When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

Oh, so I am telling you I know exactly what God wants. And I am it. give me a break.

So you might be wrong? Good to hear. I like a little doubt. Good for the soul to admit to it.

 

[timothyu]

Our original goodness is not gone.

No it's not but we learned it was a two sided coin and we took it upon ourselves to determine what was good to serve our purposes. . But for the most part it most often serves the wrong master because man does not realize we have become an adversarial being, serving our own will rather than God's. We do have it within us to serve the right master though.

 

[Paidiske]

Divergence concerning what?

As noted, for example, circumcision, sabbath keeping, food laws, and so on. These were moral issues for the Jews of the day.

For Gentiles in their own lands?

For anyone. Even in Christ's time, different rabbinic schools had different views about how to interpret and apply particular laws. We see that early Christians continued to disagree, from the earliest times (see the argument about eating meat offered to idols, for example). Christians have never had an undisputed complete agreement on every moral or ethical question. You could take samples at any point in the church's history and find raging debates.

Can you give any examples that homosexual activity is not sin was an accepted teaching in the Church?

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

But what is going on now has gone beyond mere disagreement. People being legally punished in loss of their livelihood.

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Noachide law, is simply another term for God fearing Gentiles is all.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

 

[ralliann]

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

A practicing homosexual was considered a Christian? Thay denied it was sin was Christian? Do you have anything to show that?

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It should never happen. And it is noy rare here in America. Our kids are having this stuff shoved down their throats. And why is that not pushing their views on people that disagree with them? That is what is happening now.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

It can be harmful both ways.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

As I said, The council was about judaizing, so what the Church was about, was that which was not specific for jew's.

As noted, for example, circumcision, sabbath keeping, food laws, and so on. These were moral issues for the Jews of the day.

For anyone. Even in Christ's time, different rabbinic schools had different views about how to interpret and apply particular laws. We see that early Christians continued to disagree, from the earliest times (see the argument about eating meat offered to idols, for example). Christians have never had an undisputed complete agreement on every moral or ethical question. You could take samples at any point in the church's history and find raging debates.

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

As noted, for example, circumcision, sabbath keeping, food laws, and so on. These were moral issues for the Jews of the day.

For anyone. Even in Christ's time, different rabbinic schools had different views about how to interpret and apply particular laws. We see that early Christians continued to disagree, from the earliest times (see the argument about eating meat offered to idols, for example). Christians have never had an undisputed complete agreement on every moral or ethical question. You could take samples at any point in the church's history and find raging debates.

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

As noted, for example, circumcision, sabbath keeping, food laws, and so on. These were moral issues for the Jews of the day.

For anyone. Even in Christ's time, different rabbinic schools had different views about how to interpret and apply particular laws. We see that early Christians continued to disagree, from the earliest times (see the argument about eating meat offered to idols, for example). Christians have never had an undisputed complete agreement on every moral or ethical question. You could take samples at any point in the church's history and find raging debates.

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

The problem here is in my post I thought made it clear that the council was about judaizing. Therefore Rabbinic judaism and how they approached to proselytize Gentiles. The seven Noachide laws were for all Gentiles.

As noted, for example, circumcision, sabbath keeping, food laws, and so on. These were moral issues for the Jews of the day.

For anyone. Even in Christ's time, different rabbinic schools had different views about how to interpret and apply particular laws. We see that early Christians continued to disagree, from the earliest times (see the argument about eating meat offered to idols, for example). Christians have never had an undisputed complete agreement on every moral or ethical question. You could take samples at any point in the church's history and find raging debates.

No, nor am I claiming that. What I am arguing is that, historically, Christians have not seen disagreement about moral or ethical matters as making those with whom one disagrees, "not real Christians."

In the rare instances that that happens, what I've seen is that it's not just about people disagreeing. It's about people insisting on pushing their views in their workplace, in a way which impinges harmfully on others.

It seems to me, that a large part of the problem in these discussions, is that Christians refuse to see that their speech and actions can actually be harmful, even when they think they're doing the right thing.

