1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Catholic Church and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smellincoffee, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. classical_hero

    classical_hero In whom I trust

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    33,262
    Location:
    Perth,Western Australia
    Jesus did not change any laws, what he did do is offer forgiveness for those found guilty. No law did he ever violate, what he did was show that the interpretation of the law was faulty, not the law itself. All the Bible says about the Sabbath is to"keep it holy and not work on that day". From that one law came many other laws in Jewish society that basically meant the reason behind the Sabbath had lost it's meaning.
     
  2. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,439
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I like this point; it sticks out as being "obviously true". The problem I've run into, historically, is that some Christians seem to think the "moneychangers in the temple" incident is some time of "permission from Jesus" to punish people
     
  3. haroon

    haroon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paris Van Java
    I don't see you antagonize anyone so far Timtofly, and it is alright to think other wrong while you are right, or other understand falsely while you are correctly, but it is wrong to force your version of truth upon other, and that is not what you are doing ;)

    In some case it do, even word sometime get expanding on meaning through its usage by time. But in some case it don't. If you define Christian is a group of peoples who worship Jesus or consider Jesus as God, it is like saying Muslims is a group of peoples that worship Allah, while it is only one part of being Muslims. And the Christian in Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia call God Allah so by this definition they are also muslims, and that is not true, that mean we cannot define something only by a part of something.

    :) No, peoples of the books are refer to those who practice the book of Moses and Jesus (Torah and Bibel, or Taurat and Injil). err I don't want to highjack this thread into a discussion about Islam, but if you want to ask something about Islam, you can send me a private message, I will be happy to answer, but forgive me if sometime I late answering, I've been so leisure during this holiday try to resting my mind for a while after all of those lots paper and research (with strict target) it tired me a lots ;)
     
  4. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,445
    It would be correct in saying that they were trying to trap Jesus, because he had just silenced the Sadducees and now the Pharisees attempted to take a potshot. If you want to add context to the picture, then you cannot use these verses to say that Jesus was changing the law, because the context was not about changing the law at all, but to answer a trick question.

    Your original statement was that Jesus changed the law. Even if that was just a trick statement, you cannot use it to prove a point, but to elicit a response.

    I did not say that Jesus endorsed the laws, and neither did he break them nor changed them. He said that if you loved God with your whole heart, you would not work on the Sabbath, but if you are hungry, you could eat, even if it meant having to pick your own wheat and eat it. It was ok to heal someone on the Sabbath as seeing that did not cause any unnecessary work. The whole point is not working on the Sabbath but giving the Sabbath to God and if working is still apart of that, and not some selfish motive, then it is ok to work. Eating is not selfish, if God allows you to eat. Amassing wealth would be selfish, unless God allowed one to amass wealth and give it away in the end.

    He did not change how divorce worked, he just said that GOD would suffer the way that Moses set things up. Divorce is still unacceptable to God and Jesus was not endorsing it. He did not change adultery. He told the woman to no longer practice it. What is the issue with taking a bath? Are you saying we should not practice hygiene, because Jesus thought the law was too stringent?

    I will give you this one point. Jesus had the authority and power to change the law. God gave the law to Moses and God in the form of Jesus could change that law at any time. In fact Jesus never made it a command to keep practicing the law of Moses. He used a brilliant lawyer by the name of Saul of Tarsus to write and explain that the Law of Moses was just a way to teach humans that it was impossible for every one in every condition to live by such laws. In AD 70 the last Temple and access to the Holy of Holies was destroyed and humans no longer had access to God in that fashion. The Law was only kept in the hearts and thinking of those who claimed to be Jews as a right of acceptance.

    You are also right that what Jesus said was just a "suggestion". Because it really does not matter to God if you love GOD or others before you do yourself. It will not bring any special favors or merit your way. That was the point, If the Pharisees had used what Jesus said as the "new" law, they would have admitted that he was GOD. The answer to the question would be there is no law of the 613 that is more important than any of the other ones. They must all be kept equally. My point was that to the Jews it would still have been a Law, and not just a suggestion as how to keep the greatest one, and avoid the others.


    That the law had been misinterpreted may be correct, but the teaching of Protestants that many laws came from one law, is not totally correct. The Jews to this day hold that there are only 613 laws and they all can be found in the Torah.

    Jesus by his actions and words is not an excuse to take matters into one's own hands. Governments are set up and punishments are prescribed, but that was not the point of Jesus life, and governing others is not really a good way to even emulate God on earth. God punished the whole of humanity when Jesus died on the cross. To carry out punishment personally in the name of God at any other time is just making a mockery and denying that GOD had already done so on the cross. That is why I don't agree when a mother kills her children and claims God said to. There is no reason to assume that God made that claim. You could apply that to God punishing the Jews, although they have seemed to be both blessed for thousands of generations, while at the same time been hunted down and killed at other times. However natural disasters do not make sense as God literally punishing people.

