Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to WELL THEN I'LL COME IN ON JANE'S OPINION TOO
oh yeah - be fruitful and multiply
well, when you have just two people on earth -- or eight, in the case of Moses and his family -- that would be a pretty good suggestion.
But when you 6 billion -- and many are suffering from starvation and disease, mainly due to overpopulation.
I would think the Godly thing to do would be to stem that population growth, particularly in South and Central America, where the prevailing Church turns its back on overpopulation.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 4, 2005 at 6:36 AM
| link to this | reply
steelerman61
let's take the Book of Leviticus -- I want to ask you a few questions
do you refrain from eating pork and catfish and shrimp and crab and lobster and other unclean meats?
do you observe Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Yom Kippur and the Feast of Tabernacles?
Do you advocate everything in that book?
If we are not to pick and choose, then the entire book of Leviticus must be observed, not just one passage.
If you can say that you advocate everything in the Book of Leviticus, then I think we all can agree that the passage that condemns homosexuality could in fact be valid -- but only to those that accept the whole book.
As far as population control is concerned -- it happens whether we want it to or not. Some is biological, women being infertile for instance.
Some is from outside sources -- Bubonic Plague being one form, and other viral, bacterial, fungal and extra-organic diseases.
If we don't control the population ourselves, it looks like God will do it for us in the form of all these diseases.
As far as being in left field -- that's a term to connote being way outside the bounds of the society in which one lives. A larger percentage of society now believes that homosexuality is NOT a sin. The Disciples of Christ and the Episcopal Church, among others, accept homosexuality.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 4, 2005 at 6:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Empty Handed Painter...
By eliminating the Old Testament, you are picking and choosing yourself. I, also, find your last sentence very interesting because if that was true then "be fruitful and multiply" must mean something completely different. You are wrong again, pal. Oh, by the way, there are many difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship.Just to name one example of many, I have never seen a child conceived in the anal cavity. Not once! Ever! Gee, wonder why? Your thoughts and beliefs are really out in left field. I wonder what your beliefs are about abortion.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on February 3, 2005 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
re: homosexuality
Let's drop any Old Testament references entirely.
That is because we either accept all of the Old Testament or none of it -- that is, Leviticus in particular. It has been emphasized over and over innumerable times that this book is archaic, with laws and precepts that everyone today would reject outright (with the exception of clean and unclean meats and holy days [which are observed by various Christian groups]).
To bring an excerpt, then, from the Book of Leviticus, you must then admit that you are picking and choosing what you will accept from that book -- or you are saying that the entire book must be accepted, and if this latter is the case, then you need to form a whole new religion that then has all these elements in it.
The point I will reiterate as far as the New Testament is concerned is that the writers condemned "abuse". That's all. Abuse can be found in heterosexual relationships and in homosexual relationships -- it can be found in any human interaction and intercourse.
Especially in Corinth, the homosexual activity was abusive. I explained this -- if a person were to rise above the common masses, he had to incur the favor of the elite, and in order to do that, he had to attend parties where, for one thing, there was meat -- virtually the only meat to be had, which was bought from the temples where that meat had been sacrificed to idols -- then for another, men were forced and coerced into homosexual activity. This was the known activity of the time. This is what the New Testament writers were referring to.
The conclusion here is that God does NOT condemn homosexuality that is a good relationship, a relationship that (besides the participants being of the same gender) is no different than a hetersexual.
Biology and genetics have demonstrated time and time again that homosexuality is not aberrant behavior; rather, it is as much a part of a species as is heterosexuality.
Heck, it may even be beneficial to the species as a whole in that it helps to maintain a lower population.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 2, 2005 at 6:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Empty Handed Painter...
I just noticed this one, sorry I missed this earlier but I guess "your" Jesus or "your" God says homosexuality is okay?!
posted by
RedStatesMan
on February 1, 2005 at 8:42 PM
| link to this | reply
After reading Steelerman's comments
I think that they (he) believe(s) that anytime someone comes up with some real evidence; that they are somehow mocking Jesus or dicrediting him by doing so. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If anything, you are discrediting the people who "wrote" the Bible, not neccessarily the "word of God".
posted by
David1Spirit
on January 29, 2005 at 11:13 AM
| link to this | reply
O.T.
I will be the first (been plenty before me) to say that there are valid points in the Old Testament. It doesn't take much to find them.
THE SONG OF SOLOMON comes to mind first --
Then there are passages (mainly in the prophets) where the author rails against those who hoard their riches and don't provide for the widow and orphan (there's a requirement for tithing in order to ameliorate this) and doesn't leave some behind in their fields for strangers and the poor etc.
