When two worldviews collide.

[ralliann]

I was illustrating a point with that example, but for what it's worth, yes, I think at its roots it is a matter of thinking differently about sexuality. And in particular, how we understand the intersecting biological, psychological, relational and spiritual aspects of sexuality, and how each relates to ethics.

I'm not saying there aren't. What I'm saying is that making agreement on moral issues a litmus test for Christian identity is a relatively new approach.

Not true. The Church did not disagree with what was known as Noachide law. We are talking Noah here, and the covenant made with his son's and beyond, basically all humanity came through Noah. The Church fathers did not go against that. One thing that was curved was marriage, along with concubinage, etc. But other than that what did they change?

 

[Paidiske]

Would you call Eve satanic? All Mormons satanic?

I would be hesitant to use that word of anybody.

In my mind, there is a pretty clear distinction between being deceived by Satanic, being unwittingly influenced by Satan, and actually being satanic.

It might perhaps be helpful, then, to be as clear in the way you use language.

 

[ralliann]

And I would agree with Paidiske that it's essentially an adherence to the Nicene Creed (which I can still recite verbatim after all many these years). If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was sacrificed for our sins and was resurrected then...you're a Christian. Fundamentally, that's it. All else is open for discussion.

But the one thing I do when I I find something objectionable is ask myself: Does it cause harm? Am I annoyed, frustrated, disgusted, shocked? Possibly.

It isn't about how we feel and think, It is what God thinks.

But if it causes no harm, then...I have no right to object. I hold myself to that in all cases. And I expect others to do the same. Because if no harm is caused then guess how it can be described? Harmless.

And it depends on how you feel and think who is harmed is all.

 

[Paidiske]

Not true. The Church did not disagree with what was known as Noachide law. We are talking Noah here, and the covenant made with his son's and beyond, basically all humanity came through Noah. The Church fathers did not go against that. One thing that was curved was marriage, along with concubinage, etc. But other than that what did they change?

I see no evidence in the New Testament that Noachide law was a particular concern of Christ or the earliest church leaders. In fact, as I understand it, even Jewish systematisation of the Noachide law postdates Christ by several centuries. Possibly partly in response to the growing Christian community and its setting aside of Torah observance.

What we do see in Acts 15 is the setting of a sort of moral benchmark for gentiles, and it has four prohibitions; idolatry, sexual immorality, and eating blood or the flesh of strangled animals. (I note that Christianity has largely forgotten the last two). But for all the arguments that came later about post-baptismal sin, and restoration after apostasy, and so on, I maintain that a position that you're "not a real Christian" if you don't hold to particular moral convictions is a very new approach.

 

[Bradskii]

I say that when they insist we tolerate and celebrate in the name of Christianity sexuality that the Bible condemns and that Christianity has always regarded as depraved, they should expect to be called out.

Do you find that you get many gay people coming up to you and describing their sex life? I guess not. So I presume it's more 'You're gay so I know what you get up to! It's depraved!' Why are you so interested in what people do in their bedroom?

Let's that you had 100 people in a room and told them to put their hands up if they had recently done Sexual Act A. Hands go up. Sexual Act B? Hands go up again. Sexual Act C? Some different hands go up. You've been taking notes. Now...which of those 100 people are gay? You wouldn't have the foggiest idea. None whatsoever. All you'd know that as far as you are concerned there area lot of depraved people there. So why just pick on those who are gay? Easier target?

 

[ralliann]

I see no evidence in the New Testament that Noachide law was a particular concern of Christ or the earliest church leaders.

Exactly, they were not concerned with errror. Those councils were to address heresy. The church taught the same Morality as did, the Jews to Gentiles in their synagogues.

In fact, as I understand it, even Jewish systematisation of the Noachide law postdates Christ by several centuries.

So what? They were termed God fearing Gentiles, a more modern term, the righteous of the nations.

Possibly partly in response to the growing Christian community and its setting aside of Torah observance.

What we do see in Acts 15 is the setting of a sort of moral benchmark for gentiles, and it has four prohibitions; idolatry, sexual immorality, and eating blood or the flesh of strangled animals.

Right a strangled animal maintained the blood. Slitting the throat, let the heart pump out the blood. And of course it contnued to pump until it died.
The Council of acts also concerned addressing heresy of the judaizers as well. And we can see it concerned ritual purity.

(I note that Christianity has largely forgotten the last two). But for all the arguments that came later about post-baptismal sin, and restoration after apostasy, and so on, I maintain that a position that you're "not a real Christian" if you don't hold to particular moral convictions is a very new approach.

