"Goes against the teachings of Christianity"

[BruceChris]

How many times have I read this, and how many denominations have espoused this claim?

It would seem to me that whenever any conservative tells you that "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity", that the automatic comeback would be "But not against the teachings of Christ"

Thoughts, anyone?

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[pnggrad79]

Well while I don't claim to be a scholar on Christian religion, I have done a lot of reading on the subject and it seems to me that Christianity has little to do with Christ. Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to the New Testament churches. It all changed with Constantine and his legalization of it in Rome. It changed from being an outlaw, persecuted group of people loyal to Christ, to a powerful mega-structure manned by power hungry individuals eager to get ahead in the Roman empire. And not much has changed since Constantine if you ask me.

So in answer to your question- I think Christianity is based on fear and a blood thirsty god, while Christ exemplified the love, mercy and infinite forgiveness of God and I think he would be horrified if he were here in the flesh observing all the harm and hurt that has been purveyed in his name.

[Pablo Rafael]

Not a bad response at all.

What I have heard more often is the phrase stated, "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of the BIBLE."

I don't really have a good comeback actually. What I might say is, "Homosexuality might go against your interpretation of the Bible, but using the Bible to support prejudice and discrimination goes against my interpretation of the Bible. My interpretation says that God's grace is for everyone. A little long and cumbersome for a quick comeback, I will admit.

[Matt Algren]

The Methodist variation is "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." My response is a simple one. "No it isn't."

The church was very important 36 years ago when they specifically didn't say "incompatible with Christ." That's very much not an accident; they purposely gave themselves some wiggle room. And it works for the rubes who don't have a personal stake in the discussion. The problem, as you say, is that:

Christian Teaching = Christ's Teaching
Christ's Teaching = Christ
Christ = God

Therefore, what they're really saying is that gays are "incompatible with God", which outside of six or so debatable verses, is proved over and over not to be true, because nobody is more or less compatible with God than anyone else, gay or straight.

The problem is that people remember the sound bite they've been fed for over a generation (along with words like "abomination") much better than they remember falsity of the theology behind the sound bite.

[Gennee]

Well while I don't claim to be a scholar on Christian religion, I have done a lot of reading on the subject and it seems to me that Christianity has little to do with Christ. Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to the New Testament churches. It all changed with Constantine and his legalization of it in Rome. It changed from being an outlaw, persecuted group of people loyal to Christ, to a powerful mega-structure manned by power hungry individuals eager to get ahead in the Roman empire. And not much has changed since Constantine if you ask me.

So in answer to your question- I think Christianity is based on fear and a blood thirsty god, while Christ exemplified the love, mercy and infinite forgiveness of God and I think he would be horrified if he were here in the flesh observing all the harm and hurt that has been purveyed in his name.


That's why I am so fascinated with the early Christian church. EVERYBODY was welcome. It's inclusiveness drew many pagans to it. It was what God had in mind but as usual man screwed it up.

Gennee

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Well while I don't claim to be a scholar on Christian religion, I have done a lot of reading on the subject and it seems to me that Christianity has little to do with Christ. Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to the New Testament churches. It all changed with Constantine and his legalization of it in Rome. It changed from being an outlaw, persecuted group of people loyal to Christ, to a powerful mega-structure manned by power hungry individuals eager to get ahead in the Roman empire. And not much has changed since Constantine if you ask me.

So in answer to your question- I think Christianity is based on fear and a blood thirsty god, while Christ exemplified the love, mercy and infinite forgiveness of God and I think he would be horrified if he were here in the flesh observing all the harm and hurt that has been purveyed in his name.

That time period (the transition from underground, persecuted church to major power) is so intriguing to me. I find the evolution profound and the changes in the church both horrifying and wonderful (I mean, there was some good that came out of those early councils).

[Daniel]

Well while I don't claim to be a scholar on Christian religion, I have done a lot of reading on the subject and it seems to me that Christianity has little to do with Christ. Christianity as we know it today bears little resemblance to the New Testament churches. It all changed with Constantine and his legalization of it in Rome. It changed from being an outlaw, persecuted group of people loyal to Christ, to a powerful mega-structure manned by power hungry individuals eager to get ahead in the Roman empire. And not much has changed since Constantine if you ask me.

