Westboro Baptist Church now protesting the NBA??

[ripskater]

In a typical Christian manner, you didn't read the entire passage, in which Jesus heaps contempt on marriage. That verse is Jesus explaining why you can't ever get divorced if you marry, which he follows up by explaining that getting married is bad in the first instance -- we should instead live like eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Full cite:

19 1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked,

 

[ripskater]

I seem to recall reading that marriage was banned - and later celibacy imposed - to stop priests leaving their worldly belongings to anyone but the Church when they died. I have no idea if this is correct, but it sounds cynical enough for the Catholic Church to have come up with.:icon_twis

I don't know, I'm not Catholic.

 

[Zankou]

I don't know where you are getting the contempt that Jesus has for marriage.

The Bible. The same place Christians got it for about 1500 years, before they started to reinterpret these texts in a more 'marriage friendly' light. The entire reason the Catholic priesthood is celibate, and has been for about 2000 years now, is because the NT is so blatantly clear that the Christian spiritual elite are anti-marriage and anti-sexuality.

Matthew 19 could not possibly be clearer when the disciples ask Jesus whether they shouldn't get married then given what he says, and he says yes, it's a hard teaching that only a few (the spiritual elite) can accept, but that such people are like eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven -- not everybody can achieve or accept this, but it's the ideal.

If you are having difficulty understanding what these verses say, I repeat they say exactly what the text says, and what most mainline Christians have read them as saying for 2000 years: Better not to get married. Protestantism has tried to radically reinterpret these verses, or ignore them, in the move to exalt marriage and move away from the radical Judgment Day centered spiritual elitism that the NT exalts.

In this, Jesus just taught the exact same view that Paul repeated.

"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.…"

Marriage, again, for the spiritually weak losers who lack self control, and the only reason it's tolerated is as a way to avoid even greater sin of unmarried promiscuity and lust. St. Paul isn't trying to confuse you here. It's not a trick. He's being as clear as he can.

This is just what Jesus and Paul both outright say. It's not unclear, it was never unclear, and it never will be unclear, no matter how much contemporary Protestant Christians want to get hetero married, pump out kids, and complain about poor people.

 

[ripskater]

The Bible. The same place Christians got it for about 1500 years, before they started to reinterpret these texts in a more 'marriage friendly' light. The entire reason the Catholic priesthood is celibate, and has been for about 2000 years now, is because the NT is so blatantly clear that the Christian spiritual elite are anti-marriage and anti-sexuality.

I'm not Catholic. But anyway, I believe God calls some people to celibacy and some people to marriage. There are benefits to both lifestyles. And God uses both.

Matthew 19 could not possibly be clearer when the disciples ask Jesus whether they shouldn't get married then given what he says, and he says yes, it's a hard teaching that only a few (the spiritual elite) can accept, but that such people are like eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven -- not everybody can achieve or accept this, but it's the ideal.

I'm confident that is not what it means. The Bible says that some people should get married. There are also benefits to being single and God calls some people to that.

If you are having difficulty understanding what these verses say, I repeat they say exactly what the text says, and what most mainline Christians have read them as saying for 2000 years: Better not to get married. Protestantism has tried to radically reinterpret these verses, or ignore them, in the move to exalt marriage and move away from the radical Judgment Day centered spiritual elitism that the NT exalts.

In this, Jesus just taught the exact same view that Paul repeated.

"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.…"

Marriage, again, for the spiritually weak losers who lack self control, and the only reason it's tolerated is as a way to avoid even greater sin of unmarried promiscuity and lust. St. Paul isn't trying to confuse you here. It's not a trick. He's being as clear as he can.

This is just what Jesus and Paul both outright say. It's not unclear, it was never unclear, and it never will be unclear, no matter how much contemporary Protestant Christians want to get hetero married, pump out kids, and complain about poor people.

I don't think "complaining about poor people" is a Christian teaching.

 

[lockon]

theyre like those epic fail groups

 

[Madmick]

Not strictly true.
True that Jesus was hanging around guys and whores. If you just want to keep the religion of christianity to be bonded only with Jesus. The christians that follow his supposed message stick to all kinds of letters.
Written here and there by a few peoples.

