sealchan
Well-Known Member
I don't mind a little facetiousness in the name of being open to hearing arguments.
No offense taken.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views
- Thread starter Dan Mellis
- Start date
I don't mind a little facetiousness in the name of being open to hearing arguments.
No offense taken.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Hmm as I thought. Quote-mining is always a disreputable practice. If you were to read it in context (Luke 22 35-38) the meaning would be clearer. This is after the Last Supper, at the time of Jesus's betrayal, when he was about to be arrested and possibly his disciples with him. He is telling them to be prepared for trouble. He goes on to say:-
"Because I tell you these words of scripture are destined to be fulfilled in me: "He was counted as one of the rebellious". Yes what it says about me is even now reaching its fulfilment".They said, "Lord, here are two swords". He said to them, "That is enough".
He is not calling for people to be killed. Having a sword or two to enable his disciples to defend themselves in a sticky situation would have been normal practice at the time.
Good point. The morality of the god of the bible was probably the norm in the Bronze Age ─ YES to invasive wars and land grabs, to massacres of entire populations, to mass rape, to slavery, to women as property, to homophobia, to human sacrifice, to religious intolerance on a grand scale, to the death penalty for breaking certain priestly rules, and so on.
You may have come across >Why Can't I Own a Canadian<. It satirizes the hypocrisy of cherrypicking bible morality. And of course the cherrypickers never respond to it,
I think you missed my point.
The way we are suggests that if we were designed, we were designed to have lots of non-procreative sex. The animals only enter the picture because they show that this designer has taken different a different approach with other species, so he could have taken a different approach if he wanted to.
Procreation is important, but sex is mostly about things beside procreation.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well there is no need to introduce the issue of creationism then, in a thread about homosexuality, is there? I confess your approach in the opening post also struck me as possibly a bit disingenuous and provocative as well. I found myself wondering why you chose to title it "Cherry-Picking", an obviously pejorative term, if you just wanted a civil discussion. But OK, if you say you're not trying to pick a fight I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Seriously though, do you not realise that all religions interpret their inspirational texts? The Christian church has done a huge amount of this and a great deal of argument, some productive, some not so much, has resulted over the centuries. Fixating on individual verses, especially in the Old Testament, written in an ancient pre-Christian culture, is not really a great way to read the bible. I know that has not stopped some fundamentalists from doing it, but they are not very representative - or intelligent, in my opinion. Christians should, it seems to me, always fall back on the teaching and example of Christ in the NT, if they find things in the OT that jar, or seem wrong.. I think, regarding homosexuality, that you will find that is how the current pope approaches the subject, for instance. (It is notable that Christ has very little to say indeed about sexual morality in general.)
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Why do we need sex more then when we thinking of get kids? Sex is only a tiny part of being a human being.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I meant by "product of their time" the same thing you did by considering the "who, what, when, where and why."
If there is a creator who designed humans, then he also designed the diseases you seem to think are exclusive to homosexuals. So he didn't design humans in a way to avoid death etc, he designed them in a way that feels great to be gay to some people, then inflicted disease, prejudice and eternal damnation upon the people who he created that way.
You got it the wrong way round.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I used creationism as an argument, as the post isnt about homosexuality. That was just an example I used.
Apologies if the title is provocative - I simply meant it as an easily recognisable term.
I do realise the latter point, but I am genuinely curious as to the reasons why - hence the thread. It seems that god is all-knowing and all-powerful, and allows immoral things to be preached in his name, which is odd if his aim is to create some sort of decent society.
Then theres the problem about how we set out to define what is moral and what we are wrong about - but morality changes over time so sticking to a book that hasnt changed much in millenia, and assigning new meanings to it seems somewhat bloody-minded.
This is talking about the death of the soul. I.e Judgement from God after the death of their body.
Not a command for us to kill their physical body.
Last edited:
InChrist
Free4ever
I wasn't specifically referring to diseases exclusive to homosexuals, but any disease resulting from behavior contrary to the proper function God designed for humans, sexual or otherwise. According to the scriptures, things such as diseases are not the result of God's design, but the consequences of sin or breaking God's safe, wise laws and the breakdown this causes upon creation. A lot of things may "feel" good, but some things that feel good can be harmful. Feeling alone is not an accurate measurement of what is good. Some people think it feels good to eat a gallon of ice cream at one time, some may enjoy the feeling when they shoot up heroin, and others may think it feels great to have sex with five year kids. There are so many examples of bad things people think feel great, but they are wrong, unlawful, harmful and outside of God's will and design.
The Hebrew scriptures were written for the nation of Israel, no one else was obligated to follow God's laws but them. The trouble was, they couldn't keep the Law because the Law was perfect and they were not. That way it served as a constant reminder of their need for a redeemer who was promised to come through their nation. This one would make it possible to serve God without offending him, taking away sin and forgiving past misdeeds as long as they were repentant.
