Classical Concert in Florida Cancelled

[Sand Dancer]

Where I live it's legal for women to go topless. Or to breast feed in public. Breasts aren't inherently sexual in nature.


How do you feel about Renaissance paintings?

Americans have sexualized so much that it's messed up our values. Not sure we can become normal. Puritans screwed us up.

 

[Kenny]

It seems like we are going all over the place... but that's ok .. here goes and appreciate the dialogue

Okay. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Jesus was speaking to those "of the law," but if it's important, feel free to clarify the point.

Sure. He said he came for the Jews first so his audience was Jewish (basically with a couple of exceptions). He was also correcting tradition vs what God meant.

My question is this: adultery is a sin, right?

yes, it is sin. But not an unforgivable sin. Everybody sins (in light of my signature)

Living a lifestyle of adultery (whether through remarriage or lusting after girls at the beach) is sinful, right?

I would say no although lusting is certainly sin. It is a little deeper that just "you are in adultery" or, for that matter "you are lusting".

Especially in Matthew 5 and following, the real issue was that all have sinned and that there was only way out... grace. Grace causes sin to be as far as east is from the west (Psalm 103). I also think that if you look at the context of "marrying another" - it actually is simply dealing with religious thinkers and not the practical application.

It isn't "who is sinning" but rather "who will follow Christ".

If you are married and are lusting... work at taking control of your thought patterns. Because of the cross, if you failed at marriage, put the next one with Jesus in the middle of it.

Think of a practical application... My mother is married to her second husband and my father is married to his third wife. So now they will have to divorce (sin) and create havoc in the second set of children to get married back to their original spouses? Hopefully you can see that two wrongs don't make a right and how grace makes it better?

Things weren't always that way. The Roman Catholics and most non-Anglican protestants forbade divorce (except in cases of sexual immorality) for years and years. Now, many churches see that these policies are too draconian.

As I see it, Christians could go two ways to avoid hypocrisy. They could crack down on matters of divorce and other things among their membership. Start cancelling shows of remarried women. Cancel the show of anyone who has unrepentantly looked at another lustfully. ( This is a solution I don't really endorse, but it would address the hypocrisy issue.)

Or they could lighten up about gays and others. Stop cancelling shows over this stuff. Stop pointing the finger and saying "lifestyle of sin." Instead treat them the same as they would any remarried woman. They don't have to say "divorce is good" or "homosexuality is good" if they think otherwise. But they should treat others the way they want to be treated.

Here is where I am a little confuse. You are absolutely correct when you ay that at one point they forbade getting married again at the threat of "excommunication" - which IMV isn't biblical. Religiosity has a way of creeping in and hypocrisy is always wrong no matter who does it. And again, you are absolutely correct, they should treat others the same way they want to be treated.

Divorce is still not good -- it damages lives gut grace pulls us through. Lust is not good either but grace can deliver us from it.

But saying there are only two options by ignoring other options isn't correct either.

The issue, like the woman caught in the act, is "go and sin no more"-- not judgement but forgiveness and a helping hand. The man who steals -- go and steal no more, the man who hates go and steal no more.

This is what Jesus died for. For the thief who stole, paradise was waiting for him. For Saul who murdered and new life as Paul - go and murder no more.

In the case of a homosexual lifestyle, our position would be not judgment but forgiveness but go and sin no more. If I were judgmental, stop being judgmental and go and sin no more. (Of course people have different interpretation of what judgmental is. If someone is lying, saying don't lie isn't judgmental because one is correcting an act. Calling them liars is judgmental)

If someone (metaphorically) slaps a Christian in the face they are supposed to turn the other cheek and repay evil with good. I've always admired people who make efforts to behave that way, even if they fail to pull it off perfectly (because that's hard to do, but I admire those who genuinely try). ?

No argument on the above.

I'm glad we both see that it's hypocritical. It's a relief to hear, and it shows that you're reasonable. And, for sure, people are people.

I don't expect anyone of any creed to behave perfectly in accordance with their creed, especially if it's difficult. If someone decides to go vegan... and a week later, they cave in and buy a cheeseburger, I'm not going to fault them for that. But I will have something to say if, a week later, they slap a cheeseburger out of someone's hands and shout "Meat is murder!"

I see something dreadfully close to that going on within the evangelical movement. I wouldn't say that every evangelical fits the bill there or anything, but hypocrisy seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The OP really highlights that fact. And it's one of the reasons large numbers of people no longer take evangelicals seriously.

