Difficulties

[Lukaris]

This book is regarded by the Christian world (Catholic and Evangelical Church, as well as evangelicals) as apocryphal, whose origin is not documented, just as little as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas.
Something that is to be regarded as an unsecured source should not be proclaimed as truth. This could inadvertently make you the wrong teacher and apostate.

I trust that the discernment of the Ethiopian Church to regard Enoch as scripture. Many early Christians believed it to be scripture also including St. Irenaeus ( late 2nd century). St.Irenaeus is one of the main ancient Christian witnesses to expose false writings like false “gospels” of Thomas & Judas and the sectarian gnostic groups that circulated many false gospels & pseudo epistles.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

Enoch among early Christians:

Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity and Middle Ages - Wikipedia

 

[LindaBerlin]

I trust that the discernment of the Ethiopian Church to regard Enoch as scripture. Many early Christians believed it to be scripture also including St. Irenaeus ( late 2nd century). St.Irenaeus is one of the main ancient Christian witnesses to expose false writings like false “gospels” of Thomas & Judas and the sectarian gnostic groups that circulated many false gospels & pseudo epistles.

There are some of the so-called Gnostic Gospels, for whose temporal existence there is evidence (Nag Hamadi and Qumran), for the book of Enoch there is no such evidence.

 

[Lukaris]

There are some of the so-called Gnostic Gospels, for whose temporal existence there is evidence (Nag Hamadi and Qumran), for the book of Enoch there is no such evidence.

This is amazing, you set out to redefine Biblical teaching on abortion, homosexuality, and apostates with your own false teachings. Then you say that the supporting evidence of traditional Biblical teachings and its teachers are false. You go on to say that the traditional teachings are derived from heresy that the traditional teachers themselves determined were heretical to begin with.

You seem to be the new inquisition against those who actually believe in the Bible. Your only struggle is to redefine Biblical teachings to your own false teachings and force the faithful to accept them or face prosecution from secular authorities.

So if I would read the Gospel and believe that the Lord teaches us that God made us male & female. That God defines marriage between a man and woman and that we must either commit to that or be celibate. That God defines the sanctity of life from conception that is wrong by your own authoritarian tendencies.

What I have just said is basic understanding of what the Lord says in Mark 10:1-16. You will conclude that is intolerable and “wrong” and should be prosecuted for by secular law.

 

[John Helpher]

In the 1990s, a man broke into a clinic, killed a doctor and seriously injured a nurse. His reason? His Mormon wife (he was also a Mormon) no longer wanted a ninth child, so she wanted to have an abortion.
My difficulty:
Why do some Christians not accept the right of women to determine their own bodies? There is no verse in the Bible that forbids abortion.

First of all, killing others for our own mistakes isn't Christian. It is possible for people to make a mistake (or behave in a way) which is contrary to what they espouse to believe. It is lazy thinking, (or just convenient blame-gaming) to say that Christianity is wrong because professing Christians sometimes behave in a way which is contrary to what Christianity is.

Do not blame Christianity. Blame the individual.

My difficulty:
Why do some Christian churches refuse to admit mistakes in their teachings?

ALL humans struggle with pride and respectability; that is, we all struggle with recognizing and accepting our faults. Many of us spend our whole lives running from the truth about ourselves. That's not a religious issue. It's just more galling when people do it in the name of religion because it is understood that religion is meant to be better than that.

In an evangelical church in Bremen, a pastor preaches that homosexuals are child abusers and bad people. He is on trial (indictment: insult, incitement to incitement and incitement to violence because he considers homosexuals to be "deathable"). His Church has not taken any disciplinary action against him.
My difficulty:
Why are some Christians and their churches railing against homosexuals?

Why do some homosexuals rail against Christians? This is not a religious issue; all humans struggle with understanding what is just and right and true. We all struggle with knowing how to rightly interpret and discern morality and fairness. It's just more galling when Christians get it wrong because it is understood that Christians are supposed to get it right. That's what it means to be Christian; we seek out righteousness.

If a person who claims to be Christian is not seeking righteousness, then that person is not Christian, despite their claims. This is why it is important to resist the urge to exploit weaknesses in one area to propel a personal bias, i.e. I disagree with religion so I will use the weaknesses of those who purport to be religious as ammunition against religion.

That is not a sincere way to seek out truth. It is fine to question the wrong behaviors and bad motivations of any person; but, do not exploit those wrong behaviors to promote a personal bias. In other words, blame the individual. If you do that, you will see that morality and righteousness is not about group affiliation.

 

[LindaBerlin]

Do not blame Christianity. Blame the individual.

