What disgusts you the most about beanieboy?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
- Status
Hasan_ibn_Sabah
New member
Turbo said:
They are not first singular, in the Greek there are only two instances of a pronoun occuring and they are used corporately, because Paul wasn't addressing a single person in this letter - he was addressing a group of people - the Church in Rome. He is addressing them as a group. Protestants tend to take passages in the Bible that were addressed to the Church as a whole and make believe that its addressing them personally like God is addressing them personally, as if the Bible was written just for their ego.
Hasan_ibn_Sabah
New member
Zakath said:[Pssst, Hasan! ]
My greek's a bit rusty,but isn't "εν" a second person pronoun? Whether it's singular or plural depends on context, I think...
Used corporatively because the letter is addressed to the group
Agape4Robin
Member
:BRAVO: Couldn't have said it better myself!On Fire said:
missedmarks
New member
Yes Paul was addressing the church in Rome, and yes using all those thees and thous as foundation for a statement is a wobbly proposostion. Conversely I would argue that the LACK of singular pronouns does not negate the entire idea of personal salvation. Romans was addressed to the Roman christians but it's intent and purpose within the cannon is to give a detailed and logical explanation of the fundamentals of salvation. It is the foundational work of Christian Theology, the first real explanation of the nuts and bolts of the gospel. This passage in particular, although the letter is addressed to the church, is describing what an individual must do to attain justification.
Instead of looking for a verse that gramatically 'proves' personal salvation I would simply look to the character of God. Look to the Patriarchs, look to David, look to the prophets...God is obviously interested in a relationship with his people. The thing God seems to be continualy seeking is the love of his followers. He seeks to be a part of peoples lives, not a as a simple 'household' idol that is worshiped with vain ritual in return for reward; but rather as a God who is consulted, prayed to, trusted and loved. Christ came to shatter the barriers between man and God. It makes little sense that he would remove the old sacrifice intervention system and then replace it with an system that differed mainly in flavor.
Instead of looking for a verse that gramatically 'proves' personal salvation I would simply look to the character of God. Look to the Patriarchs, look to David, look to the prophets...God is obviously interested in a relationship with his people. The thing God seems to be continualy seeking is the love of his followers. He seeks to be a part of peoples lives, not a as a simple 'household' idol that is worshiped with vain ritual in return for reward; but rather as a God who is consulted, prayed to, trusted and loved. Christ came to shatter the barriers between man and God. It makes little sense that he would remove the old sacrifice intervention system and then replace it with an system that differed mainly in flavor.
On Fire said:
Is Budda a Fat Man or not?
I don't know. How much do you weigh?
Is Buddhism a religion?
You must answer your own question.
Buddhism concentrates on improving the self. Buddhist do not worship a deity.
Is it a religion?
And homosexuality - is it still an abomination?
In Buddhism, no.
In Christianity, theologians are split, the yes vote taking a literal interpretation, the no vote claiming that what is described in Leviticus referred to idol worship and temple prostitutes, and since no one things we are under Levitical Law (do not observe women separated from everyone during times of menstrating, stoning disobedient children, ) it seems pointless to use such verses.
Again a decision that you must come to.
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/is_buddhism_a_religion1.htm
Many young people have come to me saying, "How can I embrace Buddhism without destroying my own beliefs and culture?" I tell the Christians among them to think about the precepts of Christ. Are they so totally opposed to, and different from, those of the Buddha? Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal or commit adultery. The ethical injunctions among the Ten Commandments -- are they not almost exactly the same as the precepts of the moral life laid down by the Buddha (the Five Precepts)?
I tell them that the Dhamma, the sacred texts of Buddhism, are much more voluminous and explicit than those of the Old and New Testaments and commentaries. The Buddhist texts are, in fact, elevenfold as extensive and contain an enormous range of wise teachings, none of them derogatory to the faiths of other creeds. He did not deny the existence of deities, but he did reserve scepticism as to the infinity of their duration, their omnipotency, their powers to help mankind in every kind of urgency. Have these gods and messiahs, which we of Western faiths have been prone to believe in, been sublimely successful in the mitigation of human suffering, hunger, sorrow and affliction? The answer is open to doubt.
So to these young Christians I can say, "Believe in Christ if you wish, but remember, Jesus never claimed divinity either." Yes, believe in a unitary God, too, if you wish, but cease your imploring, pleading for personal dispensations, health, wealth, relief from suffering. Study the Eightfold Path. Seek the insights and enlightenment that come through meditative learnings. And find out how to achieve for yourself what prayer and solicitation of forces beyond you are unable to accomplish.