Again... no disagreement. I wonder, however, like the news, the news makes it seem like it is more prevalent than in real life. If I go by the news, no one should live in Chicago because you will be murdered, streets are a mess and all the businesses are closed. That's what the news makes it seem like. Could it be that we hear all the hypocrisy at the expense of the majority that are doing good?

When I hear of all the hypocrisy and then look at our area, I would say "I really don't see any of that happening".

Yeah, I was working my way through an exegesis of John like 10 years ago and the author had some weird ideas that Jesus was catching an attitude with the woman. Like you, I failed to see any of that in the original text. So maybe we can just chalk that up to one guy's weird reading of John. It puzzled me to read that, so I'm glad it isn't some sort of standard interpretation.

I am glad that you saw through that. I remember one pastor who told me 40 years ago, "If you don't accept Jesus you could loose the baby that is in your wife's womb". I didn't know Jesus, but I figured that this dude didn't know the first thing about God. Today, I realize he was the exception and not the rule.

There are bad apples in every bag.

Appreciate the civil discourse and the exchange of thought.

Even if we don't reach agreement, it will still have been sweet.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not "have a problem" with fundamentalism. I simply know when they are advocating for evil. And since they are supposedly Christians that is rather disturbing. You should be concerned too.

And what the heck is the rest of that nonsense that you posted? Have I been advocating for that? What does that have to do with the topic here?

Just to let you know one does not have to expose one's "private parts" to be considered a sex symbol.
Raquel Welch, actor and international sex symbol, dies at 82 (nbcnews.com)

 

[YoursTrue]

I've seen bumper stickers that say "I'm not perfect but I'm forgiven". It's not about character or conduct, but about belonging to the right club.

One may be forgiven but not if he keeps doing what is considered sinful thinking he's "forgiven." People say one thing; the Bible may say something else.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus was speaking to those "of the law".

He also said, "If you have lusted in your heart - you have committed adultery" - so who is exempt under the law?

As far as the Samaritan, I am just reading - no interpretation is necessary. Was she forever condemned? No, she drank from the rivers of salvation.

So I wouldn't read into it what isn't there such as disdain for the women. Can't find it there or anywhere.

Jesus with the woman caught in the act was very specific as he was the only one who had the right to throw a stone when he said "neither do I condemn you".

That is true that no one is exempt from committing sin Except for one. That one is Jesus because -- he was sinless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to let you know one does not have to expose one's "private parts" to be considered a sex symbol.
Raquel Welch, actor and international sex symbol, dies at 82 (nbcnews.com)

Gee, I wonder who started the thread here about Raquel Welch.

And you seem to have me conflated with someone else. I don't know who, but then you do not appear to know either.

 

[F1fan]

Divorce is still not good -- it damages lives gut grace pulls us through. Lust is not good either but grace can deliver us from it.

But saying there are only two options by ignoring other options isn't correct either.

The issue, like the woman caught in the act, is "go and sin no more"-- not judgement but forgiveness and a helping hand. The man who steals -- go and steal no more, the man who hates go and steal no more.

This is what Jesus died for. For the thief who stole, paradise was waiting for him. For Saul who murdered and new life as Paul - go and murder no more.

In the case of a homosexual lifestyle, our position would be not judgment but forgiveness but go and sin no more. If I were judgmental, stop being judgmental and go and sin no more. (Of course people have different interpretation of what judgmental is. If someone is lying, saying don't lie isn't judgmental because one is correcting an act. Calling them liars is judgmental)

What makes a homosexual lifestyle bad? Why shouldn't they live as gay people, exactly? That sounds like judging them.

And to compare living as a homosexual as on par to lying is quite a stretch.

To my mind conemning and judging gays for being gay is more on par with lying than gay people living as they are.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gee, I wonder who started the thread here about Raquel Welch.

And you seem to have me conflated with someone else. I don't know who, but then you do not appear to know either.

lol, ok, I'll look for the one that declared breasts are not sexual elements, yet -- some people are called "sexy..." or -- sex "symbols." it doesn't matter -- maybe a church choir can sing with bare breasts etc. and all is ok. Have a good one as time goes by.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, ok, I'll look for the one that declared breasts are not sexual elements, yet -- some people are called "sexy..." or -- sex "symbols." it doesn't matter -- maybe a church choir can sing with bare breasts etc. and all is ok. Have a good one as time goes by.

Why even bring that up? I was not advocating nudity in this thread.

Is there any logic to this strange detour of yours?

 

[Kenny]

What makes a homosexual lifestyle bad? Why shouldn't they live as gay people, exactly? That sounds like judging them.

No... I'm not judging the person. I am no better or no worse than the next person.

And to compare living as a homosexual as on par to lying is quite a stretch.

No, I wasn't making it "on par". If It sounded like it, forgive me.

To my mind conemning and judging gays for being gay is more on par with lying than gay people living as they are.

No... I'm not condemning anyone. If I condemn someone, I might as well condemn myself. I think you are reading into what I am trying to express.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why even bring that up? I was not advocating nudity in this thread.

Is there any logic to this strange detour of yours?

I think so. I'll explain it to you -- do you believe/agree that a college or institution has the right to determine what they allow or not allow within their premises or auspices?

 

[lukethethird]

.

In the case of a homosexual lifestyle, our position would be not judgment but forgiveness but go and sin no more.

If you were homosexual would you tell yourself to sin no more, or do you just cast judgement and tell others what to do? Why do you concern yourself with the homosexual lifestyle anyways?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think so. I'll explain it to you -- do you believe/agree that a college or institution has the right to determine what they allow or not allow within their premises or auspices?

That question is too vague. They have the rights to determine what is taught and how. Within certain limits. They can even decide who to invite for extra curricular activities. Again, within certain limits. You need to be more specific for me to be more specific.

 

[YoursTrue]

That question is too vague.

Oh yeah? I don't think so.

They have the rights to determine what is taught and how. Within certain limits. They can even decide who to invite for extra curricular activities. Again, within certain limits. You need to be more specific for me to be more specific.

You were not so specific. You said, "within certain limits." Really? Let's go a round for nudity again. Using that as a comparison in terms of allowing or not allowing "within limits." Some here would think it's perfectly fine to go around naked, as expressed by someone (I forget who) about the parade in Canada. So what's the limit? That's an example of what limits and why. If you don't understand, here is the outline: A college claiming to be based on Christian principles (even if I don't agree with them) will not allow a practicing homosexual to entertain in the college, I believe if I have the circumstances right. Do they have that right? Now would they be wrong to not hire a group to strip onstage for entertainment at that college? What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

P.S. @Subduction Zone -- if it were a non-religiously based school or organization the allowance of acceptance might be different. I believe that in the near enough future the entire world of political rulerships will clamp down on religion. We shall see. And then things will happen. But again, we'll see.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you were homosexual would you tell yourself to sin no more, or do you just cast judgement and tell others what to do? Why do you concern yourself with the homosexual lifestyle anyways?

The law and warning against homosexual behavior is in the Bible.

 

[F1fan]

No... I'm not judging the person. I am no better or no worse than the next person.

You avoided my question. You have made statemnts that assert a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. What is the basis of your judgment?

No... I'm not condemning anyone. If I condemn someone, I might as well condemn myself. I think you are reading into what I am trying to express.

Your words are clear. Could it be you just haven't thought through your thoughts and beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yeah? I don't think so.

Then you would be wrong.

You were not so specific. You said, "within certain limits." Really? Let's go a round for nudity again. Using that as a comparison in terms of allowing or not allowing "within limits." Some here would think it's perfectly fine to go around naked, as expressed by someone (I forget who) about the parade in Canada. So what's the limit? That's an example of what limits and why. If you don't understand, here is the outline: A college claiming to be based on Christian principles (even if I don't agree with them) will not allow a practicing homosexual to entertain in the college, I believe if I have the circumstances right. Do they have that right? Now would they be wrong to not hire a group to strip onstage for entertainment at that college? What do you think?

Wow!! I told you that your question was too vague. I cannot be more precise with such a vague question. Even you can see the problem when one is too vague.

Now as to nudity why keep bringing that up? And also a college does have limited rights. They cannot ban perfectly legal activities on their campuses.

The problem with the group was something that goes on in his private life. It is not a concern of that college. Now a religious college can teach that homosexuality is wrong. Even though they are of course wrong when they do so. But try banning students from being gay. It simply does not work.

You do realize don't you that fundamental Christian Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You avoided my question. You have made statemnts that assert a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. What is the basis of your judgment?


Your words are clear. Could it be you just haven't thought through your thoughts and beliefs?

I guess that for you and others this needs to be explained with song:

Slightly different, more polished performance:

 

[F1fan]

The law and warning against homosexual behavior is in the Bible.

And why are you chosing to follow those laws? Do you follow all the others, or just a few select ones that are part of your learned Christian attitudes? Are you aware liberal and moderate Christians have no problem allowing gays to be who they are?