There are, as I call it, "individual sins," and there are "structural sins."
When a member of a group (Christians, Jews, Muslims) does something, it can be an individual act, but also an act based on what was taught to him by (religious) leaders. Three examples from three different countries that made headlines in Germany:

Germany:

A Jew wearing a kippah was beaten by a Syrian refugee in the open road (with a belt). and injured in the face. There was a reason for his hatred of Jews. In his homeland he learned, from imams, that Jews are bad and guilty of everything. Is he alone to blame, or is it not the imam and Islam who teach such nonsense?

Poland:

A gay, married couple from Germany (one was from Poland, the other a German) moved to Poland. Since both are devout Catholics, they wanted to get involved in a Polish church. When pastors and parishioners learned that they were both gay and married, they were bullied and verbally and physically attacked by parishioners because the pastor said in a sermon that homosexuals deserve death. The police and the courts did not want to help them, but advised both to go back to Germany. The case has come before the European Court of Justice. Was it individual church members, or not rather the pastor, who incited his members against the two men? And, in the end, not the faith of the Catholic Church that makes such a mindset possible?

Canada:
A Canadian killed several gay men in British Columbia. During the interrogation, he stated that he was a "Christian warrior" with the order to kill gays. A psychiatric examination revealed that he was neither mentally ill nor behavioral, but rather suppressed his own homosexuality because his "Christian" family had once beaten him up so much (he was 9 years old) because he had kissed a boy. He had internalized this lesson (self-hatred and homophobia). Is the Canadian solely responsible for his actions, or is it not rather parents and religions who teach this, even though the statements of the Bible are different?

Ask for yourself that!

 

[Andrewn]

Is the Canadian solely responsible for his actions, or is it not rather parents and religions who teach this, even though the statements of the Bible are different?

I agree that these are "structural sins" based on misunderstanding of the Bible. Even if individuals believe that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, it should be even more obvious that it teaches against exclusivism and violence.

 

[Albion]

I want to tell you why I think it's up to every woman to decide for herself whether she wants a child or not, because NONE of the women make that decision lightly.

That's a familiar excuse, but it's almost insulting to thoughtful people to have it laid upon them. For one thing, it is completely untrue to say that "NONE of the women make that decision lightly." It is a fact that many women use abortion as a substitute for using birth control.

Worse, perhaps, is the fact that the whole premise is ridiculous. Imagine how the following argument (only a slight variation on the one you offered us in your post) would work...

"I am inconvenienced by that other person, so should I murder him or not? Oh, this is not an easy decision I have to make. Well, after a lot of thought, he deserves it, so that's what I'll do."

 

[John Helpher]

There are, as I call it, "individual sins," and there are "structural sins."

even though the statements of the Bible are different?

This is what I'd like to get clear; who are you blaming? "Structural sins" sounds pretty vague. It is true that more than one person can be at fault for some particular problem, as you've suggested in your examples. Look again at my post; I did not say that only one person at a time can be blamed; I said that the individual should be held accountable which still holds true even if we're talking about a large group of individuals who are working together.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the thrust of your comments. Usually, when people make these kind of arguments, what they're really trying to do is use the bad behavior of the people to blame God, i.e. they're doing it in his name so he is to blame.

That may be fair enough if they really are doing it in his name. I am not a Muslim and I have not carefully studied the Quran so I cannot speak confidently as to what that book teaches its followers to do. From memory there is some pretty clear stuff in there about killing infidels, but the topic is so controversial that there's a chance I may have misunderstood the bits and pieces I've been able to put together over time.

However, I am confident regarding the Christian religion; there's a very long history of people distorting God's will for their own selfish reasons. That's what Jesus had to deal with when he arrived on the scene; that twisting was already in full swing. It's partly why the religious leaders of that time hated him so much; he was speaking against their man-made traditions, he was taking the attention and authority away from them and turning it back to God, and they killed him for it.

Jesus struggled often with this concept of people pretending to be his follower, but not obeying him. He asked them point blank, "Why do you call me, 'Lord', but do not obey me"? He said, "This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". In another place he said, "Not every who calls me, 'Lord', will be saved". And, perhaps most shocking of all, when talking to his disciples, he said, "A time is coming when those who kill you will think they're doing God a service".

Why would they kill God's servants and then convince themselves that they are doing it for God? Strong delusion. Greed. Pride. Fear. Self-righteousness. Hypocrisy. These are life-long issues that all humans must deal with and some of us deal with them better than others. Many people don't deal with these issues at all, so they grow and fester. They cannot handle the awful truth about themselves so they convince themselves that they are better than they really are and to do this they must perform behaviors which they think will make them good. But, because they're not really interested in the truth, but rather only a self-righteous image of themselves, the good deeds won't be good at all. They will be twisted replicas of goodness, like those people you mentioned who hate and/or kill homosexuals.

