Is there a Christian position that s*x outside of marriage is NOT a sin?

[Peek a Boo]

To reframe this, from the perspective of Eliana and her co-religioinists (as outlined in her post), most references to texts from the Hebrew Scriptures by Christians would be considered "proof-texting" because they do not take into account the entire context of the Torah (both written and oral). "How patient with their intellectual laziness" must others be? "If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study?"

 

It all comes down to interpretation and whose authority to interpret one accepts, so KingM's response appears to me to be quite valid.

 

KingM's response still hasn't addressed the Christian position. he has given personal opinion and incorrect statements [as opposed to just "another interpretation"] about scripture. Therefore his responses aren't valid *per this thread.*

 

The Jewish response is also irrelevant *per this thread.*

 

Smokes! I have read a bunch of the posts... I never knew this was a debate in the Christian or Jewish community. I am learning something new.

 

 

There is no debate in the Christian community. Not one response here has been able to make a Christian case for casual sex outside of a marriage commitment.

[Peek a Boo]

KingM, I have found nothing insulting about your posts, but I have seen insulting and offensive remarks in return.

 

well, a lot of people don't find it insulting to put forth completely false statements about scripture [or any other book/idea for that matter]. So i'm sure that many won't see his statements as insulting.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

well, a lot of people don't find it insulting to put forth completely false statements about scripture [or any other book/idea for that matter]. So i'm sure that many won't see his statements as insulting.

Well said.

[Penny from Tenny]

I thought that would seem pretty obvious, but thanks for clarifying it.

 

To clarify further: if someone claiming to be a Christin is placed in a position of authority then exhibits ideas that go directly against scripture, it is necessary for that person to be corrected lest they lead others astray. That is part of Christian accountability. A Christian that is corrected with scripture will respond in faith. Someone who continues to assert the incorrect information and reject scripture needs to be removed from that position of authority.

 

With the OPs situation, it would be easy enough to give the supervisor a heads up about the person's beliefs, and the supervisor could easily --EASILY!- direct any future conversations to explore the issue w/o ever letting on that he was told X. If she told the supervisor that she did NOT believe scripture allowed for premarital sex, then the supervisor would basically have to dismiss the OPs information until it was corroborated by someone else [unless it was in the form of a forwarded email, note, or recorded conversation].

 

:iagree: Thank you for this...and this... (I couldn't figure out how to "double" quote you)

 

There is no debate in the Christian community. Not one response here has been able to make a Christian case for casual sex outside of a marriage commitment.

[Peek a Boo]

:iagree:

...which is why I haven't posted a Jewish response - only a disagreement with an assertion that the Written Torah prohibits premarital intimacy, since there is no such prohibition there. ......I'm sorry if I implied there was debate in the Jewish community; the halachic prohibitions on such things are very clear, but the details of the various halachos involved (and there are a number) are complex, and more than seemed appropriate for this thread...

 

I think you did a fine job of clarifying your specific remarks, and i don't think you implied there was any debate. :)

[Erica in PA]

 

And to the other poster who said that my insulting posts might have been deleted, there weren't any. If there had been any, wouldn't there be a blank post of mine, with a "deleted by moderator" note?

 

 

I did a search, and stand corrected. The post I was thinking of was not deleted. I'm not sure why I had a hard time finding it earlier, other than that I didn't see it, and assumed that it was deleted because it seemed to violate board rules. It was a response to Tami's post. Here it is, if the other poster is interested:

 

"The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents. It teaches circumcision, teaches us not to fully harvest our crops (so the poor can glean the leftovers), to forgive debts every jubilee year, not to make fun of deaf people, and to treat our slaves well.

 

It's a book filled with the profound, the banal, and the bizarre. Pretty much everyone who reads it takes the stuff the like and discards that which they see as either immoral or no longer applicable."

 

Here's another:

 

"Yes, well all the teachings of the Bible are nearly 2,000 years old. Why don't we use the same logic and claim that this is a book that was meant only for people living in Judea and the Roman Empire within a certain historical and political context?"

[cathmom]

:iagree:

...which is why I haven't posted a Jewish response - only a disagreement with an assertion that the Written Torah prohibits premarital intimacy, since there is no such prohibition there.

 

 

 

Except that I asked you what is taught about premarital sex in your faith and you didn't answer lol! I'd still like to know if you get a chance.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Unfortunately, the thread is not asking if O Thou KingM says premarital sex is ok, but whether there is a Christian POV that sees premarital sex as ok.