Again, this is not true. Hold to Moral convictions? You mean if you slip and sin? Repentance is there for us all. Because we all need it throughout our lives. But if you mean if you do not hold to what is sin and what isn't, that I would either call you confused, a wolf in sheep. clothing, sure.
Getting back to Noachide (i.e God fearing Gentiles)
They were always around and spoken to and of in Pauls missionary journey's. But acts makes clear the "from ancient times in every synagogue". Not just the synagogue of the freeman, etc. But every one. King Cyrus, Artaxeres, and Darius, Set that up. they wanted all in their realm to be taught the law of Israels God. And sent Ezra and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, and paid for it all. He was quite impressed with the God of Israel.

 

[timothyu]

It now seems to me that this satanic strategy has been extended throughout Christendom with great success.

You could say that a great portion of the church meant to represent the truth of God which ran contrary to the ways of the world and the governments of man, at one time turned around and joined forces with the Roman Empire, betraying one Kingdom for another aligning with opposing values. Is this what Jesus, or the Adversary would do? Remember that adversarial man killed Jesus thinking they ended this Godly takeover of their power but God showed them who is boss and it is only a matter of time before His will will be done, not ours and even this Christian institution will fall whereas the original movement following Jesus' two commandments will then thrive.

 

[Bradskii]

Are we talking in abstracts or about specifics? Are LGBTQ practices harmless so long as all participants are of consenting age and in do in fact consent? That to me would be an exceedingly narrow view of harm.

Specifics. Consenting age. Obviously. And why is that a 'narrow view'? This is an either/or question. Is it harmful? Yes? Then you might want to reconsider doing it. No? Then my apologies, it's nothing to do with me. Please carry on.

For that matter, as Christians I think it's reasonable to believe that practices specifically condemned by the Bible are harmful or God would not have condemned them...

As I said, it was a waste of your time writing that, and a waste of my time reading it.

...even if the harm isn't obvious to us. Once we start down the proverbial slippery slope of evaluating harm from our own perspective, and deciding for ourselves what should or shouldn't be acceptable regardless of what the Bible teaches, Christianity pretty much flies out the window.

Well the bible says that homosexuals dereserve to die. Would you like to decide whether that is something with which we should agree? Or is that a step onto the slippery slope?

And you don't look up every moral problem you come across and look for a definitive answer. IF this THEN that. The bible is a guide, not an instruction book. So it will be your call. You can quote a passage to back up your view if you like. But I'll want to know your reason for believing it to be the correct view. Without wasting my time.

 

[Bradskii]

It isn't about how we feel and think, It is what God thinks.

If you know the mind of God then we'll use you as the Oracle. You can be out guide to moral matters.

 

[ralliann]

If you know the mind of God then we'll use you as the Oracle. You can be out guide to moral matters.

Moses did just fine at that........
Ac 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Ro 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
1Pe 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Bradskii]

Moses did just fine at that........
Ac 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Ro 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
1Pe 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

He's not around. We'll have to use you.

 

[ralliann]

He's not around. We'll have to use you.

You have a minister here you appear to like her oracles of God, Let her speak them.

 

[Paidiske]

Cite me to one example in my posts above where I referred to anyone as satanic. You can't. I referred to a "satanic strategy" to influence Christianity in a superficially appealing but counterfeit direction - period.

Yes, a satanic strategy to make counterfeit churches. By logical extension of that argument, Christians in those churches are satanic counterfeit Christians.

So why just pick on those who are gay? Easier target?

I do think there's something to this. We know, for example, that the use of pornography is absolutely endemic in our churches. Most men and a fair proportion of women in our churches, including ministers/pastors, use pornography regularly. But for all the folks railing about LGBTIQA+ stuff, there's deafening silence on what is actually by far the more prevalent (and, I'd argue, far more damaging) problem.

Exactly, they were not concerned with errror. Those councils were to address heresy.

?? The council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 was convened to address exactly the issue of what precepts of the law ought to be binding on gentile believers. Need they be circumcised? Keep Sabbath? Keep food laws? And so on. The answer they came up with does not align with later ideas about Noachide law.

The church taught the same Morality as did, the Jews to Gentiles in their synagogues.

I'm not sure that's true. They would agree about idolatry and largely about sexual morality (although even there there would be differences due to the Christians not adopting the purity code). Beyond that, there was a lot of divergence.

Again, this is not true.

I'd like to see some sources to support your position, then.

