bigbadgirl
Active Member
Back on topic. Still no difference between the two.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?
- Thread starter OneTwo
- Start date
There are very few churchgoers in France.
But those few that go and obey despite the culture of secularism shine brightly in the darkness
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Then, if churchgoing is their culture, I imagine few of them are adulterers. If secularism is their culture, what do they care about the church's injunctions against adultery?There are very few churchgoers in France.
But those few that go and obey despite the culture of secularism shine brightly in the darkness
F0uad
Well-Known Member
There are very few churchgoers in France.
But those few that go and obey despite the culture of secularism shine brightly in the darkness
So would you say that Secularism is not the way forward?
--
To sojourner, secularism is not a culture its a political idea that was created after the Protestant vs The Catholics in Europe it was made to create peace between Christians. Secularism also does not mean that there would be no Christian law but just a specific one from a specific organisation.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It doesn't matter what percentage of gays are church goers. It doesn't even matter how many French people are adulterers. What matters is what harms people or makes people better people. That's what Paul was speaking about, that's what Jesus was speaking about. Laws, being kept for the sake of "keeping laws," are sometimes more harmful than helpful. And remember, we're not talking about the health of individuals here, we're talking about the health of a society or community. When more people are being harmed than helped, it's time for the rules to change. Laws that force people into doing things that bind, rather than liberate, are not good, no matter who gives them. Jesus was all about liberation. He said it in the synagogue that day when they wanted to run him out of town. "I came to proclaim release to the captives."
Cutting the tallywackers off of Gentiles is not a good law. Women skulking around covered in black from head to toe isn't a good law. Excluding those who identify as homosexual from full participation in society isn't a good law. These laws don't liberate -- they bind.
Precisely. Especially in cultures where Christianity is discouraged or persecuted, those that accept Christ are more likely to be serious about their faith in word, thought and deed.
I think we've often been overly hard on the French church. They may be few, but truth has never been a matter of majority opinion.
This does not excuse the French Rugby team though. I''m afraid Les Bleus have no redeeming features.
Might I suggest a clarification of terms?
Any person can be a 'Church goer,' and this does not require that they be Christian, merely that they have come (or been forced by zealous parents, etc) to listen.
Are you talking about those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and have accepted Him as Lord and Saviour? In essence they have become 'Christ followers.'
I would say forward to where?
As a follower of Christ, I would say that the only true way forward is obedience to God.
helpmeplease
Member
Does that make someone who hates homosexuals or their love a christian? Oh how wonderful!
And he never got the gig as the Hebrew messiah.
Was Christ merely talking about what makes people and society healthy though?
Might I suggest that the freedom he proclaims has a material side...
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."
(1 John 3:17-18)
...but that the real freedom Christ is talking about is freedom from sin. True health in a community comes when each individual is in submission to God.
Note that we are not told to do away with slavery (which would be a clear example of people being 'harmed' and not 'liberated'), but rather:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart."
(Ephesians 6:5-6)
The emphasis is not on changing society, but on changing ourselves.
Christ did not need to die to proclaim a political revolution. He did need to die to free us from sin.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're not making sense.:help:
Christians are never told to hate homosexuals. Rather we are told to love even enemies. Love does not mean telling a person that everything they do is right though.
Neither are we told that loving another person of the same sex is wrong. David certainly loved Saul's son Jonathan, and vice versa. That love is not to be sexual though.
You also forget that Jesus' first followers were all Jews. Amongst them were leaders among the Jewish religious leadership. The synagogue leaders as a whole rejected Christ though, and kicked the Jews who followed Yeshua out of the synagogues.
Is the DSM IV Christian teaching... or the teachings of the 'world?'
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
(James 4:4)
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
(1 John 2:15-16)
Last edited:
You are correct, but I never said he was individualistic. The individual is intricately tied to the community. Note that Christ does not change the community though. But he does command the individual change... and thus change the community they are part of.
Yet Jesus specifically states differently.
(Jesus) then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
(Mark 8:31)
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
(John 10:17-18)
Who is right then Sojourner? You or what is written in scripture?
helpmeplease
Member
So according to your understanding, same sex marriage is an acceptable expression of two peoples love for each other, as long as they don't indulge in sexual activity?
Jesus has been rejected as the Hebrew Messiah ever since Jesus, claiming that he is the Messiah is simply false, since it is the Hebrew religion who has the prophesy of said Messiah.
Generally yes, though part of the problem is that our society has sexualized virtually all human relationships, and this in itself is part of the issue. Love and warm physical contact should be the norm between all people, including those of the same sex. When we teach that all such contact is sexual, we run into problems.
You may want to inform "Jews for Jesus" and "Messianic Jews."
Shermana
Heretic
Alright, so you admit that you have a double standard on the adultery thing.
So your argument for the community of Swingers is that they don't represent the majority of the culture, yet you have no problem with a different small minority's practices. (Although in many urban areas, the demographic of those who have "Experimented" or are "Bicurious" may represent the majority like in Seattle and possibly Boston) Why should society not tolerate adultery then if they should tolerate another form of prohibited activity? Should Christian churches then not discourage swinging, especially if there are so many consenting adults? By your double standard logic even, Christians should also not be disdainful of consentual incestors and swingers, no? How about consentual incestors. Aren't they being harmed too by being shunned?
I'd bet $10,000 that most Swingers would call the anti-adultery laws "binding", and they probably represent a similar percentage of believers as do male gays, so please explain why they should be bound to the rules of no adultery but gays shouldn't be bound to the rule of no buggery. Also, this is not about "participating in full society", this is about Biblical rulings on what is called "Sexual immorality". You are arguing for acceptance of those who participate in one form but not another. Inconsistent to say the least.
Also, when it comes to the "Health of society", that's quite a subjective issue. Even some Atheists and secularists have agreed that acceptance of subcultures in the mainstream which are notorious for their majority willfully shucking protection and seeking out multiple partners and for their majority having a substantially higher STD rate than the general population is not at all healthy for society whatsoever.
I agree that cutting tallywackers off is not a good idea. Good thing it only involves cutting the foreskin. And many agree that this cuts down very substantially on STD risk. If anything, unsnipped tallywackers are unhealthier for society. Perhaps inconvenient for some. Even then, as I've explained before, there is no actual law to be circumcised, only to do so for your offspring at 8 days. It's a very, very common misconception (and revealing they haven't read the whole Torah) that the Torah demands circumcision for yourself as opposed to your offspring.
Last edited: