek some other activity that would not aggravate your injury?

This is why Christians, can in some cases say that an action may be immoral for one person, yet not for another. The famous 'Christian freedom' that Paul alludes to, where the man who does not have a problem drinking should be able to drink.

Yet it would be a sin, if he found it difficult to quit, or if he were to encourage others that might find it difficult to quit.

Hey, you won that argument with me over the wine at Cana, on a point close to this.

The same can be said for the basketball player, who does not hurt himself by playing? Why should he be banned from playing just because it is harmful to somebody else?

People lust before getting married... Some people never get married but still lust...

People also lust after others while married, so lust is a poor indicator of what is right.

Before one does evil, they have to think about doing evil and just the thought constitutes defilement.

Which is an even HIGHER standard than just the actions constituting sin. Ergo, I can say that the actions are sins, if the thoughts are sins, as an argument from lesser to greater.

therefore the act of murder is not free will any more than it is an act of freedom.

Responsibility for our actions implies that the murder was committed through our own free will.

However, our free will, is not, in itself, corrupt. We corrupt our own will over time.

does not require us to allow others to trespass against us.

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us?"

What happens on judgement day is for those who judge to decide.

And Christ declares that he has the authority to forgive sins. Ergo, he would also have the authority to condemn others to hell.

Hardly mellow.

But doesn't Jesus' prediction about judgement day imply those who are rejecting the message are guilty of something far worse than merely not listening?

They are guilty of rejecting not only the messenger, but the one who sent him.

Just as Christ, is the Son of God, and his messenger, those who reject Christ, reject God. The same is for those who reject those who come in his name into the town. They reject the messenger, the apostles, as well as the one who sent them, Christ.

Those who abstain bear no fruit either, yet that is a requirement for Catholic priests.

True, but no one ever accused homosexuals as being overly desiring a life of chastity.

It is not so much the fruit, but the use of the gift given to you by God. The priests would argue that they have been given a different gift, such that, their fruits would not be their family.

And we aren't of two genders, not only do we find hermaphrodites in nature, we find some people are born that way.

And the same here. Not everyone is cut out for a family, and Christianity accepts this preposition.

He wasn't affirming marriage as the only way to live (remember abstention), he was addressing divorce.

But he also affirms that marriage is the proper place to express things sexually. Those that lack this desire, or these gifts, are given a different avenue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sin is a part of all of us, so in accepting Christ, you deny a part of who you are in favour of something better.

No different for you, then for me.



Chastity is an unhappy life? That's the other option if you don't want to marry...

Why do I keep bantering back and forth with you?


For me and countless other Christians regardless of sexual orientation, they do not see any contradiction or inconsistency with two people of same gender who are in an intimate relationship with one another with that of Christianity.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And they have sadly adopted the ways of the world, rather than those of Christ.

They may call themselves Christians, but they do not accept the authority of Christ, except when it coincides with their own beliefs, and the beliefs of those around them.

What authority do you base your own beliefs on Mr. Fun? Obviously not the bible, since you do not believe scripture to be authoritative in matters of faith. It's just a collection of allegories, of no consequence to moral instruction whatsoever.

I believe the Bible can be an important guide for morality for Christians. But this does not entail in taking the words in a literal sense, unless we should revert back to the same social laws of the ancient era when women were killed for adultery, and when people were forbidden to wear clothes of mixed fibers.

[MrFun]

And by the way, Episcopalian Christians and the Catholic denomination of which the name escapes my memory at this moment that have welcomed affirmative gays still believe they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ -- one of which embraces unconditional love, and forbids humans from judging one another -- that is the realm of God.

[Ben Kenobi]

For me and countless other Christians regardless of sexual orientation, they do not see any contradiction or inconsistency with two people of same gender who are in an intimate relationship with one another with that of Christianity.

Well, what is their justification for the process?

Which scripture do they cite in their defense?

Everything I have heard is that they use the same argument with respect to the person, which will be corrosive for the church. Why should anyone have to change their lives in order to become a Christian?

If I like what I do, even though Christianity says otherwise, why should I change, rather than insisting that the church changes?

I believe the Bible can be an important guide for morality for Christians. But this does not entail in taking the words in a literal sense,

So how do you reconcile this position? If something is not literal, then it can hardly be a guide to morality for Christians.

One or the other, Mr. Fun.

unless we should revert back to the same social laws of the ancient era when women were killed for adultery, and when people were forbidden to wear clothes of mixed fibers.

It's not necessary to accept that these parts of scripture are allegorical in order to make sense of them.

Ask yourself why both of these were in place? First of all, they are both in connection with the Jewish sacrificial system.

Clothes of mixed fibre was seen as unclean, as were many other practices of the time. This is why Christ has to emphasise that the situation changes with his death.

The same for stoning with respect to adultery. For the Jews, the Mosaic code was both a legal system, and a religious code, because the two were one and the same. This has changed since Christ, as his kingdom is not a temporal one, but rather a spiritual one.