So in answer to your question- I think Christianity is based on fear and a blood thirsty god, while Christ exemplified the love, mercy and infinite forgiveness of God and I think he would be horrified if he were here in the flesh observing all the harm and hurt that has been purveyed in his name.

Like what you articulate very much. You words remind me of the time in my life when I was reading John Boswell's tome- Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. He comes to the same conclusion, essentially.

The triumph of the exoteric views over esoteric ones. Or, in other words, ascendancy the things of this world being invested in instead of investment in matters of the spirit.

But then, isn't that what ego's tend to do when run amok with power?

[tdogg]

In my experience, most of the opposition's arguments are 'against Biblical teachings" but it does vary. Of course, in reality it's 'against the teachings of whichever person considers themselves the leader of the people sitting in this building every Sunday." Those teachings often have nothing to do with Christ or the Bible.

I was reading an article in today's local newspaper, mentioning that there will soon be available, on the internet and for free, the text of the oldest known New Testament (dated to approximately the 4th century). I'll try to find that article and actually post something useful, but thought it was interesting enough to mention.

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

yes thats right it does.

In reality homosexuality does go against the teachings of christianity.

HOWEVER

it does NOT go against the teachings of the bible or Christ himself.

And who are we to listen to?
our power crazy leaders?
or the word of God and Jesus Christ himself?

I know who I'm following...

you decide

[tymejumper]

How many times have I read this, and how many denominations have espoused this claim?

It would seem to me that whenever any conservative tells you that "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity", that the automatic comeback would be "But not against the teachings of Christ"

Thoughts, anyone?

Namaste', Bruce Chris


Here is my thought, for what it's worth. It says NOTHING in the New Testament about homosexuality. Chrisitianity is based on the New Testament, it's about Christ, the basis of the religion. So therefore, logically, one would presume that what was said in the New Testament, would be the basis for the religion. Therefore, as homosexuality is not mentioned by the creator of the religion, Christ, it is not wrong nor sinful. And last but not least, it's not in the 10 commandments from the Old Testament either!

[Ozgeorge]

How many times have I read this, and how many denominations have espoused this claim?

It would seem to me that whenever any conservative tells you that "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity", that the automatic comeback would be "But not against the teachings of Christ"

Thoughts, anyone?

Namaste', Bruce Chris

I wonder how anyone can claim that anything other than the Gospel Law of Love is the moral teaching of Christianity. My usual response to people who claim that "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity" is to ask them what exactly they mean when they refer to "the teachings of Christianity?" Their usual response is to refer to a literal, non-contextual series of verses from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. So I then point out that Paul's Epistles also state quite clearly that women must not cut their hair, wear makeup and must have their heads covered- do they enforce these "Christian Teachings" in their own Church? Paul's Epistles say that slavery is acceptable- was the Emancipation of the slaves contrary to "Christian Teaching"?
Augustine of Hippo was one of the great Fathers of the Early Church (although my own Orthodox Church has a few problems with some of his teachings, specifically "Original Sin", but he is still respected as a Father of the Church.). Augustine of Hippo summed up all of Christian moral teaching in one phrase: "Love, then do as you please."
Love never fails. Love always steers us in the right direction because, as St. John tells us: "God is Love, and he who abides in Love abides in God, and God in him."(1 John 4:16) Whatever we begin from Love is always morally right, and is the Christian moral teaching. But if we try and feign love we will always go wrong- there is no room in a Christian heart for hatred or judgement of any sort, that's why the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" approach is absolute baloney and is nothing but hatred and self-righteousness in the guise of love. A Christian who loves does not judge others.
No one has ever been brought to Christ through co-ersion, fear, guilt. If anything draws us to Christ other than Love, then our "faith" is doomed.