Hold to Moral convictions? You mean if you slip and sin?

No. I mean differences of opinion about what was or was not a sin. These were not generally considered serious enough to rise to the level of accusations of being "not a real Christian" despite disagreement.

But if you mean if you do not hold to what is sin and what isn't, that I would either call you confused, a wolf in sheep. clothing, sure.

You realise Christians have been disagreeing about what is or isn't sin for two millennia? That doesn't make either side of any given debate either confused or a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Getting back to Noachide (i.e God fearing Gentiles)
They were always around and spoken to and of in Pauls missionary journey's.

"Always" might be a bit of a stretch, but sure, in Roman times there were god-fearing gentiles attached to synagogues. What I'm disputing is the idea that there was a clearly established sense of a "Noachide law" applying to all people at that time. That developed later.

I don't have a prophetic gift, nor do I pretend to speak on behalf of God. I'm only a human being, doing the best I can with the gifts and wisdom God has given to me.

 

[timothyu]

By logical extension of that argument, Christians in those churches are satanic counterfeit Christians.

Most often not purposely but only because some blind have been lead by the blind through tradition, right? Sometimes we have to go back to the very beginning to even realize we've gone off track.

 

[Paidiske]

Most often not purposely but only because some blind have been lead by the blind through tradition, right?

I reject the notion that they're "counterfeit" Christians at all.

 

[Bradskii]

You have a minister here you appear to like her oracles of God, Let her speak them.

I tend towards people who express doubts. I'm not a fan of absolute certainty. Check my signatures for examples. Who wants an oracle who says 'Mm, I'm not really sure about that'. But you appear to know exactly what God wants. So I guess you're it.

 

[timothyu]

I reject the notion that they're "counterfeit" Christians at all.

All of mankind is a counterfeit version of the original is it not? Looks like the original but made over with an adversarial flaw.

 

[ralliann]

.

?? The council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 was convened to address exactly the issue of what precepts of the law ought to be binding on gentile believers. Need they be circumcised? Keep Sabbath? Keep food laws? And so on. The answer they came up with does not align with later ideas about Noachide law.

That is because they did not need to because it was about judaizing. The question surrounded becoming a Jew, keeping laws specifically to commanded Jews. They were not addressing Gentile law, they did not need to.

I'm not sure that's true. They would agree about idolatry and largely about sexual morality (although even there there would be differences due to the Christians not adopting the purity code). Beyond that, there was a lot of divergence.

Divergence concerning what? A Gentile sojourning in Isreal, or bringing an offering etc . The discussion did not concern that. Which when in the land they were keep the Sabbath etc. The council was not addressing Gentiles sojourning in the land. So you agree concerning sexual morality.... but then say

I'd like to see some sources to support your position, then.

No. I mean differences of opinion about what was or was not a sin.

For Gentiles in their own lands?

These were not generally considered serious enough to rise to the level of accusations of being "not a real Christian" despite disagreement.

You realise Christians have been disagreeing about what is or isn't sin for two millennia?

Perhaps in areas of worship in the new covenant. Icons, etc. Can you give any examples that homosexual activity is not sin was an accepted teaching in the Church?

That doesn't make either side of any given debate either confused or a wolf in sheep's clothing.

"Always" might be a bit of a stretch, but sure, in Roman times there were god-fearing gentiles attached to synagogues. What I'm disputing is the idea that there was a clearly established sense of a "Noachide law" applying to all people at that time. That developed later.

I don't have a prophetic gift, nor do I pretend to speak on behalf of God. I'm only a human being, doing the best I can with the gifts and wisdom God has given to me.

Nobody is saying that? The Church however is to be teachers from God to us. Nobody brought up being a prophet.
But what is going on now has gone beyond mere disagreement. People being legally punished in loss of their livelihood.
Noachide law, is simply another term for God fearing Gentiles is all.

 

[Paidiske]

All of mankind is a counterfeit version of the original is it not?

No! Wounded, perhaps. But not counterfeit. Our original goodness is not gone. It merely awaits the recovery of God's good purposes in creation.

 

[ralliann]

I tend towards people who express doubts. I'm not a fan of absolute certainty. Check my signatures for examples. Who wants an oracle who says 'Mm, I'm not really sure about that'. But you appear to know exactly what God wants. So I guess you're it.

Oh, so I am telling you I know exactly what God wants. And I am it. give me a break. It was about what the Church has and has not taught, and what Judaism has taught. And speaking about that makes it me. Sure....