The letter from this guy is pretty obvious

But who cares? These texts were written at least 50 (more likely a hundred) years after this Jesus guy.

The christians seem to hold on to these letters as much as the gospels.

I'm sorry, but no, you're wrong. Not even the passage in Corinthians you cited is an example of that. First, that isn't an accurate translation. The King James version tends to be better, but it was colored by the cultural assumptions of his court translators. The ESV is pure shit.

The OSB presents probably the most accurate translation according to our most sophisticated scholarly understandings, and here reads that too often abused passage from Corinthians:

Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, no adulterer or sexual pervert, no thief, extortioner, drunkard, slanderer, or swindler will possess the Kingdom of God.

This total lack of appreciation for the skill of reading and language is exactly what I'm talking about. I bitch slapped a friend on FB last year over this exact passage, and needless to say, he didn't take kindly to it.

You can read more about this here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
In a nutshell:

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:
- If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

Again, there is no reference in the New Testament to homosexual marriage as a sin.

 

[Madmick]

And...I see Zankou beat me here. Yes, I always found it rather puzzling that nobody wanted to talk about the fact that Jesus's default position was, "If you can tolerate not being married, then do that. If this is intolerable to you, well, then, here are some suggestions."

Sort of like how no one ever seems to want to talk about how Noah was a drunk.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I'm sorry, but no, you're wrong. Not even the passage in Corinthians you cited is an example of that. First, that isn't an accurate translation. The King James version tends to be better, but it was colored by the cultural assumptions of his court translators. The ESV is pure shit.

The OSB presents probably the most accurate translation according to our most sophisticated scholarly understandings, and here reads that too often abused passage from Corinthians:

This total lack of appreciation for the skill of reading and language is exactly what I'm talking about. I bitch slapped a friend on FB last year over this exact passage, and needless to say, he didn't take kindly to it.

You can read more about this here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
In a nutshell:

Again, there is no reference in the New Testament to homosexual marriage as a sin.

Does Paul not comdemn homosexuality in Romans?

Romans 1
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity

 

[Madmick]

Does Paul not comdemn homosexuality in Romans?

Romans 1
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity

First, I am always careful here to specify homosexual marriage. Second, that passage almost certainly references male prostitution, and in the wider context of that passage (I won't transcribe it all here), with regards to hedonism or corporeal pursuits of pleasure.

Among them women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and men, too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion.

Furthermore, "Unnatural intercourse" for women, there, almost certainly refers to anal sex, but it could literally be just about anything. That's how vague the Bible is.

Should we on the strength of this passage now seek to preclude the marriage of men to women have engaged in anal sex? Who have probed them with sex toys? Should pastors make a point of mentioning this in sermons and shaming those people? Discouraging any deviant "unnatural" sexual behavior? After all, as Freud mused many centuries later, what defines "unnatural"? Kissing? Handjobs? Blowjobs? All foreplay, or anything resulting in an orgasm which doesn't have the potential for procreation?

People who tunnel on these specific passages tend to deliberately misread the Bible towards their own prejudicial beliefs, or simply lack the skills as readers to gainfully interpret the greater context of the passages in which they reside.

 

[ripskater]

Does Paul not comdemn homosexuality in Romans?

Romans 1
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity

The New Testament is also pretty clear that marriage is between "a man and his wife" (Matthew 19) and that God created it that way. And as you've stated, the New Testament is also very clear that homosexual acts are sinful acts.

 

[ripskater]

First, I am always careful here to specify homosexual marriage. Second, that passage almost certainly references male prostitution, and in the wider context of that passage (I won't transcribe it all here), with regards to hedonism or corporeal pursuits of pleasure.

Furthermore, "Unnatural intercourse" for women, there, almost certainly refers to anal sex, but it could literally be just about anything. That's how vague the Bible is.

Should we on the strength of this passage now seek to preclude the marriage of men to women have engaged in anal sex? Who have probed them with sex toys? Should pastors make a point of mentioning this in sermons and shaming those people? Discouraging any deviant "unnatural" sexual behavior? After all, as Freud mused many centuries later, what defines "unnatural"? Kissing? Handjobs? Blowjobs? All foreplay, or anything resulting in an orgasm which doesn't have the potential for procreation?