[Pablo Rafael]

George, I have to say "AMEN!" to your previous post. It is my belief as well that the entire Bible shows forth the LOVE of God. The essence of our faith is that God loves us an sends his grace forth into the world through the life death and resurrection of Christ. Our response as His followers should be the show that love to others.

As Christians our work is not to judge, to battle, to exclude. It is to love. How different Chrisitanity would be if that were the goal of every Christian.

[Ozgeorge]

As Christians our work is not to judge, to battle, to exclude. It is to love. How different Chrisitanity would be if that were the goal of every Christian.

I think the problem is that Christians sometimes fix their goals on "Salvation", seeking either to escape "hell" or attain "Heaven" as though these were goals in themselves towards which "love" is simply a means to the end rather than the goal itself. "You shall love the Lord your God" and "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" are the ultimate goals because God is the ultimate goal and God is Love. I am reminded of the beautiful poems of the 8th Century Sufi poetess, Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya:
I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I will set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.
O Lord, if I worship you out of fear of hell, burn me in hell.
And if I worship you in the hope of paradise, forbid it to me.
But if I worship you for your own sake,
do not deprive me of your eternal beauty

[BruceChris]

As always, there is a little thread drift here, but I like the way that it's moving. George, I like the way that you have packaged this.

My belief is that "sin" just means that we are not perfect, and we will never be perfect. Given that, we can either sit around and feel terrible about ourselves*, or we can celebrate life, and go out and spread God's love, as best we can. I like to think I've got the right idea, but I like your poetry better, in any case.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

*or worse yet, go out and make other *sinners* feel bad about themselves.

[Ozgeorge]

As always, there is a little thread drift here, I'm notorious for that! I do apologize. You're all gonna have to keep an eye on me! Here endeth the tangent.

My belief is that "sin" just means that we are not perfect, and we will never be perfect. Absolutely! Which, of course means that everyone is saved through God's mercy alone, and not their own "righteousness".

Given that, we can either sit around and feel terrible about ourselves*, or we can celebrate life, and go out and spread God's love, as best we can. "I am a sinner and God is wrathful towards me"
vs.
"I am a sinner and yet God's Love and Mercy are Infinite"

Hmmm...tough choice...:lol:
Some people call the latter "liberalism", but I think it's reality, since everyone depends on God's Mercy alone for salvation.


I like to think I've got the right idea, I think you have.


*or worse yet, go out and make other *sinners* feel bad about themselves. Which is just self-indulgence. Rolling in the mud is not the best way of getting clean!:o

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I am reminded of the beautiful poems of the 8th Century Sufi poetess, Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya:
I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I will set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.
O Lord, if I worship you out of fear of hell, burn me in hell.
And if I worship you in the hope of paradise, forbid it to me.
But if I worship you for your own sake,
do not deprive me of your eternal beauty

I had never heard that poem before. It is amazing. I am going to put it with my other quotes. Thank you for the amazing words!

[camdiddy]

Christianity in America has little to do with the Jesus of the bible. I want to point out that I can't separate Him from the bible. According to scripture, He is the Word of God made flesh, and all scripture is God-breathed (John chapter 1 and 2 Timothy 3:16.)

The underlying issue is whether a person is born of the Spirit. Tons of people claim to be christians but are not born again. They have not been regenerated. That's why a hundred people can read a passage of scripture and make it say what they want it to. The scriptures speak for themselves. When a person is born of the Spirit of God, then the Spirit will lead that person into all of the truth.

[tymejumper]

How many times have I read this, and how many denominations have espoused this claim?

It would seem to me that whenever any conservative tells you that "Homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity", that the automatic comeback would be "But not against the teachings of Christ"

Thoughts, anyone?

Namaste', Bruce Chris



Here are my toughts on the matter. I am not a devote Christian, but as I understnad it, Christianity did not even EXIST until Christ died and his followers wanted to honor is teachings and spread them. This became Chrisitanity. Now, keeping this in mind, we must look to Christs teachings to see what he said and what we follow. There is not ONE mention of homosexuality in the New Testament, Christs teachings. So then how can it be against Christianity if it is not mentioned in his teachings? :confused: I don't believe that abortion is mentioned either. People manage to link that somehow also.