When these type of comments are made it weakens your whole argument. :(

[Elizabeth Conley]

"The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents. It teaches circumcision, teaches us not to fully harvest our crops (so the poor can glean the leftovers), to forgive debts every jubilee year, not to make fun of deaf people, and to treat our slaves well.

 

It's a book filled with the profound, the banal, and the bizarre. Pretty much everyone who reads it takes the stuff the like and discards that which they see as either immoral or no longer applicable."

 

Here's another:

 

"Yes, well all the teachings of the Bible are nearly 2,000 years old. Why don't we use the same logic and claim that this is a book that was meant only for people living in Judea and the Roman Empire within a certain historical and political context?"

 

In this case, I think KingM posed a question that deserves a thoughtful response.

 

In the context that he posed the question, it came across as a challenge to Christian faith. This invoked a predictable knee jerk reaction in every Christian who read it.

 

We need to be better prepared to answer these questions, because these questions are often asked by people who have not read the Bible in its entirety. If they don't voice the question aloud, then they often question privately. This goes for Christians and Nonchristians alike.

 

We are living in a culture that is simultaneously fabulously wealthy and desperately impoverished. Almost everyone can read, and most households have several Bibles. In spite of this, few have studied their Bible from cover to cover. This includes people with little exposure to church as well as those raised in the church. Countless "well churched" Christians have memorized dozens of verses, but still haven't studied the Bible. They believe, but they don't possess the full armor of God. Sent forth from the shelter of their natal homes, they don't have the basic understanding of God's Word needed to answer these questions for themselves, much less anyone else.

 

I just finished reading Dan Kimball's book, They Like Jesus but not the Church. He points out that Jesus has huge "political capital", but Christians - not so much.

 

Like many people, KingM did not understand how Jesus changed our relationship with God. Why do we consider Old Testament Law to be useful for understanding the mind of God, but don't believe God wants us to stone adulterers? Why do we pay any credence to what is written in the epistles, when the epistles were written not to us, but to long gone cultures? It seems self-evident after studying the Bible in its entirety, but it's not so clear to those who've only studied disjointed segments.

 

I think it's time we all recognized the current state of most people's understanding of the Bible. Most modern people have watched a few TV documentaries, listened to a few Sunday school lessons, been forced to memorize a few verses, and perhaps taken a Theology 101 course taught by a hardened atheist. Of course they're confused.

 

I take this to heart, because I spend so much time with good people who are not practicing Christians. I know they have these questions, and I know they deserve thoughtful answers. On the other hand, they don't want to be lectured to. I will be spending as long as it takes reflecting on the answers to these questions. I want to distill the answers into their most understandable, easily conveyed and relevant form.

 

Outside the insular Christian culture, there is a crying need for a real understanding of the Christ story from adults who recognize thought stopping clichés and are heartily tired of buzz words and slogans. The next time I get an opportunity to address these questions, I want to be prepared with readily digestible responses.

[Renee in NC]

Eliana, the OP *specifically* asked you for the Jewish perspective.

[Peek a Boo]

When these type of comments are made it weakens your whole argument. :(

 

I'm sure some may think so, but if someone is asking about what God considers sinful and one dismisses scripture and gives their own personal OK [in place of God], I think it's quite fitting.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

In this case, I think KingM posed a question that deserves a thoughtful response.

 

In the context that he posed the question, it came across as a challenge to Christian faith. This invoked a predictable knee jerk reaction in every Christian who read it.

 

his question was specifically against board rules *in this thread.*

 

Answer questions that are posted but don't use these questions as an excuse to springboard into criticism.

 

Challenging the faith is fine [test everything], but his question was misplaced.

He's capable of starting a new thread to ask that if he wants to.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Dear Karen,

 

To re-frame this, from the perspective of Eliana and her co-religionists (as outlined in her post), most references to texts from the Hebrew Scriptures by Christians would be considered "proof-texting" because they do not take into account the entire context of the Torah (both written and oral). "How patient with their intellectual laziness" must others be? "If their pride is pricked, will they go back and perform a more earnest study?"

 

I do not offer up opinions on Jewish religious texts, precisely because I lack the educational background to do anything but proof text. At some other point in my life I may study Judaism at length, but not right now. Until I have, honesty compels me to shut up and listen when other people pontificate about Jewish religious texts.

 

It all comes down to interpretation and whose authority to interpret one accepts, so KingM's response appears to me to be quite valid.

