Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces.

[GreatExpectations]

Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces | Christianity Today

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

Thread moved from struggles with sexuality.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Paradoxum]

Isn't it more complicated than that? After all, doesn't Paul have in mind relationships based on temple prostitution or perhaps slavery, rather than committed relationships? No, the noun arsenokoitēs means "those who practice homosexuality." It is an unusual compound, but it makes Paul's point.

How does that prove that it isn't about non-committed pleasure or sacrifice based homosexual sex? If homosexuality wasn't understood how it is today then it might mean something different.

 

[ActionJ]

Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces | Christianity Today

Great article -- well written! Sin is sin and it will remain sin no matter how hard secularists strive to sugar-coat it or pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Paradoxum]

Great article -- well written! Sin is sin and it will remain sin no matter how hard secularists strive to sugar-coat it or pretend it doesn't exist.

And child sacrifice will remain an obligation, even if disbelievers say it is disgusting.

 

[ActionJ]

And child sacrifice will remain an obligation, even if disbelievers say it is disgusting.

I'm sorry but I'm not able to make any sense of your post. Perhaps you can clarify?

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm sorry but I'm not able to make any sense of your post. Perhaps you can clarify?

I guess my point is just that your claim that 'homosexuality is sin' seems just as arbitrary, fictitious and unjustified as a claim that child sacrifice is good. Not that condemnation of homosexuality is as bad as child sacrifice.

Sometimes a change in morals is good. Rather than being a sugar coating, the change actually is a taking off of distorting glasses to see the thing as it really is.

I have no idea why homosexuality would be wrong without reference to the Bible. I mean, most other things (murder, rape, etc) can be said to be immoral without use of the Bible.

 

[ActionJ]

I guess my point is just that your claim that 'homosexuality is sin' seems just as arbitrary, fictitious and unjustified as a claim that child sacrifice is good. Not that condemnation of homosexuality is as bad as child sacrifice.

Sometimes a change in morals is good. Rather than being a sugar coating, the change actually is a taking off of distorting glasses to see the thing as it really is.

I have no idea why homosexuality would be wrong without reference to the Bible. I mean, most other things (murder, rape, etc) can be said to be immoral without use of the Bible.

Distortion appears when folks try to alter truth. God's plan for mankind hasn't changed. Man's ideals and opinions sway like reeds in the wind and change as a matter of routine.

How does anyone define "morals" unless a moral code exists? Without the Bible who's code is the correct one? Yours?

 

[JustMeSee]

Simple solution: Clergy don't have to conduct gay marriages. This is really a legal change, not a religious one.

 

[Paradoxum]

Distortion appears when folks try to alter truth. God's plan for mankind hasn't changed. Man's ideals and opinions sway like reeds in the wind and change as a matter of routine.

Like when we swayed to accepting females as equal, when the previous more religious nations didn't treat women like that?

History has proven that religious people don't know what is moral any better than anyone else. They just have their opinions are wrap them in 'God'. No offence.

How does anyone define "morals" unless a moral code exists? Without the Bible who's code is the correct one? Yours?

Why does it have to be a "who's"? When we want to know about the world around us we don't just randomly pick some person to make stuff up. We use our brains are try to figure out what is true.

The same with morality. We use our minds to figure out right and wrong. That's what the study of ethics is for.

 

[ActionJ]

Like when we swayed to accepting females as equal, when the previous more religious nations didn't treat women like that?

History has proven that religious people don't know what is moral any better than anyone else. They just have their opinions are wrap them in 'God'. No offence.



Why does it have to be a "who's"? When we want to know about the world around us we don't just randomly pick some person to make stuff up. We use our brains are try to figure out what is true.

The same with morality. We use our minds to figure out right and wrong. That's what the study of ethics is for.

I use the Bible as my guide. Not all of God's creatures are "equal." Well ... they're all equal in the sense that each has a right to eat, drink, find shelter, and survive but not in the sense that all are literally "equal." From a biblical standpoint, men and women are not equal. That's not to say that men are superior or that women should be treated poorly. It simply means that each possesses different and unique attributes. A man will never make a good wet-nurse nor will a woman make a very good linebacker in the NFL. From a biblical perspective, a man and a woman become one when united in marriage. That indicates that each are incomplete without the other.

There is only one truth. One person could claim that a pine tree has pretty orange flowers while another person claims that the pine tree has sharp needles. The former individual may solidly believe that he has revealed the truth but the latter individual has revealed the actual truth.