[camdiddy]

For argument's sake, Jesus didn't mention bestiality. It is a false premise to assume that because He didn't mention something, He is not against it. If you believe what the bible says, then you will believe that He is the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17). He fulfilled the requirements of the law, and He paid the penalty for breaking the law (death and separation from God). When He taught in the synagogue, He referenced from the law and the prophets. If there had been any doubt as to the validity of the law, He quickly put that doubt to rest by teaching and quoting from thelaw and the prophets.

[antiochian]

More often than not, I hear Christians say that "homosexuality goes against the teachings of the Bible" (as opposed to Christianity).

One of my favorite original sayings (I think it's original anyway) is that the Bible says nothing, but is interpreted, and I might add quite often erroneously, depending on the tastes of an individual or a sect.

My faith tradition venerates the Bible as God's word, but it is not solely based on the Bible. I do not believe in sola scriptura, I see the Bible as one piece of a larger puzzle. I do not believe in the Bible--I believe in Christ.

Christians can't agree on what the Bible actually says about baptism, or communion, or salvation (Arminian v. Calvinism), eschatology (pre-, post-, amillenialism), and I heard the Protestants, the Catholics, and the Jehovah's Witnesses have debated for years about the name of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday (I think the donkey was gay). Even within my church there are disagreements on some things. Let's face it, no one has the whole thing figured out to this day. Some disagree on interpretations of passages as simple as, "This is my body.... This is my blood."

So what makes the professor of theology, the bishop in the mitre, or the scripture spewing fundie next door think they can figure out six or seven verses that date back some thousands of years before they learned to pee in a pot and tie their shoes, in ancient languages from which there are often no perfect translations, and derived from a culture which they never experienced firsthand, so certain they know without a doubt that these verses are saying what they want them to say? What makes them so sure that they know the mind of the transcendent one, whom no one has seen and lived, who created everything and gave all organisms breath?

Man, I need to shut up before I get in trouble. :rolleyes:

By the way, I loved the above saying of St. Augustine quoted by George. Never heard it before!

[tdogg]

Well said Antiochian! Couldn't have said it better or added anything substantial. Brilliant.

When everyone who says they believe the Bible is the true word of God can agree on everything the bible is supposed to say and mean, come back and let's talk it. Until then, I'm not buying into your stories.

[camdiddy]

Again, I don't separate Jesus from the bible. He said, "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." As for sola scripture, for one who walks with Christ, it is only the Scriptures. The issue really is that many professing christians have not been born again. So what the bible says becomes moot, because a person not born of the Spirit cannot and will not live according to scripture. That's why I prefaced what I said earlier with "If you believe what the bible says..." The way a person answers that lets me know.
We are living in a time when the label "Christian" means absolutely nothing. Things are so convoluted that there are buddhist-catholic-christian practicing muslims. But God knows those who are His. It is my greatest desire to be found in Him.

[Alecto]

For argument's sake, Jesus didn't mention bestiality. It is a false premise to assume that because He didn't mention something, He is not against it. If you believe what the bible says, then you will believe that He is the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17). He fulfilled the requirements of the law, and He paid the penalty for breaking the law (death and separation from God). When He taught in the synagogue, He referenced from the law and the prophets. If there had been any doubt as to the validity of the law, He quickly put that doubt to rest by teaching and quoting from thelaw and the prophets.

He also made a very deliberate point that sometimes, the letter of the law should be broken to uphold the spirit of the law. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

[sauu4equality]

Again, I don't separate Jesus from the bible. He said, "You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." As for sola scripture, for one who walks with Christ, it is only the Scriptures. The issue really is that many professing christians have not been born again. So what the bible says becomes moot, because a person not born of the Spirit cannot and will not live according to scripture. That's why I prefaced what I said earlier with "If you believe what the bible says..." The way a person answers that lets me know.
We are living in a time when the label "Christian" means absolutely nothing. Things are so convoluted that there are buddhist-catholic-christian practicing muslims. But God knows those who are His. It is my greatest desire to be found in Him.