 

I am painfully aware that this is the intelligent, reasonable assumption of anyone who hasn't studied the Bible in its entirety. From that perspective, it seems like both the accurate Bible quoter and the proof texter are both simply providing Bible verses to support their personal positions.

 

Your position is understandable, and of great concern to anyone who hopes to make Christ's message known to all.

 

I would like to share my position with you for a moment.

 

Have you ever read an "expert" review of a newly printed book, bought and read the book, only to realize afterward that the reviewer must not have read more than a few selected pages of the book? If you've read much at all, you've probably had this experience. The book wasn't much like the reviewer claimed it was. You might speculate about why the reviewer didn't read the book, or why he gave it a glowing or scathing review, since obviously his review wasn't based on the book. In the end, the reviewer's motive are unknowable. His statements about the book were ignorant, but you never would have realized this if you hadn't read for yourself.

 

It doesn't really mean much to you in the case of the latest best seller. On the other hand, the Bible isn't the latest best seller. It's the key religious text to my faith. When a "reviewer" reads a few lines or even a few selected passages, and then extrapolates the ridiculous, I take the error seriously.

 

If you are further intent on understanding the Christian perspective, consider this:

 

Just for grins, I went into my library and pulled a well-known classic of the shelf, The Good Earth. I opened it up to a random page, and selected a line with a pointed finger, eyes closed. In chapter 5, paragraph 20, the gateman instructed Wang Lung: "Do you sit within my wretched room while I announce your woman and son within." I submit that Pearl S. Buck was confused when she wrote this line, and intended to end the line with a question mark. Alternately, I suggest that the gateman owned a wretched little room within his otherwise fine dwelling, and offered it up to Wang Lung because the gateman was rudely inhospitable.

 

You've probably read this book at least once. If not, it's readily available, and an incredibly good read. My interpretation of this line is wildly ridiculous if you've read the novel, and quite sensible sounding if you haven't.

 

So it is with most attempts at proof texting, regardless of the text in question.

 

To all Pearl S. Buck fans, I offer up a heartfelt apology. Mea Culpa. Put down the pitch forks and torches. I didn't mean it, honest!

Edited July 9, 2009 by Elizabeth Conley

[Elizabeth Conley]

his question was specifically against board rules *in this thread.*

 

 

I sympathize Peek a Boo. On the other hand, I notice that Christians understand why fellow Christians are provoked to instant irritation by KingM, while Nonchristians think we're being unreasonable and unkind.

 

Since we hope to make Christ's message available to all, we must be sensitive to the Nonchristian's perspective. We want what's best for them, so it behooves us to try to make the Christian perspective more accessible to them.

 

Even if KingM was merely making a nuisance of himself, as I absolutely believe to have been the case, he posed questions that many people desperately need answered.

[Peek a Boo]

Even if KingM was merely making a nuisance of himself, as I absolutely believe to have been the case, he posed questions that many people desperately need answered.

 

I agree :)

You can start a new thread to explore his remarks if you'd like, that way more people will have the chance to consider it fully.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Spank You Very Much - You Bad Kitty!

 

No thanks. I need to think about this for a while. Have you noticed that I'm very long winded? It takes me forever to get to the point. By the time I get to a point, most people have given up hope that I have a point at all.

 

I'm going to have to go into serious training to learn how to address questions like KingM's efficiently and effectively.

[KingM]

"The Bible also tells us to stone adulterers and kill people who disrespect their parents. It teaches circumcision, teaches us not to fully harvest our crops (so the poor can glean the leftovers), to forgive debts every jubilee year, not to make fun of deaf people, and to treat our slaves well.

 

It's a book filled with the profound, the banal, and the bizarre. Pretty much everyone who reads it takes the stuff the like and discards that which they see as either immoral or no longer applicable."

 

Here's another:

 

"Yes, well all the teachings of the Bible are nearly 2,000 years old. Why don't we use the same logic and claim that this is a book that was meant only for people living in Judea and the Roman Empire within a certain historical and political context?"

 

I stand by these statements. No need or wish to delete them. :)

 

I'm not sure what I've done to make people so angry, except for disagree about religious points. I understand that it can be frustrating when people don't agree with what you consider to be universal truths.

[Peek a Boo]

Spank You Very Much - You Bad Kitty!

 

No thanks. I need to think about this for a while. Have you noticed that I'm very long winded? It takes me forever to get to the point. By the time I get to a point, most people have given up hope that I have a point at all.

