So non-shameful acts are ok?
Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
That was describing what was going on at the time, and was evidence of their corruption.
I don't think that anyone is denying that there can be corrupting homosexual behaviour. The denial is that all homosexual behaviour is corrupt. If you look elsewhere, Paul condemns 'strangled meats', but I've never seen anyone worry about snared rabbit. They're different things
A homosexual marriage, monogamous and blessed with love, is not the same scenario Paul is describing. They're different things.
It specifically mentions shameful acts. Buggering a sheep is shameful, whether you're a male human or a female human, but it never mentions which homosexual acts are shameful. Anything else is interpretation.
Acts that are always closed to life are intrinsically wrong, if you could please explain what kind of acts between people of the same sex are open to life (reproduction) I'd be grateful.
Not consuming blood was always designed to have only lasted a time and not in perpetuity.
So, hugging, kissing and other platonic acts are "intrinsically wrong" too? They don't result in reproduction, no matter who is performing them.
I cannot over-ride what the Church says. All I can do is point out what Paul says and what reality says. As far as I'm concerned, the Church is wrong, it's built its foundation on sand. An act that results in the Fruit is not under the law. If the Church wants to rebuild a new set of laws, and have people obey them ... well, that's their choice.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Not consuming Blood is one of the few Old Testament Commandments which the Apostles themselves agreed is required of everyone, including gentiles. There is no indication that it is meant to be temporary, or at least no more temporary than the world in which we must eat anything.
warpus
In pork I trust
Wait, does this mean that Christians aren't allowed to eat medium rare steak?
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Not if the old testament is conveniently null and void!
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The Book of The Acts of the Apostles is not usually considered Old Testament.
_random_
Jewel Runner
It hasn't stopped me, and it certainly hasn't stopped the assorted Christian countries from including blood sausages in their national cuisines. I once asked Magister for more explanation of this since he seems like the type who'd know, but he never did respond.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I personally am not a big fan of steak, and don't think I've tried it less than medium well. Do medium rare steaks actually still have blood in them? I would think that the blood would be at least almost all drained out before cooking.
Edit: I just looked it up, and found that a properly drained and cleaned steak should contain almost no blood even when served extra rare. The "meat juice" is mostly water, fat, and myoglobin protein. The red color comes from myoglobin in the muscle, not hemoglobin in the blood.
The prohibition against eating blood is given twice in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy, but those were as part of the Law of Moses. Some Christians would disagree, but I don't think gentiles need to concern themselves with that. (I would instead agree with Orthodox Jews that gentiles need concern ourselves only with the Seven Noahide Laws rather than the 613 Mitzvot of the Law of Moses, and that following either law has no merit unless done from love of God and the belief that He wants you to keep the commandments.) What does concern gentiles is the prohibition given to Noah in Genesis 9:4 and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Edit: I just looked it up, and found that a properly drained and cleaned steak should contain almost no blood even when served extra rare. The "meat juice" is mostly water, fat, and myoglobin protein. The red color comes from myoglobin in the muscle, not hemoglobin in the blood.
The prohibition against eating blood is given twice in Leviticus and once in Deuteronomy, but those were as part of the Law of Moses. Some Christians would disagree, but I don't think gentiles need to concern themselves with that. (I would instead agree with Orthodox Jews that gentiles need concern ourselves only with the Seven Noahide Laws rather than the 613 Mitzvot of the Law of Moses, and that following either law has no merit unless done from love of God and the belief that He wants you to keep the commandments.) What does concern gentiles is the prohibition given to Noah in Genesis 9:4 and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Genesis 9:4 said:
Leviticus 3:17 said:
Leviticus 17:11 said:
Deuteronomy 12:16 said:
_random_
Jewel Runner
But what's the reasoning behind the consumption of blood being considered immoral, to the point where it's the only dietary restriction mentioned in the New Covenant?
warpus
In pork I trust
Anyone else here find the word "gentile" somewhat offensive? Or am I the only one?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Since the majority of "christians" are gentile, he was referring to Christians who live by the law of the OT. Gentile was only used to distinguish between a Jew and a non-Jew. You cannot un-become a gentile, unless you convert to a Jew. Jews do not convert to "Christianity". BTW, circumcision and keeping the law, is converting from being a gentile. I suppose that in itself may offend some.
Becoming a Christian does not mean converting from being a gentile. A Christian by definition is one who follows Christ, and Christ never converted to or from anything. Only some Jewish Christians themselves taught conversion that way. That was one of the first issues the church had to settle. When a Christian "converts", they are no longer following themselves, but God. Jesus was the first born who did completely follow God, and could only do so, because He was God. No man can follow God unless God gives him the power to do so.
Negligence is not ignorance. Negligence is not doing something you should be doing through knowledge of.
So, I admit it: I forgot about this. I typed up an almost complete response, and then got busy and forgot it entirely. Im sorry for gravedigging this thread so seriously, but I did promise that I would respond, and I take that seriously. I dont especially want this thread to get resurrected, and dont have the time to post much, but I will follow through on the agreement that I made.