Even if we were to say that you are correct, that we should accept these parts as allegory, then this does nothing to explain away Romans, or any of the quotes I have listed in the thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

And by the way, Episcopalian Christians

Who has said so?

A vocal minority of a much larger church?

They hardly speak with one voice on this issue, so how do you know that the Episcopalian that favours you is more right than the Episcopalian who does not?

Catholic denomination of which the name escapes my memory

There are no Catholic denominations. Either you are inside the Catholic church, or you are out.

at this moment that have welcomed affirmative gays still believe they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ

They follow with their lips, but their hearts are far from him...

Everyone has to leave their life of sin in order to become Christians. Why should one group receive special treatment?

On can certainly be gay, and still be a Christian, but one cannot practice sin openly and still expect to be a Christian. There is a big difference between the two.

You might just as well proclaim that committing adultery is fine and well, that it is no problem for one to cheat on your wife, all while insisting that one is a good Christian.

Hardly fair to those who stay faithful... Where will they go Mr. Fun? They will go where they find Christ, even if it has to be outside the Episcopalian church.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Who has said so?

The bishops and lay councils of PECUSA have upheld Robinson's investiture as bishop of New Hampshire. Only a few parishes have left in protest. The matter currently seems to no longer be an issue.

A vocal minority of a much larger church?

There are only about 3 million Episcopalians. "Much larger church" is hardly an appropriate description of us.

Everyone has to leave their life of sin in order to become Christians. Why should one group receive special treatment?

You're fond of quoting Romans 1, but you don't seem to have read the whole thing. Go back to the part that mentions sexual perversions and read on. You'll find that Paul considered a very large range of human activity to be mortally sinful, including argumentativeness. You're arguing aren't you? So when are you leaving your life of sin?

[Ben Kenobi]

There are only about 3 million Episcopalians. "Much larger church" is hardly an appropriate description of us.

Part of the Anglicans worldwide.

I'm looking at the historical connections, or have the US Anglicans chosen to split off from the rest of them?

Only a few parishes have left in protest.

Parishes are one thing. People are another. I'm looking at the people, not the parishes.

You'll find that Paul considered a very large range of human activity to be mortally sinful, including argumentativeness. You're arguing aren't you? So when are you leaving your life of sin?

Romans 1:26-32

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Do I affirm any of these things?

It's not so much the sin that I worry about, but the very last bit.

Is this not what the Episcopalian church has chosen? To approve of those who sin?

I admit, like anyone else, that there are things that I do on this list, and you are right to call me on these points, but I do not revel in these things, nor do I encourage others to do the same.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Part of the Anglicans worldwide.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has actually voiced sympathy for the plight of gays worshippers. I suspect that the general feeling in the UK, Canada, and Australia is much less anti-gay than you'd think. The more conservative voices are coming from Africa where there is considerable influence via non-Anglican "evangelicals".

I'm looking at the historical connections, or have the US Anglicans chosen to split off from the rest of them?

I'm not sure of what you're taliking about. PECUSA is still a part of the Anglican Communion. TYhere was a call by some of the African members to discipline PECUSA for investing Robertson, but it didn't get far. The Archbishop of Canterbury pretty much quashed it.

Parishes are one thing. People are another. I'm looking at the people, not the parishes.

In PECUSA the people of the congregation control the parish. If the majority of parishoners thought the issue worth declaring seperation from PECUSA they can do just that. This is happening in only a few instances, so I think that you're not in touch with what Episcopals think.

Is this not what the Episcopalian church has chosen? To approve of those who sin?

I admit, like anyone else, that there are things that I do on this list, and you are right to call me on these points, but I do not revel in these things, nor do I encourage others to do the same.

I'm pretty sure that he included arguing somewhere in there, at least in the KJV. I don't think you're going to find any church successful at excluding people who boast, gossip, and disobey their parents.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ah. The KJV includes in the list: debate, deceit, proud, and implacable. The phrase "inventor of evil things' is particularily subject to interpretation.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are no Catholic denominations. Either you are inside the Catholic church, or you are out.

I personally know of someone who is in the clergy of a Catholic denomination that is separate from the Roman Catholic denomination.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

In a sense...

Would you not say there is something wrong about a job that to do the job, requires one to destroy your body?

No, we all make trade-offs to get what we want out of life, and that includes sacrificing our bodies. Many people who play sports professionally end up with bad knees and worse; they do this not only for the money to buy material goods but for pleasure. Even Jesus was a carpenter and I imagine he smacked his fingers with hammers a number of times. So the damage we accrue over the years in pursuit of happiness is a trade-off we all make, not defilement as defined by Jesus.

The same about the sports. If you continue to reaggravate your injury by playing certain sports, then you are not doing yourself much good.

It's called life, not defilement.

Would it not be better to seek some other activity that would not aggravate your injury?

That's a question each of us have to answer based on our personal desires and values. I can no longer play sports that require dexterity in my knees but I do play golf even though it causes me some pain. Why? Because I enjoy playing golf and the amount of pain I suffer is tolerable and worth the happiness golf affords me.