There are many young people who believe that God answers their prayers. Does he? Is prayer-answering the purpose of a supreme being? A young man recently came to us asking for food and shelter. He was young, able-bodied, and, yes, intelligent. We received him, fed him and gave him a room for several days. When it became apparent that this fellow had no intention of ever leaving, we felt he should go off on his own. He was highly indignant! When he left we asked him if he intended to work and earn enough to take care of his own needs. He answered, "No, God will provide. If I follow his light, that is enough. He will take care of me!"
If there is a God, why should he take care of able-bodied young men simply because they have unreserved and total faith in him, when there are so many really unfortunate, desolate people who really need help? Did God provide for the millions of Jews in concentration camps who were slowly gassed to death en-masse, their agonies of asphyxiation often lasting a full half-hour, before they were incinerated in German ovens? Is he there offering respite each day to the millions who are dying of cancer and other agonizing diseases all over the universe? Does he provide for all the masses of people, victims of floods, disasters and earthquakes, who are homeless and starving daily throughout the world?
Yes, believe in a God, if you will, I tell them, but don't ask, ask and ask. Don't beg. Provide, as best you are able, for yourself first. Then fill your heart and mind with love, with metta, and help, to the fullest possible extent, in the relief of suffering among others. This is the answer I give them. But cease your petitioning, your constant solicitation for private preference.
(This is why I admire Buddhism. )
Many young people have come to me saying, "How can I embrace Buddhism without destroying my own beliefs and culture?" I tell the Christians among them to think about the precepts of Christ. Are they so totally opposed to, and different from, those of the Buddha? Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal or commit adultery. The ethical injunctions among the Ten Commandments -- are they not almost exactly the same as the precepts of the moral life laid down by the Buddha (the Five Precepts)?
I tell them that the Dhamma, the sacred texts of Buddhism, are much more voluminous and explicit than those of the Old and New Testaments and commentaries. The Buddhist texts are, in fact, elevenfold as extensive and contain an enormous range of wise teachings, none of them derogatory to the faiths of other creeds. He did not deny the existence of deities, but he did reserve scepticism as to the infinity of their duration, their omnipotency, their powers to help mankind in every kind of urgency. Have these gods and messiahs, which we of Western faiths have been prone to believe in, been sublimely successful in the mitigation of human suffering, hunger, sorrow and affliction? The answer is open to doubt.
So to these young Christians I can say, "Believe in Christ if you wish, but remember, Jesus never claimed divinity either." Yes, believe in a unitary God, too, if you wish, but cease your imploring, pleading for personal dispensations, health, wealth, relief from suffering. Study the Eightfold Path. Seek the insights and enlightenment that come through meditative learnings. And find out how to achieve for yourself what prayer and solicitation of forces beyond you are unable to accomplish.
There are many young people who believe that God answers their prayers. Does he? Is prayer-answering the purpose of a supreme being? A young man recently came to us asking for food and shelter. He was young, able-bodied, and, yes, intelligent. We received him, fed him and gave him a room for several days. When it became apparent that this fellow had no intention of ever leaving, we felt he should go off on his own. He was highly indignant! When he left we asked him if he intended to work and earn enough to take care of his own needs. He answered, "No, God will provide. If I follow his light, that is enough. He will take care of me!"
If there is a God, why should he take care of able-bodied young men simply because they have unreserved and total faith in him, when there are so many really unfortunate, desolate people who really need help? Did God provide for the millions of Jews in concentration camps who were slowly gassed to death en-masse, their agonies of asphyxiation often lasting a full half-hour, before they were incinerated in German ovens? Is he there offering respite each day to the millions who are dying of cancer and other agonizing diseases all over the universe? Does he provide for all the masses of people, victims of floods, disasters and earthquakes, who are homeless and starving daily throughout the world?
Yes, believe in a God, if you will, I tell them, but don't ask, ask and ask. Don't beg. Provide, as best you are able, for yourself first. Then fill your heart and mind with love, with metta, and help, to the fullest possible extent, in the relief of suffering among others. This is the answer I give them. But cease your petitioning, your constant solicitation for private preference.
(This is why I admire Buddhism. )
On Fire
New member
beanie, please read the following and comment with direct statements:
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Seems clear enough but gay and lesbian theologians would say…
o This is cultural and limited to ancient Israel (like dietary laws)
o Or…refers to sex involved in a fertility cult worship a broader problem.