Ah, no. Noachide law is quite a systematic approach, and a product of Rabbinic Judaism. It would be anachronistic to project that back onto NT God-fearing gentiles.

You are bringing judaizing into it. The apostles rejected that. These may have had certain laws they had to keep in order to bring a sacrifice to the temple etc,. Which if the temple existed to day and we were to go and do sacrifice, we would have to jeep certain laws which apply concerning that.

Chabad.org
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid...

The 7 Noahide Laws: Universal Morality - Chabad.org​

WebWhat Are the Seven Noahide Laws? The 7 Noahide Laws are rules that all of us must keep, regardless of who we are or from where we come. Without these seven things, it would be impossible for humanity to live together in harmony. Do not profane G‑d’s Oneness in any …

 

[Paidiske]

A practicing homosexual was considered a Christian? Thay denied it was sin was Christian? Do you have anything to show that?

Don't misunderstand me; they were seen as not very obedient Christians. But in much the same way as people who did all sorts of less-than-ideal things were seen as not very obedient Christians. They weren't seen as somehow not Christian, simply on those grounds. Or at least, I have never come across such an argument being made prior to perhaps the very late 20th century. If you have a historical source that demonstrates otherwise, I'd be very interested to see it.

It should never happen.

Well, sorry, I can't agree. One shouldn't, for example, be able to bully one's coworkers and then claim freedom of religion to do so, without consequences.

Our kids are having this stuff shoved down their throats. And why is that not pushing their views on people that disagree with them?

There's a very big difference between being aware of, and having to navigate, a complex social world; and trying to force conformity to moral norms.

Our kids are being made aware of things like same-sex marriage, like gender transitions, and so on. Why? Because this is part of their social landscape. They'll be at school with someone with two parents of the same sex. Someone they know will transition. You can't hide it from them, and you need to equip them to interact appropriately with the people around them.

That doesn't force any particular theological anthropology, or consequent moral views, on anyone. You can equip your kids with whatever worldview you like. But we all still need to be able to study, work, and engage socially with the people around us.

It can be harmful both ways.

Well, at least acknowledging our potential to do harm is a start.

As I said, The council was about judaizing, so what the Church was about, was that which was not specific for jew's.

Yes. My point was, "Noachide law," as a sort of codified understanding of that, hadn't been developed yet. It came centuries later.

You are bringing judaizing into it.

No; I'm pointing out that there were competing moral visions, in the context in which earliest Christianity developed, and continuously afterwards.

 

[Robban]

For every spiritual malady there is cure, except - pride.

 

[Whyayeman]

No, Judaism always looked to the anointed one that ruled all.
They just thought it was through Judaism and circumcision is all.

First, I don't think you are right here. The Jews rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. It is rather obvious that the early Christians were exceptional.

(The second sentence does not make sense. I don't think you know much about Judaism.)

 

[ralliann]

Don't misunderstand me; they were seen as not very obedient Christians. But in much the same way as people who did all sorts of less-than-ideal things were seen as not very obedient Christians. They weren't seen as somehow not Christian, simply on those grounds. Or at least, I have never come across such an argument being made prior to perhaps the very late 20th century. If you have a historical source that demonstrates otherwise, I'd be very interested to see it.

Well, sorry, I can't agree. One shouldn't, for example, be able to bully one's coworkers and then claim freedom of religion to do so, without consequences.

There's a very big difference between being aware of, and having to navigate, a complex social world; and trying to force conformity to moral norms.

Our kids are being made aware of things like same-sex marriage, like gender transitions, and so on. Why? Because this is part of their social landscape. They'll be at school with someone with two parents of the same sex. Someone they know will transition. You can't hide it from them, and you need to equip them to interact appropriately with the people around them.

That doesn't force any particular theological anthropology, or consequent moral views, on anyone. You can equip your kids with whatever worldview you like. But we all still need to be able to study, work, and engage socially with the people around us.

Well, at least acknowledging our potential to do harm is a start.