 

I'm going to have to go into serious training to learn how to address questions like KingM's efficiently and effectively.

 

i think you are doing a great job fleshing out the discussion.

 

and really, all you'd have to do is post a thread titled "How do YOU challenge the Christian Faith?" and just sit back and watch. Or conversely, title it "cc- Why I continue to affirm the Christian Faith" and watch all the negatives roll in...;)

you'd get PLENTY of practice.:001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not sure what I've done to make people so angry, except for disagree about religious points. I understand that it can be frustrating when people don't agree with what you consider to be universal truths.

 

of course, if you had bothered answering some basic literary questions about scripture you might start to get it. At this point, it's not even about "universal truths" but basic reading comprehension of a Book. Elizabeth shared a pretty good example :lol:

[KingM]

I am painfully aware that this is the intelligent, reasonable assumption of anyone who hasn't studied the Bible in its entirety.

 

Elizabeth,

 

Don't you think that it's possible that someone could have, in fact, read the Bible and come to different conclusions than yours? After all, you're not Catholic, Mormon, Universalist, Quaker, or Mennonite, are you?

 

And yet each of these religions emphasizes very different elements of the Bible. You've either got to assume that the leaders, founders, and members of these religions are stupid, evil, or unread, or you've got to assume that they have sincerely read the same work that you have and come to a different conclusion than you about some of its fundamental precepts.

 

The Bible is an enormously complex work, written over hundreds of years by many different scribes, prophets, and apostles. It was written in different languages, collated by the speakers of another, and has been translated into many others.

 

I have accepted that yours is one possible valid reading of the Bible. I don't think it's the only one.

[Peek a Boo]

Don't you think that it's possible that someone could have, in fact, read the Bible and come to different conclusions than yours? After all, you're not Catholic, Mormon, Universalist, Quaker, or Mennonite, are you?

 

 

and per this thread, what do you think ANY of those Christian faiths' position on premarital sex is??

[noting that one does not have to be Christian to attend a Universalist church]

[Elizabeth Conley]

I'm not sure what I've done to make people so angry, except for disagree about religious points.

 

KingM,

 

It's this position of yours that proves Peek a Boo's points. Yes, all of them.

 

Perhaps you're telling the truth, and you really don't understand what proof texting is or why it's dishonest. In that case, there's really no reasoning with you, because can't understand reason. It's a shame, but we shouldn't be unkind to you if this is the case.

 

Perhaps you're lying. In this case you're ethically challenged. This is a tragedy even more serious than any intellectual or physical handicap. In this case, we need to ignore you.

 

Yes, Nonchristians, I understand that stating the dilemma openly isn't nice, but this is not the type of situation where nice is appropriate. This is a case where honesty is good, whether it makes anyone feel comfortable or not.

 

Nice is nothing compared to good. Examine the etymology of the two words, and you'll see what I mean.

[Elizabeth Conley]

KingM,

 

How many lines of crack do you have to snort before you can imagine the Catholic Church approves of premarital sex?

 

Inquiring minds wanna know!

 

It's funny, but it's also sad.

 

Bye 4 Now Peek-a-Boo!

[KingM]

It's this position of yours that proves Peek a Boo's points. Yes, all of them.

 

I haven't been reading her points since she started calling me names, so I'm sorry if I haven't been addressing them.

 

In that case, there's really no reasoning with you, because can't understand reason. It's a shame, but we shouldn't be unkind to you if this is the case.

 

It's very good of you to be so kind with the mentally challenged.

 

Perhaps you're lying. In this case you're ethically challenged. This is a tragedy even more serious than any intellectual or physical handicap. In this case, we need to ignore you.

 

Well, if you think I'm a liar, feel free to ignore me. I'm happy to discuss my ideas with people who are interested and am not hurt when people take their energies elsewhere. After all, none of us participate in every thread or discussion.

 

But if you stick around, I'm happy to listen to your ideas without calling you stupid or a liar. I accept that we may have honest disagreements.

 

Going back to your argument, you keep throwing out proof texting, saying that I'm quoting scriptures out of context. This is your right, but if you want to be persuasive, the best remedy is to quote scriptures or present ideas that support your position. Simply stating that thus and such is fact and attacking the character or intelligence of the people who disagree with you isn't very convincing.