Yes, this is the argument always made by Christians against homosexuality...

Originally I followed this information with "aren't you gay?" I thought I remembered Camdiddy mentioning she was, but she followed saying that we had no idea who she is or who she loves. So, I am respecting her right to privacy by deleting this question. It also makes no difference in the argument. The original sentence was originally intended to point out that the rhetoric being used by camdiddy was similar if not identicle to the rhetoric of fundamentalist Christians opposed to the expression of GLBT love. Not to assume the sexuality of camdiddy which is certainly her own business and not mine.

Hey, that's great if you believe that way, but you should realize it's pretty offensive when someone says my faith is better than yours. You push many away. And since you've read the Bible you know that's the opposite of what you're called to do. To reiterate a point you tried to belittle, even "born-again" (self-righteous) Christians disagree on meanings and interpretations in the Bible. Just ask the question, "what is God" to every born again Christian and you'll see what I mean. Or you'll just think that you are the only one that is "born again."

[Pablo Rafael]

Again, I don't separate Jesus from the Bible.
Don't get me wrong. I believe firmly that God has revelead himself to us through the Bible. However, I believe we must separate God and the Bible. The Bible can only give a vague, incomplete impression of the majesty and the working of God. To hold up the Bible as an object of worship, as the equivalent of God, is Bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible rather than God.


As for sola scripture, for one who walks with Christ, it is only the Scriptures.
My Lutheran upbringing has me very convinced of the importance of the idea of "sola scripitura". But it is important to realize that this is just a method of interpretation. Luther was the one who came up with the idea of "Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura" (I know I have the spelling wrong there.) "By grace alone, through faith alone, found in the Scriptures alone" But that is just one man's interpretational tool. The idea of "Sola Scriptura" is not actually found in the Bible.

I believe that the Bible should be the basis of our faith. However, the Bible gives but an incomplete picture of God's work in the world. We must realize that no one will ever understand God. No one can get things correct, for our human minds are incapable of understanding God. If I ever think I have the will of God understood, I am bordering on arrogance.

[camdiddy]

First of all, don't put words in my mouth. Everything I said I based on Scripture. So if you have a problem with that, then your problem is not with me, but with the Scriptures.
The letter of the law... If you read those passages, you will see that the Spirit went further than the letter, because the Spirit gives life, but the letter kills. It becomes about not just doing right or wrong, but about your heart. We are not able to follow the letter of the law without the Spirit of God. (Matthew 5) "You have heard it said...but I say to you" was not a breaking of the law, but the fulfillment of it. Jesus went straight to the heart.
To answer the other post, no where did I say that my faith was better than anyone's. Actually, you have prejudged me and I could take legitimate offense with you. You have no idea who I am, so you don't know how I treat or how I love people. And the phrase "born again" is scriptural. It does not mean self righteous. John chapter 3 deals with the concept if you care to read it.
Interestingly, this is the persecution that Jesus was talking about. For His sake. I could quote what He said, "Everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be seen, that they have been done in God," (John 3:20-21) and Christians would take offense with that, even though it's in the bible.
Look my only goal is that people come to know the Jesus of the bible as their savior and Lord. I have been thinking a lot about that scripture that says, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7: 22-23) I don't want that to be me or any of us.

[camdiddy]

I thought that we were to have the mind of Christ.

[sauu4equality]

[QUOTE=camdiddy;62246] That's why I prefaced what I said earlier with "If you believe what the bible says..." The way a person answers that lets me know.
QUOTE]

Oh ok. I thought you were saying that you can tell if people are filled with the spirit or not...I guess you didn't. My mistake. So, you don't think that those that find the Bible to be garbage are going to hell? That's a relief. But I think it's pretty obvious where I got what I said. Maybe you didn't need to come out and say it. But the quote above is offensive not only to non-Christians, but Christians who believe in a more inclusive brand of Christianity. It is interesting that, while the term is in fact biblical, born again was not used by Christians until the 1960's. And many Christians in the world do not use the term. It is used the most by fundamentalists, evangelicals and other literalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_Christianity
It used to refer to Baptisms within the Catholic Church and other liturgical churches. Since someone claims that they have the spirit in them and others do not this is where the self-righteous reference comes in. "I know because I have the spirit in me" is a self-righteous statement meaning that you have ordained yourself a prophet over other non-born agains that just don't have the faith in Christ you do.