This is why Christians, can in some cases say that an action may be immoral for one person, yet not for another. The famous 'Christian freedom' that Paul alludes to, where the man who does not have a problem drinking should be able to drink.

So homosexuality may be immoral for one person but not for another?

Yet it would be a sin, if he found it difficult to quit, or if he were to encourage others that might find it difficult to quit.

I won't quit playing golf, is that sinful? And how can one determine if some bystander who takes up our sport will have difficulty quitting? That would mean darn near everything in life is sinful - playing football encourages others to play football and some of them may have trouble quitting. Becoming a fireman or an astronaut would be sinful if it ends with our death or encourages others to become firemen and astronauts and meet a similar fate. You've placed the burden of knowing the future on us...

Hey, you won that argument with me over the wine at Cana, on a point close to this.

But that would mean Jesus was sinful because he supplied a bunch of wine to people who were getting drunk.

The same can be said for the basketball player, who does not hurt himself by playing? Why should he be banned from playing just because it is harmful to somebody else?

According to you, because his play might inspire others to play and that makes him responsible for their futures.

People also lust after others while married, so lust is a poor indicator of what is right.

Exactly, lust or sexual desire is not inherently immoral. We all lust, it's the situation that helps determine whether or not it is sinful. Jesus equated lusting for others while married with adultery...

Which is an even HIGHER standard than just the actions constituting sin. Ergo, I can say that the actions are sins, if the thoughts are sins, as an argument from lesser to greater.

Yes, but this ignores that defilement according to Jesus starts (and even ends) with thoughts of doing evil. His citations of this evil? Anger/murder...adultery of the heart...and so on... Thoughts against others...

Responsibility for our actions implies that the murder was committed through our own free will.

However, our free will, is not, in itself, corrupt. We corrupt our own will over time.

One cannot commit murder without violating the free will of the victim, therefore murder is not an act of free will...it's a violation of free will...

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us?"

Are you saying Christianity requires Christians to allow themselves to be murdered? Forgiving a trespass is not the same as allowing the trespass to occur without resistance, but this does raise an interesting paradox. Jesus said turn the other cheek which does imply non-resistance, yet he did chase the sellers of indulgences out of the temple. He gave a mixed message...

And Christ declares that he has the authority to forgive sins. Ergo, he would also have the authority to condemn others to hell.

Hardly mellow.

Then he would not have needed to ask his Father to forgive his tormentors when on the cross. But live and let live does not address any possible spiritual existence
transcending our physical deaths, just how we relate to each other in this world and Jesus did not tell his followers to force others to hear the message...on the contrary...

They are guilty of rejecting not only the messenger, but the one who sent him.

Based on insufficient knowledge or evil? If some guy
walked up to you and claimed to know what God wants, would you blindly accept whatever they said? If he was right and you didn't believe his claim of authority, would that condemn you? How does one know a false prophet from a true prophet? If your God expects us to believe everyone claiming to know what God wants then your God is asking too much, especially when your God warns against believing false prophets...

Just as Christ, is the Son of God, and his messenger, those who reject Christ, reject God. The same is for those who reject those who come in his name into the town. They reject the messenger, the apostles, as well as the one who sent them, Christ.

This assumes everyone knows their status, we don't, and they didn't. So, I find it illogical for God to warn against false prophets and expect us to believe any guy walking into town claiming to be a prophet - God has put us in a catch-22 situation. I have to believe what Jesus meant was that people who are wicked for reasons other than being "doubting Thomas'" will be judged severely. The key wording is that these people "rejected" the message, i.e., not just ignored it but behaved contrary to it.

True, but no one ever accused homosexuals as being overly desiring a life of chastity.

It is not so much the fruit, but the use of the gift given to you by God. The priests would argue that they have been given a different gift, such that, their fruits would not be their family.

Then the priests are rejecting the gift as well. And homosexuals could claim they've been given a different gift. Some Indian tribes believed they were sacred because the creator has a dual sexual identity, i.e., the creator was both male and female... So we have competing religious views on the subject, that's one reason why we need some standard other than personal religious preferences - logic is my standard.

And the same here. Not everyone is cut out for a family, and Christianity accepts this preposition.

How does Christianity deal with the notion that God created them - male and female - when hermaphrodites exist?

But he also affirms that marriage is the proper place to express things sexually. Those that lack this desire, or these gifts, are given a different avenue.

Not in that passage, he was talking about divorce. He was changing the OT laws regarding divorce, that was the issue being discussed. But given that not everyone is obliged or cut out for male-female marriage, how does that prove Jesus said homosexuality is sinful?

Btw, you haven't even tried to prove that homosexuality is sinful other than using quotes from the Bible that are tangential to the subject at best. I was hoping for a logical explanation...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Uh, they seemed to enjoy each other's company.

I shouldn't have to say more...

We need to have a quiet chat about the female body some time. I think you're misinterpreting a few things.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I seem to recall reading that the Bible has more warnings and admonitions about menstruating women that it does about gays. Do the Bible crew follow all those warnings or just the ones considered fashionable at the time?