It wasn't that the rules were impossible to follow...but their imperfect flesh was the cause of the difficulty. The Law highlighted how far from perfection the human race had fallen. It was not God who made them flawed and sinful, but an unwanted inheritance from their first parents, much like a genetic disease that is handed down from parent to child (Romans 5:12)....the parent doesn't want the child to suffer but in times past inherited diseases were not well known, so the disease was perpetuated in every generation.
The child doesn't want what his parent gave to him.....but what if a physician shows up and offers a permanent cure for the condition, but it will take some time to effect the cure....wouldn't we be willing to wait? He assures us that even if we die, he has the ability to restore our life. Doesn't cryogenics offer the same promise? Jesus will do a much better job though IMO.
From a Christian point of view, the Old Testament must be read in light of the New. The law laid down by Christ supersedes the Mosaic law.
That the Mosaic law was harsh in no way detracts from its holiness or divine origin. The lesson to be derived from the Mosaic law is the deadly seriousness of sin.
The Mosaic law was specifically handed to the Jewish people, with whom God designed to principally deal before the Incarnation. According to Christianity, God has now extended His dealings to all those who accept New Covenant under Christ. The terms and conditions of the New Covenant are not the same as those which governed the Old. The reality of sin has not changed, but the requirement for a Jewish judiciary to hand out death sentences has.
The moral law still applies, even if the judicial authority of the Mosaic law does not. It is still true that sexual acts which violate the natural law constitute mortal sin. Sodomy, fornication, abortion, the use of contraception, adultery, masturbation and the use of pornography are all mortal sins, which if not repented of by the end of this life will result in being forever banished from the presence of God in the next.
The good news of New Covenant is not that God has lessened His standards or demands for a holy life. (In some respects the New law is actually stricter than the Old). It's that the means of sanctification and the forgiveness for sins has been opened to all under more merciful terms. The adulterer, far from facing a mandatory stoning, now has the means for absolution though either Baptism or the Sacrament of Penance. Of course, this new mercy means little to those who do not admit the law in the first place.
Last edited:
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
If they are outside of gods design, where did they come from? Did god not create everything?
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Thanks, I think I understand now. However, I can't wrap my head around the idea that these actions are 'mortal sins.' I can understand (and disagree with) the argument against abortion, but every other thing on there causes no harm to anybody.
But I guess we're at loggerheads there.
Does the new testament say anything about slavery?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Yes i tried it, Now i live in a very good relationship with a woman, and been living with her for 4 years. 3 years without any sexual intercourse. But this is ok from both parts
iam1me
Active Member
Pretty sure the topic of this thread was the issue of Cherry Picking
I don't mind diving into more specific issues if that's your true intent, however. Let's start with slavery.
First off, slavery in general and throughout history does not equate to American Slavery, or slavery in similarly brutal cultures. American Slavery hinged upon racism and bigotry, where the enslaved were viewed as sub-humans (1/3 human to be exact) with no protections under the law. A white man could do whatever he wanted to with his slave: rape them, beat them, kill them, sell off their family, etc. A truly horrible, inhumane, greedy, and flat out evil practice.
The same cannot be said of slavery permitted under the Mosaic Law. In the first place, an slave wasn't viewed as sub-human or treated as a mere possession. They are people and have rights - indeed, are even treated as family.
Proverbs 29:21 He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son.
An Israeli servant was to be freed of his debts on the year of Jubilee (every 7 years), and go back to his life. If he had a wife or children, they would go free with him. Permanent slaves were permitted to be bought from among the surrounding pagan nations and the foreigners residing in the land.
Leviticus 25:39-46 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have aa]">[aa]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your ab]">[ab]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
If a slave was killed by his/her master, the master would suffer vengeance:
Exodus 21:20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished (Literally: suffer vengeance).
If a slave is injured by his/her master, they were to be set free:
Exodus 21:26-27 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27 And if he y]">[y]knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
If a slave runs away, he is not to be returned to his master - but is to be welcomed and treated with respect:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has l]">[l]escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your m]">[m]towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
So then, when the scriptures speak of slaves and permitting people to be bought and sold - it is not the slavery which you are familiar with. The slavery permitted under the Mosaic Law is a humane one in which the individuals are still understood to be fellow men, and even family. Their mistreatment by their master nullifies their servitude - so the master was required to treat his slaves well if he were to keep them. Indeed, the slaves were even free to run away - and the Law required that they be welcomed by those they ran to and not returned to their master.
Last edited:
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Pretty sure the topic of this thread was the issue of Cherry Picking
I don't mind diving into more specific issues if that's your true intent, however. Let's start with slavery.