[Pablo Rafael]

I thought that we were to have the mind of Christ.

Indeed we are. But what do you mean, "have the mind of Christ"? When I look at Christ I see a God who was willing to come to earth live among us and die on the cross. He has shown his love to us. When I look at the ministry of Jesus, I see love. When people tried to get him to talk about the law he said, "Love the Lord your God...Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus continually showed love to those who were on the fringes of society. His ministry focused on showing that love, not on teaching doctrines or supporting religious establishments.

The only group that Jesus really criticized were the pharisees. Our priest says that when he reads the word "pharisee" in the Bible he always likes to replace it with "religious people like us". I personally have to watch myself because I am one of those people who knows his Bible quite well. It is my tendency to think I have "the mind of Christ" all figured out.

What Christ has showed me is that I never will know it all. I never will understand it all. I think God works differently through each person. To me "the mind of Christ" is an attitude of love and forgiveness, service and humility.

[sauu4equality]

Don't get me wrong. I believe firmly that God has revelead himself to us through the Bible. However, I believe we must separate God and the Bible. The Bible can only give a vague, incomplete impression of the majesty and the working of God. To hold up the Bible as an object of worship, as the equivalent of God, is Bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible rather than God.



My Lutheran upbringing has me very convinced of the importance of the idea of "sola scripitura". But it is important to realize that this is just a method of interpretation. Luther was the one who came up with the idea of "Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura" (I know I have the spelling wrong there.) "By grace alone, through faith alone, found in the Scriptures alone" But that is just one man's interpretational tool. The idea of "Sola Scriptura" is not actually found in the Bible.

I believe that the Bible should be the basis of our faith. However, the Bible gives but an incomplete picture of God's work in the world. We must realize that no one will ever understand God. No one can get things correct, for our human minds are incapable of understanding God. If I ever think I have the will of God understood, I am bordering on arrogance.


I really like this post Pablo. Very thoughtful. Some do seem to be idolizing the Bible rather than trying to emulate Christ.

[camdiddy]

I'm not sure where this is going, but I will refer you to John 3 where Jesus talks to Nicodemus about being born again. Those who are born again have the Spirit of God within them. Hopefully that chapter will clear up what "born again" is.

[Matt Algren]

For argument's sake, Jesus didn't mention bestiality.Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality.
It is a false premise to assume that because He didn't mention something, He is not against it. If you believe what the bible says, then you will believe that He is the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17). He fulfilled the requirements of the law, and He paid the penalty for breaking the law (death and separation from God). When He taught in the synagogue, He referenced from the law and the prophets. If there had been any doubt as to the validity of the law, He quickly put that doubt to rest by teaching and quoting from thelaw and the prophets.
Homosexuality is not mentioned in the scriptures.
Christianity in America has little to do with the Jesus of the bible. I want to point out that I can't separate Him from the bible. According to scripture, He is the Word of God made flesh, and all scripture is God-breathed (John chapter 1 and 2 Timothy 3:16.)
All of the scriptures are to be used as a tool to help people live better lives now and in preparation for the next life. It is not to be used as a weapon. If there's one thing we know about the Christ, it's that he was against people using the Bible as a weapon.
The underlying issue is whether a person is born of the Spirit. Tons of people claim to be christians but are not born again. They have not been regenerated.Who's deciding who has been 'born of the Spirit'. Which denomination or religion is The One True Christianity?
That's why a hundred people can read a passage of scripture and make it say what they want it to.
Or it could be that a hundred people can read a passage differently because it's a living document that is made to speak to different people depending on their need.
The scriptures speak for themselves. When a person is born of the Spirit of God, then the Spirit will lead that person into all of the truth.
Totally. That's why I'm so glad that I finally learned God doesn't condemn The Gays. That's why I'm glad that Jesus touched the people that The Law said He shouldn't touch, heal when He shouldn't heal, love when He shouldn't love. That's why I'm glad He came to point out that rigidity in doctrine is wrong.