 

Here's my point again. I think that sexual purity is of lesser importance to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. What's more, I don't believe that there is any difference (spiritually) between greater and lesser sins in the eyes of God. Therefore, I don't think one should worry about someone's sexual purity instead of, say, jealousy, greed, or dishonesty.

[Tami]

Eliana,

 

I don't understand the terms you are using, and I am super busy organizing our HS right now. Can we pick this discussion up later?

 

The reason I asked the original question was to see whether your would agree that the covenants meant for Jews only are instructive rather than prescriptive FOR Gentiles. By "Abrahamic," I am referring to where God called Abram out of Ur, promised to make him a great nation, and promised him the Land. As a Gentile, I see this as instructive but not prescriptive for me, since this was specifically between God and Abram/Abram's seed. Because of the wording of this covenant ("everlasting" and "forever"), I also lean somewhat toward Jewish Zionism. Now, that is another topic that I am curious to get your thougts on. I wish I had more time, but alas and alack, I am in the thick of "spring" cleaning and organizing for fall. :tongue_smilie: I'd much rather talk theology, but duty calls.

 

I hope to get to "know" you better, soon, though! I hope you don't mind if we pick this discussion up next week.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Peek a Boo There is no debate in the Christian community. Not one response here has been able to make a Christian case for casual sex outside of a marriage commitment.

 

Actually there is debate in the Christian community which holds diverse points of view. Your posts only seem to acknowledge your particular Christian point of view as the one and only truth. Whereas, KingM's views are also held by some Christians:)

 

Also, the OP was not about casual sex from my point of view. I am against casual sex and do not advocate pre-marital sex. However, I also believe that there are instances when it is not sinful as long as it occurs in the context of love.

 

From ExploreFaith.org website by Barbara Crafton

But the Church has really never been of one mind doctrinally— we have been tinkering with the faith ever since we received it, exploring its implications for life in the world, often coming to different conclusions about what they are. Each individual tinkers, too, struggling to figure out how he or she will live.

But we should at least do what the Bible says, someone mutters, annoyed. Well, we can try—but yesterday's readings for the Daily Office included one about how to manage your purchasing of slaves: It's okay to buy people from other countries, it says, but don't buy anyone from your own country. Leviticus 25:44. Okay.

The truth: good people will disagree about very important things. The more important they are, the more passionate their disagreement will be. A second truth: history instructs us, along with scripture. God continues to reveal his truth and love—we don't think it's okay to buy and sell slaves now, no matter what it says in Leviticus. The rules of engagement for human oneness must include the possibility of such disagreement and such instruction.

Our oneness can't be about uniformity of opinion or practice. It must be about membership in a fellowship of people all related to God in the same way: beloved of God, known by God, redeemed by Christ. One, then, in loving response to love, able to reach across the gulf of our differences and desirous of doing so.

 

I agree with the above from ExploreFaith.org:)

[KingM]

KingM,

How many lines of crack do you have to snort before you can imagine the Catholic Church approves of premarital sex?

 

 

I'm pretty sure that I have never suggested that the Catholic church approves of premarital sex and I seem to be fresh out of crack, so sorry, I can't help you there. :)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Peek A Boo [noting that one does not have to be Christian to attend a Universalist church]

 

This is true, but there are many Christian Unitarian Universalists and I do not think that they are any less Christian than other Christians. ;)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I have accepted that yours is one possible valid reading of the Bible. I don't think it's the only one.

While I an agree with this, as I am sure that I probably don't agree with Elizabeth's interpetation on several points, yours is undoubtedly wrong. Why? Because if you read the entire Bible you know that no one is telling us to stone adulterers, perform circumcision, etc. There is no confusion. And you have argued both sides, which to me gives the appearance of nothing more than an attack on Christians and the Holy Scriptures. On the one hand, you say that the Bible tells us to do the things that were commanded for God's chosen people in Ancient times, and on the other hand, you claim that all Jesus cares about is faith and loving your neighbor as yourself. Furthermore, you have been shown scriptures that prove this reasoning to be blatantly untrue, yet stick to your ridiculous statements. Jesus commanded Peter to feed his sheep, and appointed men to oversee the congregation. Throwing out everything that they then had to say and focusing only on the Hebrew Scriptures, or the gospels (which again makes no sense, you need to choose one) is not a reasonable way to understand the Bible. If you are as intelligent as you claim, then what would be your reason for doing this? (rhetorical please)

[Peek a Boo]

I haven't been reading her points since she started calling me names, so I'm sorry if I haven't been addressing them.