They think they are doing God a service, but really they are just pretending to be righteous. There are very few Christians in the world actually trying to sincerely obey Jesus. It has been my experience that they actually argue against obedience to Jesus, often becoming angry when pushed.

But this is not a religious problem. It's just more obvious with religion because the point of religion is to deal with these issues. Non-religious people also struggle with hypocrisy, self-righteousness, greed, fear, pride, etc but it's less obvious because these things are not called out as being bad by the worldly system.

 

[Lukaris]

I bet there is a lot more to the story of an “oppressed”, non heterosexual,“married”, couple wanting to allegedly help a church that does not believe such a lifestyle is holy.

There are thousands of homicides all over the world in all sorts of grisly form. These “reports” seem somewhat selective. I wonder if oppressed house Churches in China who believe in traditional marriage deserve persecution & prosecution?

The fact that this particular sub forum is called “struggles by Non Christians” has Christians being lectured ( & lied to?) by someone who is supposed to be non Christian but calling themself “Christian” is puzzling.

Should I say Wirathu represents all Buddhists in Burma? : Ashin Wirathu - Wikipedia

 

[LindaBerlin]

I agree that these are "structural sins" based on misunderstanding of the Bible. Even if individuals believe that the Bible teaches against homosexuality, it should be even more obvious that it teaches against exclusivism and violence.

I love Canada! Not just because I love Mrs Montgomery's books! On a mission, I had a companion from Lethbridge, Alberta, who is related to friends of Helmuth Huebener. Helmuth Huebener was a Mormon in the Third Reich; a resistance fighter who was executed as the youngest resistance fighter.
But you are mistaken in one point: homosexuality, as we understand it TODAY, was never banned in the Bible because it was not the focus of the authors of the Bible. For the authors of the Bible saw above all three things in the word: idolatry, turning away from God, and what we would call "gang rape" today (what was to happen in Sodom).
For the "sin of Sodom" was, to quote Ezekiel, selfishness and a lack of hospitality in the city.

 

[LindaBerlin]

That's a familiar excuse, but it's almost insulting to thoughtful people to have it laid upon them. For one thing, it is completely untrue to say that "NONE of the women make that decision lightly." It is a fact that many women use abortion as a substitute for using birth control.

Worse, perhaps, is the fact that the whole premise is ridiculous. Imagine how the following argument (only a slight variation on the one you offered us in your post) would work...

"I am inconvenienced by that other person, so should I murder him or not? Oh, this is not an easy decision I have to make. Well, after a lot of thought, he deserves it, so that's what I'll do."

Have you ever faced the decision to abort? My mother already (with my sister and me). She were forced to get us. We had felt t´her hatred for us for the time of her live. My sister was the result of a gang rape shortly after the end of World War II by dark-skinned French soldiers (that's why my sister has dark skin). And my "father" [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off, leaving my mother without money and help. Because he had left her, she was considered an "American [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" (my father was a GI) or a "prostitute" because he had left her. She wasn't allowed to abort me either. She hated me, too.
Our childhood was [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty. Characterized by beatings, recriminations and hatred. As children, we desperately sought the love and recognition of our mother, which we did not get. And so we continued the horror of our birth.
My sister settled in with men. She was looking for love, the men were just looking for sex. The result: five children of four men.
And I married an idiot and criminal who had beaten me and my children, especially when he found out that I had a sexual relationship with his cousin Barbara.
My sister and I are, as a result of forced birth, incapable of relationship, and not really capable of love.
It would have been better for us and others, my mother should have had an abortion.

 

[Lukaris]

Violence Against Women Begins in the Womb

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2...xploited-to-jeopardise-christian-communities/

 

[Andrewn]

But you are mistaken in one point: homosexuality, as we understand it TODAY, was never banned in the Bible because it was not the focus of the authors of the Bible. For the authors of the Bible saw above all three things in the word: idolatry, turning away from God, and what we would call "gang rape" today (what was to happen in Sodom).
For the "sin of Sodom" was, to quote Ezekiel, selfishness and a lack of hospitality in the city.

Few months ago, I did a little study about the words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitoi." My conclusion about the former was very similar to what you presented earlier. I think the latter word is related to child abuse, especially of boys. The sin of Sodom is quite probably as you described.