Yes. My point was, "Noachide law," as a sort of codified understanding of that, hadn't been developed yet. It came centuries later.

No; I'm pointing out that there were competing moral visions, in the context in which earliest Christianity developed, and continuously afterwards.

Don't misunderstand me; they were seen as not very obedient Christians. But in much the same way as people who did all sorts of less-than-ideal things were seen as not very obedient Christians. They weren't seen as somehow not Christian, simply on those grounds. Or at least, I have never come across such an argument being made prior to perhaps the very late 20th century. If you have a historical source that demonstrates otherwise, I'd be very interested to see it.

The Churches that set the essentials of the historic faith, still put homosexual practice a sin.
You have provided nothing to prove your claims, that they thought such teaching and practice was/is Christian.

Well, sorry, I can't agree. One shouldn't, for example, be able to bully one's coworkers and then claim freedom of religion to do so, without consequences.

The only argument concerning bullying are those which force their views on Christians which disagree with them.

There's a very big difference between being aware of, and having to navigate, a complex social world; and trying to force conformity to moral norms.

Our kids are being made aware of things like same-sex marriage, like gender transitions, and so on. Why? Because this is part of their social landscape. They'll be at school with someone with two parents of the same sex. Someone they know will transition. You can't hide it from them, and you need to equip them to interact appropriately with the people around them.

"Our kids"? The parents of these kids, who disagree with you think those kids are their kids. And are being called all kinds of names for that.

kids"
That doesn't force any particular theological anthropology, or consequent moral views, on anyone. You can equip your kids with whatever worldview you like. But we all still need to be able to study, work, and engage socially with the people around us.

Well, at least acknowledging our potential to do harm is a start.

Yes. My point was, "Noachide law," as a sort of codified understanding of that, hadn't been developed yet. It came centuries later.

No; I'm pointing out that there were competing moral visions, in the context in which earliest Christianity developed, and continuously afterwards.

You have not provided any evidence for this. While the Churches we know were there, are here today. The East and West. Even here on the forums none seem to say what you say.
So, while you speak of harm and hurtful ways of speaking, telling parents their Children are "our children", has been harmful as well. And no matter how you dance around this, that is the issue here. Forcing people in ways that are very harmful.

 

[timothyu]

This whole transition thing has been carefully constructed in order to get society, especially the youth used to the idea of human transition as the powers that be seek to upgrade God's creation and combine humanity with tech, not so much with tech combined with humans to help their disabilities and the like, but to add humans to tech itself to give tech the ability to say it was created in our own image literally. We have been in our present form deemed inferior and obsolete, and the Adversary wishes better for us than God figured was necessary. But for now feel free to fight over transition in another form. It's irrelevance will become obvious soon enough.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This whole transition thing has been carefully constructed in order to get society, especially the youth used to the idea of human transition as the powers that be...

"Powers that be"? Who exactly would that be?

 

[ralliann]

"Powers that be"? Who exactly would that be?

Politicians, I would think.

 

[timothyu]

"Powers that be"? Who exactly would that be?

The centralized global government of Corporatism. As an example, the WHO recently stated that they had to go begging for 70% of their funding beyond what any governments gave them. That means private sector. They then stated the obvious that in return these contributors would have a say in how the WHO was run. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation apparently supplies 88% of this extra funding giving them total control over the WHO for their own purposes. And now as we speak we are seeing a power grab whereas the WHO makes itself the world governing body on health and almost all nations are agreeing to give them the power to control our every move in times of health crises as we saw being done in the recent red flag event. A non elected government has set itself up as the authority over all and a corporation calls its shots, just as they do all shots in the world today. Just as global digital currency gives them the power to say who may buy or sell, now the global government of Corporatism, can force complete quarantine of any segment of world population in times of crisis, most likely when people catch onto their game and find it time to rebel. America, Canada, Europe, Britain all are at tis moment signing over control to the WHO which serves Corporatism as they all in unison proclaim the cry of building back better for the new centralized government..

