Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[The Alma Mater]

That being said, because we don't know the full breadth of Christ's teachings, his views on Homosexuslity must be inferred from his other teachings, life, culture, contemporaries, Religious Traditins, etc. all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.

How so ? We are talking about a man who willingly associated with prostitutes and outcasts. Who was permanently surrounded by other men. Who was Jewish yet never married. Who according to most preached about love. Who lived under Roman rule, which tolerated it.

While Jewish society might have condemned it; Jesus was not really into being a pure condemning Jew.

[Luminesa]

all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.

"Highly unlikely" doesn't mean whatever you don't like.

Jesus' on central, consistent message is love. If you're getting something other than that, you're reading it wrong.

Well, but does Jesus ever say His message is sexual love of any kind, or DIVINE love?

Mark 12: 29-31:

"The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

He says to love God first, and then to love all people equally as God loves them.

And Matthew 5:43-48:

You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Christ, love is willing the good of the other, as God desires for all humankind. THIS is the love He speaks of. Not the physical notion of getting in bed with someone, regardless of sexuality, but of the divine notion of seeing the beauty and inherent goodness of all people, as God does. "BE PERFECT JUST AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT." This is the commandment that Christ gives, regarding love, for people to offer their hearts to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, that He may make them like God's own heart.

Some really good worship music for contemplation on Matthew 5.

[Luminesa]

That being said, because we don't know the full breadth of Christ's teachings, his views on Homosexuslity must be inferred from his other teachings, life, culture, contemporaries, Religious Traditins, etc. all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.

How so ? We are talking about a man who willingly associated with prostitutes and outcasts. Who was permanently surrounded by other men. Who was Jewish yet never married. Who according to most preached about love. Who lived under Roman rule, which tolerated it.

While Jewish society might have condemned it; Jesus was not really into being a pure condemning Jew.

Again, John 3:17, Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn it. He wanted to bring others toward God, soothing their wounds and, as Matthew says, to give them a yoke that is easy and light. His not marrying, however, is related to His role as the High Priest of the New Covenant, not because He simply did not want to get married. And heck, if being surrounded by dudes all the time means a person is gay, well, that means pretty much every male athlete on every professional sports team ever, doesn't it?

[Salus Maior]

How so ? We are talking about a man who willingly associated with prostitutes and outcasts. Who was permanently surrounded by other men. Who was Jewish yet never married. Who according to most preached about love. Who lived under Roman rule, which tolerated it.

While Jewish society might have condemned it; Jesus was not really into being a pure condemning Jew.

Yes, but he never condoned what they did. He spent time with those people as opposed to religious elites because as he put it "the healthy don't need a doctor, the sick do". He did so that those people could reform themselves and be redeemed, not to congratulate their behavior.

Similarly, when he kept the crowd from stoning an adulterous woman and didn't condemn her, his words were "Neither do I [condemn you]. Go, and sin no more." He never condoned the sin, he gave forgiveness and a second chance. But he still called for striving for higher standards.

[Salus Maior]

all things considered, the assertion that Christ "approved" of homosexuality is highly unlikely.

"Highly unlikely" doesn't mean whatever you don't like.

Jesus' on central, consistent message is love. If you're getting something other than that, you're reading it wrong.

He also confirmed that sexual immorality is still a thing.

17“Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”

Noting that sexual immorality as he puts it is different from adultery, what are we left to assume sexual immorality is? As we both realize and you mentioned earlier, Jesus was a Jewish teacher whose following was for the most part Jewish and aware of scripture. Considering he does not define it further, we are left to assume that sexual immorality is what Jewish scripture defines as sexual immorality. Which would include homosexuality.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Changing the subject, what is your opinion about the Coptic Church and other Christian aspects?

[The Princes of the Universe]

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Changing the subject, what is your opinion about the Coptic Church and other Christian aspects?

Keeping the faith while being constantly under persecution for 1400 years takes guts. I would like to attend a Coptic Catholic liturgy at least once before I die.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Grave, I have to interject, as a student of history, that your attitude towards oral and traditional history is and has been recognized for a long time, as a major fault of academic history. What you are trying to do is read a historical document without regard to its context within the early Christian community. Your logic, applied to the rest of history undermines a massive amount of our understanding of ancient societies, and really of any historical document that existed prior to modern academia.