[sauu4equality]

Well I don't know about where this thread is going. It has evolved from its original purpose. However, just as a quick response, there was no dispute about the words or idea of being "born-again" not being in John. Every studied Christian is quite aware of this passage. My history of the term was provided to help you realize that the term hasn't been used in the way you used it for very long. And that it usually refers to biblical literalists nowadays. There was no dispute on it being biblical as you will find in one of my previous posts. But the majority of Christians that put very little weight on the term and more on a person's professed love and belief in Christ, well, I guess they just don't have the spirit in them like you do.

[camdiddy]

The reason I led you back to John chap 3 is to show that being born again is a work of the Spirit. So you cannot be born again without the Spirit of God

[Matt Algren]

Well I don't know about where this thread is going. It has evolved from its original purpose. However, just as a quick response, there was no dispute about the words or idea of being "born-again" not being in John. Every studied Christian is quite aware of this passage. My history of the term was provided to help you realize that the term hasn't been used in the way you used it for very long. And that it usually refers to biblical literalists nowadays. There was no dispute on it being biblical as you will find in one of my previous posts. But the majority of Christians that put very little weight on the term and more on a person's professed love and belief in Christ, well, I guess they just don't have the spirit in them like you do.
I think the problem is that the term was taken over by overly rigid Christians who want to split people in to us and them.

[camdiddy]

Originally Posted by camdiddy
For argument's sake, Jesus didn't mention bestiality.

Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality.

Quote:
It is a false premise to assume that because He didn't mention something, He is not against it. If you believe what the bible says, then you will believe that He is the fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17). He fulfilled the requirements of the law, and He paid the penalty for breaking the law (death and separation from God). When He taught in the synagogue, He referenced from the law and the prophets. If there had been any doubt as to the validity of the law, He quickly put that doubt to rest by teaching and quoting from thelaw and the prophets.

Homosexuality is not mentioned in the scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by camdiddy
Christianity in America has little to do with the Jesus of the bible. I want to point out that I can't separate Him from the bible. According to scripture, He is the Word of God made flesh, and all scripture is God-breathed (John chapter 1 and 2 Timothy 3:16.)

All of the scriptures are to be used as a tool to help people live better lives now and in preparation for the next life. It is not to be used as a weapon. If there's one thing we know about the Christ, it's that he was against people using the Bible as a weapon.

Quote:
The underlying issue is whether a person is born of the Spirit. Tons of people claim to be christians but are not born again. They have not been regenerated.

Who's deciding who has been 'born of the Spirit'. Which denomination or religion is The One True Christianity?

Quote:
That's why a hundred people can read a passage of scripture and make it say what they want it to.

Or it could be that a hundred people can read a passage differently because it's a living document that is made to speak to different people depending on their need.

Quote:
The scriptures speak for themselves. When a person is born of the Spirit of God, then the Spirit will lead that person into all of the truth.

Totally. That's why I'm so glad that I finally learned God doesn't condemn The Gays. That's why I'm glad that Jesus touched the people that The Law said He shouldn't touch, heal when He shouldn't heal, love when He shouldn't love. That's why I'm glad He came to point out that rigidity in doctrine is wrong.
__________________

[camdiddy]

I did not equate bestiality with homosexuality. You did.

Homosexuality is mentioned in the scriptures.

The word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Born of the Spirit ...John chap 3

Living document...absolutely.


Actually he came to fulfill the "rigid" doctrine because we could not.

[camdiddy]

Pablo, I responded to this but I lost the post. I was referencing Philippians chap 2 and 1st Corint chap 2 about the mind of Christ.