 

[Paradoxum]

I use the Bible as my guide. Not all of God's creatures are "equal." Well ... they're all equal in the sense that each has a right to eat, drink, find shelter, and survive but not in the sense that all are literally "equal." From a biblical standpoint, men and women are not equal.

It's interesting that you don't even try to cover up what you are saying by instead saying the genders are equal but different. To say they aren't equal just sounds like sexism.

That's not to say that men are superior or that women should be treated poorly. It simply means that each possesses different and unique attributes. A man will never make a good wet-nurse nor will a woman make a very good linebacker in the NFL.

Those are just physical differences. And some women might be better linebackers than some men. Some women might not be able to breast feed.

To say women aren't equal to men seems just like saying a short person isn't equal to a tall person. If one said to the other that the other isn't equal to them, the one being told that would be rightly insulted. All people are equal.

From a biblical perspective, a man and a woman become one when united in marriage. That indicates that each are incomplete without the other.

Why does that indicate they are incomplete apart? You can have two glasses of water than unite when poured together. That doesn't mean they are incomplete when apart.

There is only one truth. One person could claim that a pine tree has pretty orange flowers while another person claims that the pine tree has sharp needles. The former individual may solidly believe that he has revealed the truth but the latter individual has revealed the actual truth.

As you can see it is the one who looks and uses their mind, rather than their feelings, that gets it right.

 

[ActionJ]

=Paradoxum;62816484]It's interesting that you don't even try to cover up what you are saying by instead saying the genders are equal but different. To say they aren't equal just sounds like sexism.

Well you and I know that there must be an "ism" for any idea or belief that isn't in lock-step with political correctness. If I disagree with homosexuality then I must be "homophobic." If I want to seal America's southern border then I must be "xenophobic." If I believe that women should be feminine and men should be masculine then I must be "sexist." I call these titles "buzz words." They're simply designed to ridicule folks who adhere to traditional or biblical standards and beliefs.

Those are just physical differences. And some women might be better linebackers than some men. Some women might not be able to breast feed.

But we know for a certainty that there are zero women linebackers in the NFL and zero men who are able to breastfeed (transgenders don't count).

To say women aren't equal to men seems just like saying a short person isn't equal to a tall person. If one said to the other that the other isn't equal to them, the one being told that would be rightly insulted. All people are equal.

A short person isn't equal to a tall person. That's obvious. Both may have equal rights under the law but they aren't equal.

Why does that indicate they are incomplete apart? You can have two glasses of water than unite when poured together. That doesn't mean they are incomplete when apart.

Two half glasses of water make a full glass of water.

As you can see it is the one who looks and uses their mind, rather than their feelings, that gets it right.

Some folks use their minds while others do not. Proof that not everyone uses their minds equally.

 

[Lethe]

Title: Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces
Subtitle: Struggling with homosexuality is a paradox, but embracing homosexuality is a contradiction.

Whoever wrote the subtitle for the article doesn't understand the meaning of, "paradox."

Also, how does a thread on the religious implications of same-sex marriage belong in the Ethics & Morality general society forum and not the Christian Ethics forum?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How does anyone define "morals" unless a moral code exists?

"Morals" are just statements about people's preferences. There's no "code" at all.

Without the Bible who's code is the correct one? Yours?

Correct in what way?

 

[ebia]

Distortion appears when folks try to alter truth. God's plan for mankind hasn't changed. Man's ideals and opinions sway like reeds in the wind and change as a matter of routine.

How does anyone define "morals" unless a moral code exists? Without the Bible who's code is the correct one? Yours?

Deontology is not the only approach to ethics
With the bible, who's is the correct moral code
If the bible is supposed to be a moral code why doesn't it look like one?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well you and I know that there must be an "ism" for any idea or belief that isn't in lock-step with political correctness. If I disagree with homosexuality then I must be "homophobic." If I want to seal America's southern border then I must be "xenophobic." If I believe that women should be feminine and men should be masculine then I must be "sexist." I call these titles "buzz words." They're simply designed to ridicule folks who adhere to traditional or biblical standards and beliefs.

I wouldn't call you homophobic if you disagree with homosexuality. I'm also uneasy about calling those against LGBT rights bigots. I have family and friends who are like that, and they don't seem like bigots. Xenophobic also isn't a word I would use in a discussion about immigration.

But I do think the word sexist can apply when trying to push females or males into being a certain way. If it is just a statement of personal taste ("I like my men to be men) that is ok, but I think we should be more suspicious of claims about a genders objective role.

But we know for a certainty that there are zero women linebackers in the NFL and zero men who are able to breastfeed (transgenders don't count).