Moreover, discounting oral history effectively is neutering any study of lower classes and illiterate people in history. Even Islam, the religion with most attention to scriptural authority, began as a solely oral transmission of the Quran. Religious teachings would not exist if everyone took your simplistic view of historical study. I don't say this as a Christian but as a history student. If you think "not written down " = baseless, your opinion may be popular with an old guard of discredited historians, but the great majority of the historical community has long discredited the idea that textual evidence is the only evidence.

[Hakons]

"Highly unlikely" doesn't mean whatever you don't like.

Jesus' on central, consistent message is love. If you're getting something other than that, you're reading it wrong.

He also confirmed that sexual immorality is still a thing.

17“Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”

Noting that sexual immorality as he puts it is different from adultery, what are we left to assume sexual immorality is? As we both realize and you mentioned earlier, Jesus was a Jewish teacher whose following was for the most part Jewish and aware of scripture. Considering he does not define it further, we are left to assume that sexual immorality is what Jewish scripture defines as sexual immorality. Which would include homosexuality.

Also, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He clearly states what marriage is supposed to be: the unification of the flesh.

Mathew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 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’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
----

It is true that we are to love one another, and that should be our primary focus. It is also true that we must avoid sin and encourage others to avoid sin too. Avoiding sin and sometimes faltering is what it means to be Christian. We are forgiven by God because we have accepted His unfathomable grace and try to live our lives as Christ wanted us. If someone is homosexual, this does not condemn them to hell. They merely have to resist temptation like all other Christians. This is very possible and has been achieved by many homosexual Christians over the past two thousand years.

[Salus Maior]

So, Const posted some Easter hymns, how about some from other denominations?

What are y'all's favorites?

[Luminesa]

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Changing the subject, what is your opinion about the Coptic Church and other Christian aspects?

Keeping the faith while being constantly under persecution for 1400 years takes guts. I would like to attend a Coptic Catholic liturgy at least once before I die.

Amen. Also, yes, that would be amazing.

[Luminesa]

So, Const posted some Easter hymns, how about some from other denominations?

What are y'all's favorites?

"Alleluia, Sing to Jesus."

[Salus Maior]

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Changing the subject, what is your opinion about the Coptic Church and other Christian aspects?

Keeping the faith while being constantly under persecution for 1400 years takes guts. I would like to attend a Coptic Catholic liturgy at least once before I die.

There are Coptic churches in the U.S.

[Grave_n_idle]

He also confirmed that sexual immorality is still a thing.

17“Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”

Noting that sexual immorality as he puts it is different from adultery, what are we left to assume sexual immorality is? As we both realize and you mentioned earlier, Jesus was a Jewish teacher whose following was for the most part Jewish and aware of scripture. Considering he does not define it further, we are left to assume that sexual immorality is what Jewish scripture defines as sexual immorality. Which would include homosexuality.

Also, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He clearly states what marriage is supposed to be: the unification of the flesh.

Mathew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 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’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
----

It is true that we are to love one another, and that should be our primary focus. It is also true that we must avoid sin and encourage others to avoid sin too. Avoiding sin and sometimes faltering is what it means to be Christian. We are forgiven by God because we have accepted His unfathomable grace and try to live our lives as Christ wanted us. If someone is homosexual, this does not condemn them to hell. They merely have to resist temptation like all other Christians. This is very possible and has been achieved by many homosexual Christians over the past two thousand years.

The verses you cited don't condemn homosexuality, or alter what Jesus' central message about love is.

[Grave_n_idle]

Grave, I have to interject, as a student of history, that your attitude towards oral and traditional history is and has been recognized for a long time, as a major fault of academic history. What you are trying to do is read a historical document without regard to its context within the early Christian community. Your logic, applied to the rest of history undermines a massive amount of our understanding of ancient societies, and really of any historical document that existed prior to modern academia.

Moreover, discounting oral history effectively is neutering any study of lower classes and illiterate people in history. Even Islam, the religion with most attention to scriptural authority, began as a solely oral transmission of the Quran. Religious teachings would not exist if everyone took your simplistic view of historical study. I don't say this as a Christian but as a history student. If you think "not written down " = baseless, your opinion may be popular with an old guard of discredited historians, but the great majority of the historical community has long discredited the idea that textual evidence is the only evidence.