 

[ralliann]

You are talking through your hat. FYI, there is not ONE incident in my entire life where I have "picked on" any homosexual person or cared whether any coworker, acquaintance, friend or family member was homosexual. As it happens, one of my closet friends, now dead, was an openly homosexual man. His sexuality was of utterly no consequence to our friendship. There is not ONE time in my entire life that I have so much as commented on someone's sexuality, let alone confronted or harassed someone on this basis. The LGBTQblahblahblah movement would not even be a blip on my radar screen if (1) they weren't aggressively demanding that society normalize and celebrate their lifestyle and (2) a large swath of ostensible Christianity weren't buying into their normalization/celebration demands in direct contravention of the biblical teachings

As is so typical of the supposedly tolerant woke mindset, you blithely assume you know who I am when you in fact don't have the faintest idea and place me in some little box that fits your smug, intolerant notions of what every believer "must" be like.

The OT codes were strict and harsh for reasons sufficient to God. If God wanted His chosen people to be as pure as they could possibly be, so be it. Had I been an ancient Israelite, I would have participated in putting homosexuals to death in accordance with God's command. We are not ancient Israelites. We are not subject to the Levitical commands. Jesus' treatment of the woman taken in adultery makes this clear.

You apparently evaluate "harm" solely at the level of the beasts. Even at that level, homosexuality is significantly risky. But FAR beyond that, I believe homosexuals are doing great psychological and spiritual harm to themselves. FAR FAR beyond that, their demands for society in general and Christianity in particular to normalize and celebrate their lifestyle is doing incalculable harm, to a degree that I firmly believe is indicative of satanic influence. To the extent they are successful, the harm to God's plan for humanity and to the Christian faith will be magnified. The LGBTQblahblahblah movement is, IMO, one of numerous ways that 2 Timothy 3 is unfolding before our very eyes.

I am unable to fathom why you refuse recognize the distinction between people who lack discernment or are deceived by Satan and those who are satanic. I happen to believe the LDS Church, which I have studied in great depth, is Exhibit A for a satanic counterfeit. Yet I know many, many Mormons, including for a time my late sister, and I would not describe any of them in terms such as evil or satanic. They lack discernment and have been deceived. God will decide on an individual basis the fate of each them.

Like Bradskii, you appear to have an agenda to make the positions of mainstream believers such as myself seem as extreme and unnuanced as possible. You have repeatedly mischaracterized what I have said.

Is "inappropriate contentography" some clumsy CF buzzphrase? The only use of that phrase I can find via Google is on CF. Weird.

In any event, what you say is absolutely false. Such addiction even among pastors is a MAJOR, MAJOR topic within mainstream Christianity. If you think there is a "deafening silence," you need to get out more.

I have stated that I believe the railing against homosexuality and transgenderism rings somewhat hollow in light of the lack of similar focus on cohabitation, adultery, unbiblical divorce and similar sins. On the other hand, no one is aggressively arguing for the other sins to be normalized, celebrated and integrated into the faith. No one is aggressively attempting to force the promotion of those sins at the earliest stages of the educational system. There are fundamental differences that I believe go a long way toward justifying the focus on the LGBTQblahblahblah movement. To the extent there is hypocrisy, the answer is greater focus on the other sins - not lesser focus on homosexuality and transgenderism.

As for the old testament death penalty, the practices of the pagans around about Israel, were cruel indeed. Some want to point to the death penalty under the law. Overlooking the cruel practices of burning their children was horrific, that God was bringing judgement upon. God, wanted and demanded Israel Remain holy (set apart) from that. There is this aspect to your observations in the post, to the discussions against Christians. Focus on one side and how awful they/we are.

 

[timothyu]

God, wanted and demanded Israel Remain holy (set apart) from that.

We need to remember that since before the creation of man God was waging war with rebellious forces within the elohim. This continued in the Garden before and after the flood, right through to Jesus' crucifixion. God had set aside the Hebrew people composed of the 12 tribes as His own while all the rest fell under the jurisdiction of rebellious elohim, the other false wannabee gods. Even the promised land was theirs before the arrival of the desert chosen people. Any deaths upon the people of the elohim were of no consequence to God. Once Jesus fulfilled His obligations all peoples in the lands of the still authoritative elohim were now free to become chosen people rather than enemies of God. God even confirmed this by scattering the last territories of His chosen Hebrews. The world had become the source of those who would join Him in his new promised land of not Israel, but the Kingdom to come.

 

[ralliann]

We need to remember that since before the creation of man God was waging war with rebellious forces within the elohim. This continued in the Garden before and after the flood, right through to Jesus' crucifixion. God had set aside the Hebrew people composed of the 12 tribes as His own while all the rest fell under the jurisdiction of rebellious elohim, the other false wannabee gods. Even the promised land was theirs before the arrival of the desert chosen people. Any deaths upon the people of the elohim were of no consequence to God. Once Jesus fulfilled His obligations all peoples in the lands of the still authoritative elohim were now free to become chosen people rather than enemies of God. God even confirmed this by scattering the last territories of His chosen Hebrews. The world had become the source of those who would join Him in his new promised land of not Israel, but the Kingdom to come.

What does that have to do with focusing on the death penalty in the old testament. Doing so without a full picture of the practices of Pagan worship?

 

[timothyu]

What does that have to do with focusing on the death penalty in the old testament. Doing so without a full picture of the practices of Pagan worship?

Who did these people represent? Who did they belong to?

 

[Bradskii]

As it happens, one of my closet friends, now dead, was an openly homosexual man.

Gee, some of your best friends are gays. Is that meant as a get-out-of-jail-card? So when you were out for a beer with your friend, did you tell him hey, you'll laugh at this, but if we were living in Israel a couple of millennium ago, get this...I would have killed you because you were gay!

Had I been an ancient Israelite, I would have participated in putting homosexuals to death in accordance with God's command.

Maybe if he'd expressed astonishment, you could mention some more biblical passages as someone has already done in a similar thread and quote Romans 1-29: ...that those who do such things deserve death. He'll see then that it's God's command. You can't be held accountable for it. Shame on anyone who suggests it!

How do you think he would have reacted? And that's a serious question. I'd like to know what you think.

You apparently evaluate "harm" solely at the level of the beasts.

At the level of the beasts? What on earth is that meant to mean? Harm is harm. Be it physical and/or psychological. And anyone who is doing something that harms themselves either physically or psychologically might be best advised to stop. That applies to everyone. But maybe you have some information that you can share. Not info on any given gay person who is having psychological problems. But that simply by being gay causes them. How does being in love with someone who is the same sex cause that?

And what's this about physical harm? Are we back to sex again? Maybe you've got some tips on safe sex? They'll apply to everyone who has sex, but it should solve that problem.

 

[ralliann]

Gee, some of your best friends are gays. Is that meant as a get-out-of-jail-card? So when you were out for a beer with your friend, did you tell him hey, you'll laugh at this, but if we were living in Israel a couple of millennium ago, get this...I would have killed you because you were gay!

Not if they would not live there. Israelites were not prisoners to their own country. How many gay's left there, who knows.

 

[Bradskii]

How would my friend have reacted if I'd discussed the biblical passages with him? No, that isn't a serious question and you aren't interested in what I think.

I am most definitely interested in what you think. And this is not a game. How do you think that reasonable people are meant to react when you plainly say that under certain circumstances you would have put gay people to death simply for being gay? It's an atrocious comment. Any reasonable person should be shocked. So how do you think gay people would react? And to be specific, how do you think your gay friend would have reacted if he'd have read that? Shrug of the shoulders? Ah, well - lucky we don't live back then? Maybe he didn't really mean it? Or would he have been as equally shocked?

Perhaps you might actually read Romans 1:29-32. The "deserving of death" passage refers to far more than homosexuality:

The above would not have described my homosexual friend - not by a long shot.

No. But this might in verse 27: In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Well, how would you know if it did apply or not? Maybe it didn't. I doubt whether he would be discussing his sex life with you, so you wouldn't know. And why not? Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with you. What people do in their own bedrooms, be they straight or gay is none of your business.

In regard to my "level of the beasts" remark, your suggestion was that the harm of homosexuality should be viewed strictly in terms of whether the participants are of consenting age and do in fact consent.

I referred to the fact that if harm is not caused then there is no reason to argue against something. I already specified that we are talking about consensual sex. Obviously. And whatever type of sex. Strict missionary position, swinging from the chandeliers or whatever you quaintly term 'barnyard sex' actually is. But in any case, you're not going to know what type it is because, here we go again...it is nothing whatsoever to do with you. And if no harm is being caused either physically or psychologically, then you have no cause for concern. None at all.

But again, if you have evidence that simply being gay has a negative affect psychologically then present it.

If they do, they are welcome to insert any bodily part into any bodily orifice of a same-sex partner if it makes them happy.

Thanks for your permission.

Your perspective ignores the psychological...

Present some evidence that would back that up if you could. Thanks in advance....

and spiritual dimensions...

Remember I said I'd ignore comments like that?

...and the actual and potential consequences of the LGBTQblahblahblah movement for society in general and the Christian faith in particular.

Being gay and having sex has consequences? Let me know what you consider they might be.

 

[Paidiske]

The Churches that set the essentials of the historic faith, still put homosexual practice a sin.
You have provided nothing to prove your claims, that they thought such teaching and practice was/is Christian.

No, again, you are missing my point.

I am saying that people who dissented from the mainstream view on this point, were not therefore considered to be "not Christian," no matter how much their behaviour or ideas were condemned.

The only argument concerning bullying are those which force their views on Christians which disagree with them.

No. For example, if you have a gay co-worker, and you either in words, or in visual images, or on social media that they can see, etc, share messages about how their marriage is not a real marriage, that's a form of workplace bullying.

"Our kids"? The parents of these kids, who disagree with you think those kids are their kids.

You've lost me here...

You have not provided any evidence for this.

What, that Christianity has never been a monolith on moral issues? The most basic glance at church history will show you all sorts of debates on moral issues, all down through the centuries. Some will seem peculiar to us today, because in our context they're non-issues.

But here's a contemporary example in my own church. If you talk to people in western countries on marriage issues and so forth, sexuality is the presenting issue. If you talk to our North African brothers and sisters, the hot-button moral issue around marriage is actually... polygamy. Because in their societies, both Islam and traditional practices allow for polygamy. So their raging debate is how to deal with converts to Christianity in polygamous marriages, and whether to force the break up of those families or not. And how to speak to wider society about the need for monogamy. Amazingly, there's a diversity of views. And - here's the kicker - none of them are claiming those with whom they disagree are "not a real Christian" for holding different views.

I am unable to fathom why you refuse recognize the distinction between people who lack discernment or are deceived by Satan and those who are satanic.

If one is deceived by Satan, to the point of doing as Satan would wish, is that not satanic? I think the distinction is one of degree rather than quality, at most.

Is "inappropriate contentography" some clumsy CF buzzphrase?

The filter appears to have edited what I actually wrote.

In any event, what you say is absolutely false. Such addiction even among pastors is a MAJOR, MAJOR topic within mainstream Christianity. If you think there is a "deafening silence," you need to get out more.

I don't see one tiniest fraction of angst or hand-wringing over it, compared to the angst over sexuality. If I were a cynic, I might be tempted to say, but hey, mainstream "inappropriate contentography" is mostly about the exploitation of women, so, that doesn't challenge the status quo nearly so much.

As to whether early Christians and Jews condemned both homosexual orientation and practice, I'd argue they condemned the practice but had no concept of sexual orientation. That is a much, much later (20th century) understanding. Basically, the ancient world saw people who had sex with people of the same sex as what we would call "straight" people so inflamed with lust they became undiscriminating in their desire. The idea of orientation in itself is a massive shift in our understanding of the human person (and human development).