So if this gets closed or I get points or something, then OK, thats fine. What follows this paragraph is my (mostly) original response:
OK, Im going to address these in order, beginning at the top left and working down that column before switching to the next column. So number 1 is the Genesis 2:24 one, and number 5 Genesis 38:6-10 one.
Entry 1: Genesis 2:24 reads Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. All the extra stuff associated with this verse simply isnt there, and theres nothing in the surrounding context suggesting any of this. This is basically a lets throw together lots of our ideas about marriage in the Bible into one entry, and is not a sourced objection. Simple misdirection, or more charitably, a poorly expressed summation.
Entry 2: Its pretty common knowledge that concubinage was used in ancient times, so this falls into the boring category. Its also incorrect when viewed alongside the heading of the graph, since concubinage is by definition not marriage per se. But if the point is that men could legallly have multiple sexual partners, then thats true. But its also not marriage, so is both poorly expressed, uninteresting, and inaccurate.
Entry 3: This one is unbelievably awful. First of all, the notion that a man acquires a womans property upon marriage in the ancient Near East, while probably mostly true, is not talked about in this passage, so the citation is off. (Note that general passage, not the specific verse -- theyre probably betting that people wont look it up.) Abraham was also definitively not married to Hagar, so this would not qualify as an example of marriage, making its inclusion into this graph unnecessary. If its supposed to be an example of a man with a non-wifely sexual partner, then its redundant with 2.
Entry 4: Theres no specific citations, so thats unhelpful. But yes, its true that some men had more than one wife. (Finally, one thats actually talking about marriage!) This is well-known and hardly some secret revelation. (And thus falls into the well-known and boring categories.)
Entry 5: Im actually surprised that this is the example used to discuss Levirate marriage. Check the passage again -- no one in here is actually commanded by God to do anything. Judah is the one telling his son to marry his brothers widow. Is this an example of marriage in the Bible? Yep! Is it an example of a divine commandment regarding marriage (and thus important for determining what marriage should be for Jews or Christians, rather than can be)? Nope. Also, this is interpreted in a deliberately uncharitable, modern light: theres nothing in the passage that says Tamar was required to do anything at all; the only person being bossed around is Onan, by his dad. Saying she was required to do anything is simple interpolation of modern prejudices, unless justified through the application of other relevant passages.
Entry 6: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. That this is interpreted to mean that the woman who was raped was required to marry her rapist shows the modern prejudices of the writer. In a society which highly valued virginity, and in which she might not be able to find a husband otherwise, she might WANT to marry this guy -- very messed up in our minds, but its not a requirement that she marry him, but is in fact acts as a protectionary measure for them. (This is reinforced by the fact that it explicitly says that he cannot divorce her, ever. This is aimed at helping the woman, and somewhat punishing the man, not punishing the woman. This seems strange because of modern ideas of sex, marriage, and love.) Its also not clear at all that this functions as a requirement that she marry him -- just because he cant get out of marrying her doesnt mean the reverse is true, either as a matter of history orl ogic. When viewed contextually (Cf. Exodus 22:16-17 -- seriously, look it up!) its clear that the obligation is entirely on the side of the rapist. This entry is only problematic for those who both insist on judging the past through modern prejudices and dont do their homework.
Entry 7: This one is actually mostly true! This bit about the women having to submit sexually to their new husbands is an assumption that present in the text, but quite possibly true. Regarding the Deuteronomy passage: it should be noted that when compared to the context of the times, this is actually pretty generous; it would have been pretty common to just keep captured women as slaves for sex and other work. These women are kept as wives, and cant be sold -- presumably theyre given all the other rights of wives as well. So this is pretty bizarre by our standards, but would have been pretty decent treatment by theirs. Im not saying you have to like it, or find it OK -- just that you should view this in context, which this simplistic graph does not.
Entry 8: This is yet another interpolation based on modern prejudices. Its not clear at all that giving a man a wife requires or even allows for the non-consent of the woman. (Were still familiar with the idea of a father giving away his daughter at the alter, after all, yet if I said my wifes father did that, youd hardly assume that he made her marry me.) This passage is about the rights of slaves versus the rights of masters -- slaves have the right to keep their families together, but they cant deprive masters of their property. If anything, this verse is more consistent with a meaning of give thats more along the lines of allow or permit -- if it was a statement of a masters power to assign spouses, then he could perhaps take his slaves wife away, thus nullifying the threat that this verse is supposed to counteract (of a slave taking his masters property by taking his wife with him when he was mandatorily freed at the Jubilee.)
Now, you dont have to like any of this. You can think its all immoral, or proof that the Bible is garbage, or whatever. Im not trying to argue that point. What Im arguing is that this simplistic graph seriously and perhaps deliberately misunderstands the Biblical text. Regardless of the ethics behind these laws, most of them dont say anything close to whats implied here.