Rubbish.

My approach to history is the future.

History can be two things - it can be rigorous as science, and it can be art.

One of these allows the collection of myth and the retelling of stories, the other one is real history and actually means something. And that is the history that matters now, and that the study of history will trend towards.

But it's kind of off-topic.

[Luminesa]

Grave, I have to interject, as a student of history, that your attitude towards oral and traditional history is and has been recognized for a long time, as a major fault of academic history. What you are trying to do is read a historical document without regard to its context within the early Christian community. Your logic, applied to the rest of history undermines a massive amount of our understanding of ancient societies, and really of any historical document that existed prior to modern academia.

Moreover, discounting oral history effectively is neutering any study of lower classes and illiterate people in history. Even Islam, the religion with most attention to scriptural authority, began as a solely oral transmission of the Quran. Religious teachings would not exist if everyone took your simplistic view of historical study. I don't say this as a Christian but as a history student. If you think "not written down " = baseless, your opinion may be popular with an old guard of discredited historians, but the great majority of the historical community has long discredited the idea that textual evidence is the only evidence.

Rubbish.

My approach to history is the future.

History can be two things - it can be rigorous as science, and it can be art.

One of these allows the collection of myth and the retelling of stories, the other one is real history and actually means something. And that is the history that matters now, and that the study of history will trend towards.

But it's kind of off-topic.

I think you need to listen to people who actually know what history is:

"Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

"The more you know about the past, the more you are prepared for the future." - Theodore Roosevelt

"Study the past if you would define the future." - Confucius

Your entire argument is basically, "Why does the past matter? All that matters is tomorrow. Why do I have to learn this?" It's good to listen to wise men who have lived through conflicts, men such as the ones I listed above, who have seen both the best and the worst of humanity. That is history, the study of the human story. There is no "real" and "useless" history. The myths and stories that cultures pass down orally, whether it be those of the Native Americans and the Great Spirit, the Jews and Genesis, the Christians and Pentecost, all of these things. These are stories that define cultures of the world, that guide us toward understanding the civilizations that came before us, in order that we may come to better know our human nature, and to learn how to work together as humans beyond our cultural borders.

Heck, all history is stories. WW2 is a massive book of stories, for example, just as much as the Bible is a massive book of stories. Something being a story, an orally-told event or one that is written, does not make it any less real. Why do we learn about WW2, if only the future matters? Why do we learn ANYTHING, if only the future matters? Because our tomorrows are built on our yesterdays, and to ignore our yesterdays is to neglect our futures.

[Hakons]

Also, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He clearly states what marriage is supposed to be: the unification of the flesh.

Mathew 19
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 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’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
----

It is true that we are to love one another, and that should be our primary focus. It is also true that we must avoid sin and encourage others to avoid sin too. Avoiding sin and sometimes faltering is what it means to be Christian. We are forgiven by God because we have accepted His unfathomable grace and try to live our lives as Christ wanted us. If someone is homosexual, this does not condemn them to hell. They merely have to resist temptation like all other Christians. This is very possible and has been achieved by many homosexual Christians over the past two thousand years.

The verses you cited don't condemn homosexuality, or alter what Jesus' central message about love is.

Christ says "the Creator made them male and female," and "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." That clearly states that humans were created male and female, so men will have wives and women will have husbands. No it doesn't condemn homosexuality (Salus' excerpt does, but you choose to ignore the scripture that proves you wrong), no it doesn't change that we are to love one another with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, but it shows that Holy Matrimony is strictly heterosexual.

Graven, I'm not sure what your goal is. Discouraging sexual immorality, as we try to be pure like Christ was, has been part of Christianity since the first century. This view is supported from Jewish tradition, the teachings of Jesus, the writings of the Apostles, and the preaching of the hundreds of thousands of Christian theologians over the past two thousand years. Plainly, I don't think any argument you make for this certain topic will do anything since your very same arguments have not convinced mainstream Christianity that is now entering its third millenia.

[Salus Maior]

...or alter what Jesus' central message about love is.

Of course not. Christ's message was indeed love, and love despite one's sins and imperfections and to give people second chances (well, seventy times seven chances I suppose ).

That has no bearing on what things are sin and what are not.