First off, slavery in general and throughout history does not equate to American Slavery, or slavery in similarly brutal cultures. American Slavery hinged upon racism and bigotry, where the enslaved were viewed as sub-humans (1/3 human to be exact) with no protections under the law. A white man could do whatever he wanted to with his slave: rape them, beat them, kill them, sell off their family, etc. A truly horrible, inhumane, greedy, and flat out evil practice.
The same cannot be said of slavery permitted under the Mosaic Law. In the first place, an slave wasn't viewed as sub-human or treated as a mere possession. They are people and have rights - indeed, are even treated as family.
Proverbs 29:21 He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son.
An Israeli servant was to be freed of his debts on the year of Jubilee (every 7 years), and go back to his life. If he had a wife or children, they would go free with him. Permanent slaves were permitted to be bought from among the surrounding pagan nations and the foreigners residing in the land.
Leviticus 25:39-46 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have aa]">[aa]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your ab]">[ab]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
If a slave was killed by his/her master, the master would suffer vengeance:
Exodus 21:20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished (Literally: suffer vengeance).
If a slave is injured by his/her master, they were to be set free:
Exodus 21:26-27 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27 And if he y]">[y]knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
If a slave runs away, he is not to be returned to his master - but is to be welcomed and treated with respect:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has l]">[l]escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your m]">[m]towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
So then, when the scriptures speak of slaves and permitting people to be bought and sold - it is not the slavery which you are familiar with. The slavery permitted under the Mosaic Law is a humane one in which the individuals are still understood to be fellow men, and even family. Their mistreatment by their master nullifies their servitude - so the master was required to treat his slaves well if he were to keep them. Indeed, the slaves were even free to run away - and the Law required that they be welcomed by those they ran to and not returned to their master.
I disagree - this is the slavery I am familiar with... and I think it's inherently immoral to own another human as property regardless of how you treat them. You're also conveniently omitting some of the less palatable quotes about slavery - back to cherry picking...
Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property"
Are you honestly trying to sanitize slavery as it's depicted in the bible? It's also loaded with bigotry and sets out different rules for different classes of slave. For example, a woman should be sold for less than you sell a man, and you can only keep a Hebrew slave for 7 years before releasing them. If they aren't Hebrew, you can keep them indefinitely.
I'm interested in hearing your justification for this, but we're coming very close to an abhorrent conversation in which I will not be a party.
Sexual sin is a major root of societal dysfunction. Unstable families result in unstable, atomized and state dependent adults. The conspiratorial side of me suspects that the sexual revolution was always planned as a means not for anyone's 'liberation' but for the long term expansion of state power. It's the classic scam of fixing the very problem you created. We're also facing the very real possibility a future of venereal diseases no longer treatable by antibiotics. It's going to be interesting to see how and if people's sexual behaviors change if something like a syphilis superbug emerges.
In any case, it's not simply a question of direct or immediate harms caused by actions, but how those actions relate to moral truth. If sexuality holds real teleological purpose then its misuse is an intrinsic evil. And every time one commits an evil, no matter how seemingly trivial, the conscience is darkened slowly but surely. People no longer see sexual sin as sin because their consciences have been darkened by both personal sin and a popular culture which has very cleverly and subtly normalized what would have horrified most not that long ago. I expect the next gradual push to be an attempt to normalize pederasty (adults having sex with teenagers) and not beyond possibility, infanticide. (They'll call it 'after-birth abortion').
The New Testament neither condones or condemns slavery in itself. However, remember that the New Testament was immediately addressed to those living in late antiquity, when slavery was an unquestioned reality. Nonetheless, it was Christian civilization, with its recognition of an innate human dignity shared by all that would go on to stamp out slavery as an institution. Yes, the transatlantic slave trade was a terrible tragedy, no one is claiming the colonial powers acted morally, but moral assumptions about human dignity that make slavery morally untenable can really only take root in a civilization imbued with Christian moral presuppositions.
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member
I do not believe in divine punishment, I do believe in natural Laws though AND in humans punishing others ( (un)knowingly as explained below)
Many diseases are related to emotional imbalances. There is still a lot of judgment towards homosexuals. People who judge homosexuals give them a guilt feeling. Aids is related to immune system. Immune system of course has to do with your self confidence. So in a way people who speak belittling or demeaning or judgmental to homosexuals are in my opinion a major cause of Aids (and many other diseases related to immune system)
Many Christians judge homosexuals, so some part of Aids is caused by those Christians. Knowing this, I fully understand why 1 major teaching of Jesus is "do not judge". That is why my main spiritual practice is to not judge others, esp. when it comes to their feelings/religion. God gave all life and the freedom to choose how to use their time. For me to judge what they feel/believe seems silly to do.