    I am not sure that any one actually practices the whole of any teaching, but yet I am not one even though I accept it as written? If it is determined by practice alone, then no one is a follower or believer in any religion. If they practice just parts, then I would have to be a person of the Book.

    I thought there was an ask-a-about Islam thread around here somewhere.
     
  5. haroon

    haroon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paris Van Java
    I saw it, it was started by this guys name Salahudin or something, he put quite enormous amount of time to answer many of the questions, until other Muslims guy who appear to be quite a nationalist one (and they were don't have a commitment to answer the questions about the thread) keep answering the questions that attributed to him in many case without any proper reference regarding Islam, he end up rage quit from the forum. While this guys also leaving as soon as he leave and it end the thread. Too bad.

    If me, I really doubt I have time and devotion like him. I'm just here to learn some things that is not connected to Islam, and most of the time reading post about games. Because I already have too much things to write or argue in the real live, it is tiring, but also enjoying, well you must be able to enjoy the stress part of your job to be able to enjoy the life.
     
  6. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,875
    Location:
    the golf course
    If the law says punish adulterers and he said dont punish adulterers he's changing the law. Under Moses men were allowed to divorce wives for little or no reason because God knew their hearts were hard. But Jesus limited divorce to infidelity. Did he tell his followers to forgive and punish violators of the law?

    Moses and his friends executed a man for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. Do you see Jesus accepting or rejecting that? He rejected it, the Sabbath was made for man... man wasn't made for the Sabbath. And Jesus violated all sorts of laws, mostly dealing with cleanliness.

    Yup, I've seen the moneychangers incident used to justify state sponsored punishment. The irony is it was the moneychangers incident that propelled Jesus into a showdown with the religious authorities. The people citing what he did there do so to justify what was done to Jesus.

    And it is hard to square the moneychangers with love your enemies etc. He ran them off, thats not the same as jailing or executing people. I'm reluctant to dismiss his message of loving others because he lost his temper and chased some people out of a temple.
     
  7. haroon

    haroon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paris Van Java
    mmm, but your explanation is contradicted with Matthew 5: 17, 18. I pretty much agree with CH in this. Jesus (pbuh) not abolish the law, but he against the strict application of law without spiritual value (include forgiveness) that is happening in the Jewish community of his time.

    Well let me give you a silly example, if I'm joking with someone, and I push him, by accident he is falling and his head hit something and his eyes (sorry) struct to a nail or [another cause as you wish]. Does it mean by law I should also lost my eyes in return? Instead of that you can forgive me, and invite me to your house when things get well and have some cups of coffee, does it mean the law eye for an eye is abolish? no. But peoples at that time is too strict on law, and they lost the religious value that lay inside the law itself.

    This is our understanding of one of the reason Jesus is sent by God.
     
  8. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,875
    Location:
    the golf course
    17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; 18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.

    "The law" has a definition - and Jesus defined it as 2 commandments, love God and love others. Upon these 2 commandments rest the entire law of the prophets. That is the law he came to fulfill, not 613 laws or every law enacted under Moses etc.

    He rejected the happenings of the Jewish community under Moses too. He rejected their divorce laws, he rejected their Sabbath laws, their laws regarding adultery, cleanliness... And if I'm right about how Jesus defined "the law" he came to fulfill, he rejected any and every law that falls outside of his definition. Thats most of them. Look at how he dismantled cleanliness laws! It is not what you ingest that defiles you, it is the evil that comes from your heart, this defiles you.
     
  9. haroon

    haroon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paris Van Java
    I'm sorry but I think his disciple ask him to point out which is the greatest commandment of law not the law itself, I think you want to argue that love is above law, so there is no law, no border and restriction everything is permissible, I don't think that is the case. He say he not sent to abolish the law (of Moses and the prophet) but to fulfil it, to say he just take two part of the law and abolish most of it, already contradict with his very statement in the verse that I quoted.

    The main fault Jesus found with the Pharisees was their hypocrisy, unreasonable strictness and the inconsistency he saw in their teaching and practice. He does not in any way teach that some violation of God's law is permissible and justifiable regarding the things that you quote for me. He just saying that the law is made for man, not man is created for law, so they must understand and apply law with understanding, humanity and most important is spirituality (this is the main things that Jesus (pbuh) try to inject while he is preaching, the society at this time is lack of spirituality).
     
  10. timtofly

    timtofly One Day

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    9,445
    What is your definition of fulfill?
     

Share This Page