[Hakons]

So, Const posted some Easter hymns, how about some from other denominations?

What are y'all's favorites?

A Good Friday hymn I liked today was "What Wondrous Love is This?"

As for Easter Hymns, I like "He Lives."

V. 1
I serve a risen Saviour, He's in the world today.
I know that He is living, whatever men may say.
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him He's always near.

Refrain
He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me
along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.

V.2
In all the world around me I see His loving care,
And though my heart grows weary I never will despair.
I know that He is leading, thro' all the stormy blast;
The day of His appearing will come at last.

Refrain

V.3
Rejoice, rejoice, O Christian! Lift up your voice and sing
Eternal hallelujahs to Jesus Christ, the King!
The Hope of all who seek Him, the Help of all who find,
None other is so loving, so good and kind.

Refrain

[United Muscovite Nations]

Grave, I have to interject, as a student of history, that your attitude towards oral and traditional history is and has been recognized for a long time, as a major fault of academic history. What you are trying to do is read a historical document without regard to its context within the early Christian community. Your logic, applied to the rest of history undermines a massive amount of our understanding of ancient societies, and really of any historical document that existed prior to modern academia.

Moreover, discounting oral history effectively is neutering any study of lower classes and illiterate people in history. Even Islam, the religion with most attention to scriptural authority, began as a solely oral transmission of the Quran. Religious teachings would not exist if everyone took your simplistic view of historical study. I don't say this as a Christian but as a history student. If you think "not written down " = baseless, your opinion may be popular with an old guard of discredited historians, but the great majority of the historical community has long discredited the idea that textual evidence is the only evidence.

Rubbish.

My approach to history is the future.

History can be two things - it can be rigorous as science, and it can be art.

One of these allows the collection of myth and the retelling of stories, the other one is real history and actually means something. And that is the history that matters now, and that the study of history will trend towards.

But it's kind of off-topic.

If history is rigorous as science, then we have to discount virtually everything we know about the past, because writings are NOT sufficient to prove with a scientific consensus. History is NOT a science.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Rubbish.

My approach to history is the future.

History can be two things - it can be rigorous as science, and it can be art.

One of these allows the collection of myth and the retelling of stories, the other one is real history and actually means something. And that is the history that matters now, and that the study of history will trend towards.

But it's kind of off-topic.

If history is rigorous as science, then we have to discount virtually everything we know about the past, because writings are NOT sufficient to prove with a scientific consensus. History is NOT a science.

Well it is, it's just not a natural science. It's a social science.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If history is rigorous as science, then we have to discount virtually everything we know about the past, because writings are NOT sufficient to prove with a scientific consensus. History is NOT a science.

Well it is, it's just not a natural science. It's a social science.

If it is a social science, then it isn't meant to be as rigorous as science, because the amount of testing and positivism needed in science is never present in history.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well it is, it's just not a natural science. It's a social science.

If it is a social science, then it isn't meant to be as rigorous as science, because the amount of testing and positivism needed in science is never present in history.

Social sciences aren't empirical in the same way as the natural sciences. Most fields don't even use expiramentarion, they use critical analysis and extrapolation. The goal is not to "prove" but to explain.

[Grave_n_idle]

Christ says "the Creator made them male and female," and "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Why does Christ say this? Why Does Jesus cite these particular verses of the Hebrew scripture, in this exact way?

Because of the question he is asked:

They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

The QUESTION involves a man and his wife, and that's why the answer does. too.

...but it shows that Holy Matrimony is strictly heterosexual.

It does no such thing.

In fact, scripturally, gay marriage is the logical scriptural answer to homosexual sin. "It is better to marry than to burn."

[Grave_n_idle]

Rubbish.

My approach to history is the future.

History can be two things - it can be rigorous as science, and it can be art.

One of these allows the collection of myth and the retelling of stories, the other one is real history and actually means something. And that is the history that matters now, and that the study of history will trend towards.

But it's kind of off-topic.

If history is rigorous as science, then we have to discount virtually everything we know about the past, because writings are NOT sufficient to prove with a scientific consensus. History is NOT a science.

Your take on history might not be.

There's no inherent conflict between history and science, except when people people do it in an unscientific way. And even that can be useful. You can use the mythological 'history' they trade in to add texture to the real history.