There is the premise behind the Ten Commandments ("precepts" per Strong's lexicon), not stealing or perjuring or slandering or taking another's life or even desiring another's possessions extremely, etc. Even the first three, which pertain to YHVH, meaning Existence, which can be distilled down to one, are aimed at turning the recipient toward considering Existence and all that it entails.
The Fourth has a twofold purpose -- that of having the recipient take time to consider Existence, and giving a day of rest. Without such precept, employers would work their employees to exhaustion.
But we have to be careful. There are eternal precepts and then there are temporary. Leviticus is jam packed with temporary, which is evident, if not obvious, to whoever reads intently.
Any argument using Leviticus has a problem from the outset. The question must be posed: can you pick and choose? or Does the entire book of Leviticus stand? or is it an obsolete tome?
We must honestly answer these questions.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 21, 2005 at 7:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Begs the question
Painter written a really great post! Really got some good discussion going.
Here is my question, which Pinter addresses a bit when people write "Christian" exactly what/who do they mean?
I'd consider anyone a Christian who either:
1) follows the teachings of Christ without formally joining a church
or
2) is a practicing member of any Christian Church-- to name a few Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Church of England, Lutheran, and many, many others.
What do others think?
barnabee
BTW: I don't think homosexuality is a sin. And no, I'm not gay.
posted by
barnabee
on January 20, 2005 at 10:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Painter
We do not discount the Old Testament at all. Jesus is in the Bible from page 1 to the last page. It is not about denomination. God does not care what group you belong to He wants you to be of the Word. Just because Jesus did not talk about homosexuality doesn't mean it was not spoken against in his stead by Paul. We who profess to be Christians only disagree because some do want to take out the parts they don't like. Can't do that!
posted by
Justi
on January 20, 2005 at 10:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes painter,
you're right. I guess I missed that. If one does not consider homosexuality to be a sin, then Jesus' command to the woman to leave her life of sin would not apply to homosexuals. True. But you haven't changed my opinion on the homosexual lifestyle. I've seen too much about it that is wrong . . . but I'm not going down that rabbit trail at this moment.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on January 20, 2005 at 12:27 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmmi
18 is the legal age in some states
not where you are?
have a coffee then. I suggest the dingiest, most rundown greasy spoon you can find -- that's where the best coffe is.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 20, 2005 at 9:20 AM
| link to this | reply
well, we are almost in agreement
if you read my post, then you will understand that I cannot see where homosexuality is a sin.
the Apostle Paul's and other New Testament writings are directed at practices of the day which were, in reality, abusive, and were not at all like the homosexuality that you can see around you if you search for it.
at that time, in order to be accepted into other than the lowest eschelon of society, one had to submit to homosexual practices. this is far different than what we call consenting adults today.
this has been hashed over and over again on Blogit -- with several people coming down in favor of homosexuality -- showing certain scriptural revelations that counter what a lot of Christians believe concerning homosexuality.
I think any valid discussion of the subject should start with searching for the term on blogit and reading several pros and cons, particularly pros(I have read the cons and the scriptures involved) to become more informed.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 20, 2005 at 9:19 AM
| link to this | reply
well, we are almost in agreement
if you read my post, then you will understand that I cannot see where homosexuality is a sin.
the Apostle Paul's and other New Testament writings are directed at practices of the day which were, in reality, abusive, and were not at all like the homosexuality that you can see around you if you search for it.
at that time, in order to be accepted into other than the lowest eschelon of society, one had to submit to homosexual practices. this is far different than what we call consenting adults today.
this has been hashed over and over again on Blogit -- with several people coming down in favor of homosexuality -- showing certain scriptural revelations that counter what a lot of Christians believe concerning homosexuality.
I think any valid discussion of the subject should start with searching for the term on blogit and reading several pros and cons, particularly pros(I have read the cons and the scriptures involved) to become more informed.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 20, 2005 at 9:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Wow! Cool!
My pen name made headlines. Fancy that! But Mr. Painter, you did not mention what I believe is the crux of the matter -- Jesus' words to the woman "go and sin no more." We get hyped over the fact that Jesus did not discuss homosexuality, but we conveniently forget his clear command to leave that life of sin behind. What say you???
I would add that before people accuse me of looking down my pointy nose at others in some sort of judgement on whatever their lifestyle, I would be the first to admit that I know my heart, and how often I have blown that same command of Jesus' to "go and sin no more."
posted by
JanesOpinion
on January 19, 2005 at 8:38 PM
| link to this | reply
empty, hey I thought that was coffee (I'm 20 years and counting!)
posted by
kingmi
on January 19, 2005 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi
thank you
(unless you're a teetotaler, then
)
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 19, 2005 at 3:35 PM
| link to this | reply
empty handed,
posted by
kingmi
on January 19, 2005 at 3:17 PM
| link to this | reply