Yeah, but I'm not sure what that is meant to show. I agree that there tend to be physical differences. Maybe there tend to be psychological differences too. But I use the word 'tend' and don't apply it to all people one gender (and gender can be pretty fuzzy anyway).

A short person isn't equal to a tall person. That's obvious. Both may have equal rights under the law but they aren't equal.

You would say that they aren't equal in height, you don't say they aren't equal.

If you use the word that way no one is equal (because all are unique), so there is no point making the distinction between men and women. All are different anyway.

Two half glasses of water make a full glass of water.

Two glasses of water in a bucket are united.

My point is just that united doesn't imply incompleteness apart.

Some folks use their minds while others do not. Proof that not everyone uses their minds equally.

I agree.

 

[ActionJ]

Title: Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces
Subtitle: Struggling with homosexuality is a paradox, but embracing homosexuality is a contradiction.

Whoever wrote the subtitle for the article doesn't understand the meaning of, "paradox."

Also, how does a thread on the religious implications of same-sex marriage belong in the Ethics & Morality general society forum and not the Christian Ethics forum?

LOL. I learned quickly to just "go with the flow." I've had two warnings for literally being a Christian.

 

[ActionJ]

=Paradoxum;62821285]I wouldn't call you homophobic if you disagree with homosexuality. I'm also uneasy about calling those against LGBT rights bigots. I have family and friends who are like that, and they don't seem like bigots. Xenophobic also isn't a word I would use in a discussion about immigration.

But I do think the word sexist can apply when trying to push females or males into being a certain way. If it is just a statement of personal taste ("I like my men to be men) that is ok, but I think we should be more suspicious of claims about a genders objective role.

Considering the fact that God created two separate and distinct sexes makes Him the biggest "Sexist" of all. He specifically created Eve to be a helpmeet and wife to Adam. But He also makes it quite clear that a husband to is love and cherish his wife like Christ loved the Church. I happen to lift womanhood up on a pedestal but I don't consider men and women to be equal because it's clear that they aren't. I've simply learned not to question the intent of the Designer.

Yeah, but I'm not sure what that is meant to show. I agree that there tend to be physical differences. Maybe there tend to be psychological differences too. But I use the word 'tend' and don't apply it to all people one gender (and gender can be pretty fuzzy anyway).

I tend to speak in general terms when I discuss gender. Men are generally the bread winners while women are generally the bearers of children and the home organizers. I understand that that's not always the case in our modern society but the world's population is growing which would indicate that women are still bearing children at an exponential rate. Therefore, it would appear that gender identification isn't all that fuzzy where the world at large is concerned.

You would say that they aren't equal in height, you don't say they aren't equal.

That's only one example. Some folks are geniuses while others are slightly more -- shall we say -- challenged. Some people can paint beautiful portraits while others can balance an out of whack budget (you won't find the latter in Washington D.C.).

If you use the word that way no one is equal (because all are unique), so there is no point making the distinction between men and women. All are different anyway.

That's generally my point. We're not really equal but we should all be treated with a certain amount of respect and dignity (unless that privilege is obfuscated or shot down due to poor actions or criminal behavior).

Two glasses of water in a bucket are united.

My point is just that united doesn't imply incompleteness apart.

Well, as a Christian, I look at things from a biblical perspective. The Bible says that a man and woman come together in marriage and become one. Men and women generally offer different perspectives on life. When men and women are yoked together in a balanced relationship their different perspectives actually compliment one another.

 

[ebia]

Considering the fact that God created two separate and distinct sexes makes Him the biggest "Sexist" of all. He specifically created Eve to be a helpmeet and wife to Adam. But He also makes it quite clear that a husband to is love and cherish his wife like Christ loved the Church. I happen to lift womanhood up on a pedestal but I don't consider men and women to be equal because it's clear that they aren't. I've simply learned not to question the intent of the Designer.

While scripture doesn't say men and women are identical, it does overturn many assumptions about what the differences are, including many that are supposedly scriptural.

I tend to speak in general terms when I discuss gender. Men are generally the bread winners while women are generally the bearers of children and the home organizers.
I understand that that's not always the case in our modern society

It's not been the case in most societies. The idea that home and work are separate is largely a product of the industrialised world.

Well, as a Christian, I look at things from a biblical perspective. The Bible says that a man and woman come together in marriage and become one. Men and women generally offer different perspectives on life. When men and women are yoked together in a balanced relationship their different perspectives actually compliment one another.

That rather assumes that because one can make some sweeping generalities that those will be true of specific individuals. In practice not every woman would be the perfect complement to every man, nor two people of the same gender never complement each other.