People who tunnel on these specific passages tend to deliberately misread the Bible towards their own prejudicial beliefs, or simply lack the skills as readers to gainfully interpret the greater context of the passages in which they reside.

Jesus described marriage as being between a man and his wife in Matthew 19. It's not whatever we want it to be. People can choose to engage in sinful behavior but there are always consequences for that sin. Even if we try to spin it and call it a marriage.

 

[Madmick]

The New Testament is also pretty clear that marriage is between "a man and his wife" (Matthew 19) and that God created it that way. And as you've stated, the New Testament is also very clear that homosexual acts are sinful acts.

Nope. You demonstrate the precise lack of reading skills and comprehension that I so often encounter. It's exhausting. Jesus is addressing the question in Matthew of when it is acceptable to divorce. That's it. It doesn't speak against homosexual marriage.

Also, as I have already successfully repudiated, there is no concrete substantiation of the attempted readings presented in this thread condemning homosexuality.

Jesus described marriage as being between a man and his wife in Matthew 19. It's not whatever we want it to be. People can choose to engage in sinful behavior but there are always consequences for that sin. Even if we try to spin it and call it a marriage.

Where in that passage does he describe marriage between two males? Where does he describe it as a sin?

Exactly. Nowhere. Stop trumpeting your groundless, deceitful, hateful filth.

 

[ripskater]

Nope. You demonstrate the precise lack of reading skills and comprehension that I so often encounter. It's exhausting. Jesus is addressing the question in Matthew of when it is acceptable to divorce. That's it. It doesn't speak against homosexual marriage.

Also, as I have already successfully repudiated, there is no concrete substantiation of the attempted readings presented in this thread condemning homosexuality.

Where in that passage does he describe marriage between two males? Where does he describe it as a sin?

Exactly. Nowhere. Stop trumpeting your groundless, deceitful, hateful filth.

Jesus said marriage was between a man and his wife. Other New Testament verses state that homosexual acts are sinful. That was a given(that homosexual acts are sin) and it still is. Because Jesus did not comment on every sin, doesn't make it not a sin.

 

[Madmick]

Jesus said marriage was between a man and his wife.

But not "only". He was merely answered a question by contextualizing those who asked when it was acceptable to divorce one's wife. It wouldn't make much sense to start talking about one's husband.

Other New Testament verses state that homosexual acts are sinful. That was a given(that homosexual acts are sin) and it still is. Because Jesus did not comment on every sin, doesn't make it not a sin.

Keep proving my point. You would be well-placed in the WBC, ripskater. I don't go to church and I don't believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and I think I probably rate a better Christian than you.

 

[ripskater]

But not "only". He was merely answered a question by contextualizing those who asked when it was acceptable to divorce one's wife.

Keep proving my point. You would be well-placed in the WBC, ripskater. I don't go to church and I don't believe that Jesus was God incarnate, and I think I probably rate a better Christian than you.

There is no rating system for Christians. We all deserve hell. The question is have we accepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins, are we serving him and giving him control over our lives.

 

[Madmick]

There is no rating system for Christians. We all deserve hell. The question is have we accepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins, are we serving him and giving him control over our lives.

Sounds a lot like the meaningless tripe WBC members utter when it is pointed out to them how badly they fail to demonstrate the core of Christian virtues, how badly they misread, and generally how shitty they are as Christians/human beings.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

There is no rating system for Christians. We all deserve hell. The question is have we accepted Christ's sacrifice for our sins, are we serving him and giving him control over our lives.

Ugh, we all deserve hell?

That's kinda disturbing and sorta perverse.


What about mother Theresa or someone like that.

 

[ripskater]

how badly they fail to demonstrate the core of Christian virtues, how badly they misread, and generally how shitty they are as Christians/human beings.

I agree with this part.

 

[ripskater]

Ugh, we all deserve hell?

That's kinda disturbing and sorta perverse.


What about mother Theresa or someone like that.

She was a good woman. But she was also a sinner. We all are.

 

[Ayin]

What about mother Theresa or someone like that.

She's an interesting figure and worth looking into when you have some time. There's a pretty good chance she was, in one way or another, very much NOT who she was presented to be. However, that is not what this thread is about.