And, if this was an isolated reference I might be inclined to consider that as a possibility but it isn’t and within the context of the entire story of God the issues appears 1000's of years later…
1 Cor. 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Gay and lesbian theologians would say that is what this is about – sex with young boys
· “male prostitutes” = malakoi = lit. = soft or effeminate - Greek it was a slang term used of young teen boys used sexually – but could also mean older men.
But it is the 2nd word that is not debatable.
· “Homosexual offenders” - arsenokotai = derived from Hebrew phrase in the Leviticus passages – Paul chose a term that is directly adapted from the words in Leviticus (linking the two thoughts from way earlier in the story of God)
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Seems clear enough but gay and lesbian theologians would say…
o This is cultural and limited to ancient Israel (like dietary laws)
o Or…refers to sex involved in a fertility cult worship a broader problem.
And, if this was an isolated reference I might be inclined to consider that as a possibility but it isn’t and within the context of the entire story of God the issues appears 1000's of years later…
1 Cor. 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Gay and lesbian theologians would say that is what this is about – sex with young boys
· “male prostitutes” = malakoi = lit. = soft or effeminate - Greek it was a slang term used of young teen boys used sexually – but could also mean older men.
But it is the 2nd word that is not debatable.
· “Homosexual offenders” - arsenokotai = derived from Hebrew phrase in the Leviticus passages – Paul chose a term that is directly adapted from the words in Leviticus (linking the two thoughts from way earlier in the story of God)
missedmarks
New member
beanieboy said:
See, there is the problem. Thats not the extent of the issue for a lot of Christians. Disregard the 'Christian' camp in the culture war for a minute and look at it from a moderate point of view.
Many of the specific legal statements against homosexuality are downplayed by their positioning in the levitical law. There are several verses in the New Testemant that equate it with immorality, although they lack the Old Testemants gusto for stoning offenders. Also the bible seems to explain as a whole, that the proper place for sexuality is in the context of a monogomous relationship between man and woman.
I personaly feel no need to call names and violently oppose every single homosexual out there. What causes me anger is the very overt and well orchestrated move to forcibly change societies mind on this issue. Not that I think we should go back to stoning homosexuals, but homosexuals are a minority; a minority which not that long ago the majority found offensive. Fighting for the right not to get beaten in the street is one thing, an orchestrated cultural campaign to influence my children that something I feel is wrong is just fine is a completely different animal.
In other words, I really have nothing against you beenieboy, but your people tick me off
missedmarks said:See, there is the problem. Thats not the extent of the issue for a lot of Christians. Disregard the 'Christian' camp in the culture war for a minute and look at it from a moderate point of view.
Many of the specific legal statements against homosexuality are downplayed by their positioning in the levitical law. There are several verses in the New Testemant that equate it with immorality, although they lack the Old Testemants gusto for stoning offenders. Also the bible seems to explain as a whole, that the proper place for sexuality is in the context of a monogomous relationship between man and woman.
I personaly feel no need to call names and violently oppose every single homosexual out there. What causes me anger is the very overt and well orchestrated move to forcibly change societies mind on this issue. Not that I think we should go back to stoning homosexuals, but homosexuals are a minority; a minority which not that long ago the majority found offensive. Fighting for the right not to get beaten in the street is one thing, an orchestrated cultural campaign to influence my children that something I feel is wrong is just fine is a completely different animal.
In other words, I really have nothing against you beenieboy, but your people tick me off
John Boswell, a Yale professor points out that the "age old tradition" of marriage has changed - to one of only one men and one woman:
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
On Fire said:
The Buddhist said that if one believes in God, he is one to be worshipped, not made your personal servant.
I admire that.
When you call Buddha a Silly Litte Man, you say that of yourself.
Do I admire liars? To call Buddhists liars is to lie.
Why is it that if you have the love of God within you, all that comes out is anger and spite?
Perhaps you are On Fire because you are too close to the depths of hell.
wickwoman said:
It's interesting that in a religion that promises eternal life, so many cry over the death of their loved ones, and more than that, fear death.
Other cultures welcome death, see death as a part of the cycle, and even celibrate death as one would celibrate and be thankful for the close of a day.
I love the movie His Man Friday. The movie is Robinson Caruso, but slowly shows how Caruso is the barbarian, and Friday is not. One day, Friday is staring at the ground. Caruso asks him what he is doing, and he said that it was the day of rememberence, of those who have died. Caruso said, "i see no one. What a morbid thought, to see the dead!" Friday says, "In my rememberence, I honor them. Come, stare at the ground, and they will come to you." Reluctantly, Caruso does, and then he begins to cry.
I am unsure why Americans and Christians are so fearful of death, and why they avoid the subject as much as possible.
- Status