First Baseman
Retired athlete
Oh. You're right about homosexuality, though.
I was asking her what she believes about the Bible. That's not a complicated question and I don't have a hidden agenda.
-
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!
What is my Christian confession? I am in search.
- Thread starter Nicoletta26
- Start date
Oh. You're right about homosexuality, though.
I was asking her what she believes about the Bible. That's not a complicated question and I don't have a hidden agenda.
Rakovsky
Active Member
IMO overall the Biblical chapters were motivated by God's spirit stimulating the writers to give moral messages. I find the Bible inspiring and want it's fact claims to be true.
However, I think more it's more likely than not that some passages are not factually correct even when the writers intended them to be seen as factual.
see my discussion here:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-do-you-believe.7944644/page-18#post-69755508
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Why is it that the mandate against homosexuality is the only thing not corrected by the New Covenant?
So people point out all the slave beating, adulterer stoning, not wearing mixed fabric, telling women to be silent in church, etc, that exists in the Old Testament and the answer is "that was just for the Jews" or "we're not bound to that anymore because Jesus made a new covenant with us."
But for some reason modern Christian hold on to the Old Testament mandates against homosexuality! Why didn't that get corrected along with the slave beating, subjugation of women, etc.? Right? Otherwise, where in the New Testament do we see the mandate against homosexuality?
It's weird, y'all use the NT excuse to wipe away a lot of the evil crap in the OT, but for some reason you hang on to the gay hate like crazy.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Stating that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin isn't hate. It's just fact.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
That didn't even come close to answering my question about the new covenant.
Altering your sentence, "Stating that the Bible says being your slaves is OK isn't hate. It's just fact." But if I talk about slavery you'll tell me that was changed by Jesus' new covenant. Why, then, didn't the same thing happen with homosexuality?
First Baseman
Retired athlete
You'll have to ask Him. I don't make the rules, He does.
Rakovsky
Active Member
What the NT scheme does is it says that (A) brutal punishments should be done away with and that we should live with mercy, and that
(B) special rituals restricted to Jews should be done away with, but that (C) otherwise there are things in the Old Testament that we still see as sinful.
So under (A), we no longer should stone adulterers (Gospel of John) or kill gays for homosexuality (it is not stated in the Bible, but implicit that we should not do this any more), but instead tell them to "repent and sin no more".
And under (B), Jews can wear mixed fabric now.
But under (C), adultery and homosexuality are still sinful and wrong.
I realize that modern skeptics can make criticisms of this and think that adultery and homosexuality are only sinful if you accept the Biblical constructs and mentality.
But I am just trying to answer your question Demonslayer about the logic of the New Testament and how it treats these topics. The answer to your question are, factually speaking, what I outlined above.
What the New Covenant abolishes are the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant. (Circumcision, dietary laws, ritual cleanliness, judicial norms of Israelite society and so on). The moral precepts that informed the old law (summed up in the ten commandments) are still binding. It is no longer divine command to stone adulterers, but adultery is still nonetheless a sin.
Likewise the sinfulness of homosexual acts (or any licit sex for that matter) has not in anyway been diminished.
Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
But it's not only the New Testament. We also have the Tradition of the Chruch such as the writings of the Chruch Fathers. It's very clear that homosexuality was from the earliest days considered a sin of grave seriousness.
All sexual sin is a betrayal of our dignity as rational creatures in the image of God. Our bodies have been sanctified as the temple of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. Homosexual activity not only violates this dignity, but it also does worse by perverting the natural intent of the sexual act.
Last edited:
Yes, it is in progressive Catholicism. Millions of Catholics support LGBT people and women in the clergy. I'm one of them.
Because they don't want to let go of their personal bigotry and want to read into scripture what isn't necessarily there.
What does God seek? Does his opinion count?
Rakovsky
Active Member
No offense, but then it's not Catholicism as a proper noun with the normal connotations.
Saying that women priests is Catholicism is kind of like saying that Freemasonry practiced in churches secretly among Catholics is Catholicism.
It's just not the position that the Vatican holds at the moment. That's all.
And I know a practicing Catholic who is a Freemason. He's a great guy.
Rakovsky
Active Member
If the pope and the bishops say no women priests and that gay marriage is banned in their church, and then women priests and gay marriages don't count as "Catholic" anymore than your nice Catholic friend's Freemasonry is "Catholic".
No one said they're "Catholic", just that many Catholics support those things so you can certainly hold those views and be a part of the Church.
Rakovsky
Active Member
Women priests, gay marriage, and freemason rituals are not "Catholic", therefore, they are not "progressive Catholic". You can say that some Progressive Catholics accept the first two of those three things.
I'm saying that there's a diversity of opinion among Church members about these things. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?
What does God seek? Does his opinion count?
Hmmm...Now there is a thought.
Rakovsky
Active Member
I accept that there is a diversity of opinion on this among Catholics.
On the other hand, "it is in progressive Catholicism" only in the same sense that freemasonry or rejection of Mary statues and rosaries, or rejection of papal supremacy is, ie. some people who are Catholics might do these things (like reject papal supremacy), but it is not part of the religion of Catholicism, whether Catholicism is "progessive" or not.
It seems to me as if people are looking for a religion and a god that fits their own criteria....as if God needs to somehow mold himself to their needs.
What happened to us molding ourselves to HIS requirements? Are we in a position to dictate our own rules to the one who created us? Seriously?
God's response to that?.....