This leaves Romans 1:26–27 and Leviticus. About Leviticus 18, I agree with you that the word "abomination" / "Toevah" does not imply immorality but may refer to anything considered "disgusting" or "disgraceful" in the culture. For example, it describes shepherds Gen 43:32. But I'm still not convinced that Leviticus only refers to sex with male temple prostitutes.

The more important point in my mind is that we all have sinful tendencies that we struggle with. We should not condemn others but rather accept each other in love. We haven't walked in their shoes or experienced their psychological make-up. Life is hard, and it's harder for some people than others.

My wife and I have a transgender friend. When we went together to church and to restaurants, he/she was accepted and welcomed by everyone including the pastor. This does not imply approval of the behavior but definitely of the person.

These are distractions. The main issue is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other command greater than these. (Mar 12:30-31).

 

[Albion]

My mother already (with my sister and me). She were forced to get us. We had felt t´her hatred for us for the time of her live. My sister was the result of a gang rape shortly after the end of World War II by dark-skinned French soldiers....

Do not misunderstand. For some women, the situation is agonizing, but it is certainly wrong to talk as though no one gets an abortion for the sake of convenience. Many do.

 

[John Helpher]

The original issue was about:

For a long time I have been concerned with questions with which I have difficulties with regard to the way in which some Christians are thinking and acting.

I've given a few answers which I think address this concern; Christians are still humans. We struggle with greed, fear, pride, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness just like every other human on the planet. The reason why it feels so much more egregious when when Christians do it is because Christians are supposed to be better. Everyone understands that. I think that, in itself, is an interesting commentary on non-Christians. It's like, the more you complain about Christians behaving badly, the more you self own, as the implication is that non-Christians are not expected to be better so there's nothing to criticize.

I feel like I've addressed that point fairly well so I'd like to shift a bit to one of the details mentioned in the OP. I was a bit reluctant to do this earlier because I felt it didn't specifically address the original issue, but since I think I've done that, now, I'll go ahead.

Why do some Christians not accept the right of women to determine their own bodies? There is no verse in the Bible that forbids abortion.

The first sentence isn't rational. The abortion would only be necessary because the woman used her body in a way which resulted in the unwanted pregnancy. If you want to say that women should have the right to "determine" their own bodies, that's fair and reasonable; it makes sense. But that means the women is also responsible for how she uses that body.

I talked to a man who said his wife had an abortion. When I asked how she got pregnant, he said he'd been relying on her to take care of the birth control and she forgot a few times. That is an example of a woman NOT determining her own body. She was taking the birth control in the first place precisely because she understood the possible consequences of not doing so. it's her body and she was responsible for being lazy with it.

I talked to a woman who had an abortion. When I asked how she got pregnant, she said she and her boyfriend were being intimate and the bf said he didn't have a condom. In the heat of the moment neither of them cared; they were totally in to it, they were excited, and their rational thinking was blunted by their passion. Where's all that high and mighty talk about a woman determining her own body, here? She asked for a condom so she wasn't ignorant about the possible consequences. In that moment, she just didn't care.

According to this study, Instances of rape are surveyed at 1% and instances of incest are surveyed at .5%. However, the most dominant reason for why women have abortions is, "Having a baby would dramatically change my life. "

We're not talking about victims, here. We're talking women (normally I'd say men should be just as responsible since it takes two to make a baby, but since your focus is all about the women controlling her own body, I'll comment from that perspective) who don't think about what they're doing until it's too late. They make stupid, lazy, ignorant choices regarding their body and then, when a problem comes up, suddenly they are the masters of their own body!

I'm going to make a comment that very few women or men have understood, but I'm actually arguing the feminist perspective here; I'm referring to genuinely responsible, powerful, rational women who know what they want and why they want it before the mistakes happen.

If women really do determine their own bodies, then they need to be educated to understand what that means. If you're "totally in to it" but there is no condom available, ideally both of them should stop until they get a condom, but lets say the man is ignorant and lost in his lust. It would take a strong, confident women who really is in control of her body to stop and tell the man that this ain't happening until the appropriate measures are taken.

Both males and females should be taught the consequences of casual sex. Of course, if you're sleeping around, the chances of an unwanted pregnancy increase dramatically. Instead, they should be taught the value of finding one person to commit to and then committing before the sexy stuff starts. Getting lost in passion with any person who strikes your fancy from moment to moment isn't romantic and it doesn't contribute to the development of strong, interpersonal relationships. The opposite is true. It indicates that you're not thinking carefully about your choices, that you're just a creature of reaction rather than consideration, and that you you don't know how to develop meaningful relationships which don't rely on sex to make them interesting.

They should be taught the qualities which are necessary to have a healthy, successful relationship. Disney has a lot to answer for in this area as they've promoted and profited from the good-feeling of love-at-first-sight. Those feelings aren't wrong, but they should not be exploited as a momentary interaction which guarantees faithfulness over decades in order to make people feel good about the money the spent to view the interaction happening.

Anyway, once I start railing on Disney I know it's time to stop.

 

[Reasonable Christian]

"Why do some Christians not accept the right of women to determine their own bodies? There is no verse in the Bible that forbids abortion."

This is begging the question. Abortion involves two bodies: the woman's and the fetus's. There is no dispute that if a woman gets an abortion, the fetus dies. So the issue is the relative rights of the two; can the woman kill the fetus (or have a doctor kill it) for any reason, particular reasons, or no reason? Saying abortion is merely about a woman's right to control her own body assumes that the fetus either doesn't have a body (which is nonsense) or has no rights at all. But the status of the fetus and its rights, if any, is precisely the issue in dispute. That's why people saying what the OP said are begging the question.

Now for the issue issue: In short, we have to pick a moment when human life and human rights -- including the right to life -- begin. For me, the most logical moment is the moment of conception, because (1) all of the genes in the human body are present at conception, and thus the fetus is genetically human; and (2) any other moment is purely arbitrary, as there is no significant difference in the fetus between any post-conception moment (whatever it is) and the moment immediately prior to it -- at least a difference significant enough to confer the right to life when there was none previously. Anyone who thinks there is a more logical point at which human life begins is free to make that argument. Most pro-choicers who I've met don't bother, however, because they know it's a losing proposition.

As for the Bible, anyone reading Psalm 139 would be hard pressed to argue that God considers a fetus to be a worthless tissue blob that we can kill for any or no reason, which is how the current abortion laws in the U.S. treat the fetus in the first and second trimesters. And the Bible clearly forbids murder, which abortion is IF the fetus is a human with human rights. Because I believe it is for the reasons stated, the Biblical case against abortion is obvious.

 

[aiki]

1. Abortion

In the 1990s, a man broke into a clinic, killed a doctor and seriously injured a nurse. His reason? His Mormon wife (he was also a Mormon) no longer wanted a ninth child, so she wanted to have an abortion.
My difficulty:
Why do some Christians not accept the right of women to determine their own bodies? There is no verse in the Bible that forbids abortion.

There is no verse in the Bible that forbids boiling your neighbor's cat in oil, either, or selling illicit drugs to children. No Christian would, however, condone such behaviour on such a basis, but could point to various places in the Bible from which one can legitimately extrapolate to the rejection and prohibition of such horrible acts - just as they can with the sin of murder of the unborn.

If God "opens and shuts the womb," as the Bible says, then abortion is evil, for it destroys a work of God, a priceless human being, whom He made in His image.

2. Apostates

In a Catholic Church in Cologne, a pastor said that his church teaches many things that are contrary to today's knowledge, citing as an example the history of Galileo, as well as the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. He was to be revoked, and was excommunicated and lost his profession as a priest.
My difficulty:
Why do some Christian churches refuse to admit mistakes in their teachings? Why do they excommunicate criticism to people who criticize, which is often justified?

Roman Catholicism is not representative of all of Christianity. Protestant evangelicals would "excommunicate" someone on very different grounds than what you've mentioned above, typically. Among conservative Protestant evangelical Christians, it is, generally, the Bible, not religious tradition or church hierarchies that settle the matter of correct and incorrect teaching and the grounds for a person's ejection from the Church (which ejection has never happened in the churches I've been a part of during the fifty-plus years I've been a Christian).

3. Homosexuality

In an evangelical church in Bremen, a pastor preaches that homosexuals are child abusers and bad people. He is on trial (indictment: insult, incitement to incitement and incitement to violence because he considers homosexuals to be "deathable"). His Church has not taken any disciplinary action against him.
My difficulty:
Why are some Christians and their churches railing against homosexuals? At that time, the Bible understood homosexuality differently than we do today. The scribes of the Bible usually saw H. in connection with idol worship, shrine prostitution, and the renunciation of God. Loving homosexual relationships were not the focus of the authors.

I would be pleased if someone could respond objectively.

When Scripture forbids homosexuality, it does not mention temple prostitution but defines the sinful behaviour simply as a man lying sexually with a man as he would with a woman. This is what the Bible forbids repeatedly and explicitly, at each instance never clarifying (though it could have) that it only means homosexual temple prostitution. The wicked homosexual men of Sodom, incinerated by God for their evil conduct, weren't at Lot's door looking for temple sex with his angelic guests, just sex - of the homosexual kind.

Leviticus 20:13
13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:24-28
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,