[keltic63]

I did not equate bestiality with homosexuality. You did.




*Moderator hat on*

camdiddy, please own your words and be responsible for them. YOU introduced bestiality into the conversation. this conversation is about how some christians will say that homosexuality goes against the teachings of Christianity. In several of the previous posts, the discussion centers on that topic. By introducing bestiality into the discussion, you have implied that they are similar.

Your recent posts in which you question the christian testimony of people who claim Christ as their own is also suspicious. You do seem to be implying that there are 2 classes of christians: Christians and "real" Christians, and you seem to think you have the wisdom and the right to declare just who belongs where. I think that's God's job.

[tdogg]

I would also suggest learning to use the Quote button. Your posts are confusing, to me, as it's difficult to tell your words from those of others you quote.

I must have missed your intro post?

[Matt Algren]

Homosexuality is mentioned in the scriptures.Show me.

WARNING: THIS IS A TRAP!

The word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
A) Nothing in that verse indicates that WE are to use the Bible as a weapon. And B) from later in that chapter. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."

We could quote scripture all day long, or we could have a conversation.

Born of the Spirit ...John chap 3That doesn't answer my question.

Living document...absolutely.Awesome.

Actually he came to fulfill the "rigid" doctrine because we could not.Which makes my point. It's wrong to hold ourselves and each other to a rigid standard that doesn't account for people being people and doesn't permit Jesus to be Jesus. It was given as a guidebook, but we made a list of rules out of it so we could punish each other and ourselves.

[BruceChris]

Gee, I wish you'de said that in the first place.


totally. That's why i'm so glad that i finally learned god doesn't condemn the gays. That's why i'm glad that jesus touched the people that the law said he shouldn't touch, heal when he shouldn't heal, love when he shouldn't love. That's why i'm glad he came to point out that rigidity in doctrine is wrong.

Christians have many, many sources for their beliefs. I mean, we've got the Catholics, and the almost-Catholics, like the various Orthodox churches, and there are Episcopalians, some of whom believe that they are still in a process of reconciliation, the many and various Protestants, the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I am sure others.

Many people who call themselves Christians do NOT take the bible as an absolute source. And you cannot say that all who are born of the spirit find truth in the bible, as there are so many of them that do not find the same truth. And there are at least a hundred major translations of the bible, so which one do you mean?

Many people cling to, or at least give primacy to the King James Bible, because they believe it was the first translation of the bible into then modern English. Well it wasn't the first, they didn't have the best translators back then, and the English isn't so modern, any more.

Sola scriptura? try Wiki:

# 1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
# 2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
# 3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
# 4 Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
# 5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

There are many ways by which a person finds salvation, or grounds their Christianity.

I do not live 2000 years ago, and I do not speak Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Some of my personal (Modern) sources for my Christian beliefs include Marcus Borg and bishop John Shelby Spong, one of the most qualified biblical scholare alive. I also like Feminist Theologians, but there are too many for me to list..

A little prooftexting here. I try, and often fail, to base my spirituality (And my mental health) on John, 13:34, Luke 10:26, Mark 12:29 and Mathew 22:34, which say pretty much the same thing. Love God, Love one another, and learn to love yourself.

EDIT: I was hoping to get this in as post # 37, right after cam made the piece I quoted, but I got called away, and you guys have gone back to disagreeing again. SHEESH!

May God's Love be with you, Bruce Chris

[Matt Algren]

EDIT: I was hoping to get this in as post # 37, right after cam made the piece I quoted, but I got called away, and you guys have gone back to disagreeing again. SHEESH!

May God's Love be with you, Bruce Chris
That's okay, BC. You quoted him quoting me to disagree with me.

[BruceChris]

And I mis-attributed the quote? Well, I just hope that Camille reads my piece And responds to it because all of her arguments are made on a single, very narrow understanding of Christianity, and a belief that ALL Christianity is based on that single, narrow understanding. Many Christians will tell you that it is not

---------------------------Camille?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

I found her posts confusing so I didn't bother to read them, and I would have liked to.