.....

Here's my point again. I think that sexual purity is of lesser importance to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. What's more, I don't believe that there is any difference (spiritually) between greater and lesser sins in the eyes of God. Therefore, I don't think one should worry about someone's sexual purity instead of, say, jealousy, greed, or dishonesty.

 

well, he wasn't addressing my points about what Jesus actually said even when he WAS reading my posts, LOL!

 

the bolded part is still factually wrong.

[Dirtroad]

..... not about casual sex from my point of view. I am against casual sex and do not advocate pre-marital sex. ......occurs in the context of love.

 

 

Ah, that is such a slippery slope. What is love today is redefined as lust tomorrow and hate the day after.

 

I have been "in love" several times... thankfully, I didn't have sex with all of them.

 

No scripture breaks it all down into little tidy human prefered categories. If you aren't married and want to have sex, get married. OR refrain. There really is not place/verse to chose c, d, or e.:confused:

[KingM]

And you have argued both sides, which to me gives the appearance of nothing more than an attack on Christians and the Holy Scriptures.

 

No, it means that I'm undecided on several points of theology and that even when I'm pretty sure I understand the theology, I don't always agree. I'm not one of the knowers of the world.

 

It's nothing to brag about, but you could say that I have an opinion about everything but don't know what I believe about anything. :)

 

I am most in sympathy with universalism and universal reconciliation.

[Peek a Boo]

Actually there is debate in the Christian community which holds diverse points of view. Your posts only seem to acknowledge your particular Christian point of view as the one and only truth. Whereas, KingM's views are also held by some Christians:)

 

Also, the OP was not about casual sex from my point of view. I am against casual sex and do not advocate pre-marital sex. However, I also believe that there are instances when it is not sinful as long as it occurs in the context of love.

 

I agree with the above from ExploreFaith.org:)

 

except the explorefaith site does the exact same thing KingM was doing: ignoring the context of scripture.

 

did you read my posts?

 

As Christians, if we are going to look at what is sinful [in God's eyes], we need to establish what is the foundation for determining sin.

 

If you'd like to share the specifics and reasons of a Christian position that considers sex outside of marriage to be ok, it would be wonderful to hear it.

 

There are a LOT of issues where Christians [including myself] find themselves saying "yeah, it's a sin, but I'm not gonna get all judgemental about it" which is fine, but ignores the foundation of whether the act IS a sin or not.

The thread isn't about whether to crucify someone who is doing it, but to determine whether it's even a sin in God's eyes.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Our oneness can't be about uniformity of opinion or practice. It must be about membership in a fellowship of people all related to God in the same way: beloved of God, known by God, redeemed by Christ. One, then, in loving response to love, able to reach across the gulf of our differences and desirous of doing so.

I completely disagree. 1 Corinthians 1:10

[Peek a Boo]

This is true, but there are many Christian Unitarian Universalists and I do not think that they are any less Christian than other Christians. ;)

 

I agree. But if the Christians would like to state their position and Christian reasoning on the topic at hand, that would be interesting to discuss :)

[KingM]

I completely disagree. 1 Corinthians 1:10

 

You're probably right, but which group is going to surrender their sovereignty to the others? And even in a group like the Mormons, which claim to be led by a prophet, there are differences among the members about things like evolution, the age of the earth, and gay marriage. This is part of the reason I am universalist in my sympathies. I don't know who is right, I suspect we are all wrong about many, if not most things, and I don't think it matters.

 

But in any event, practically speaking, Matthew 18:20 might be more applicable to the state of modern Christianity and more optimistic.

[Peek a Boo]

 

Our oneness can't be about uniformity of opinion or practice. It must be about membership in a fellowship of people all related to God in the same way: beloved of God, known by God, redeemed by Christ. One, then, in loving response to love, able to reach across the gulf of our differences and desirous of doing so.

 

I completely disagree. 1 Corinthians 1:10

 

errrr.... I kinda disagree with your disagreement.;)

 

I read that passage in the context of verse 12: try substituting the different religions/ denominations in verse 12.

I've shared in a previous thread that I think the denominations are [kinda] ok, as long as people aren't QUARRELING about the differences. The purposes and characteristics of the systems of a physical body are as diverse as they [denominations/personal convictions] are in the Body of Christ.

 

so....I'm agreeing w/ KingM per Matt 18:20 on this one ;)

 

someone might want to quote me on that so he gets to see it, lol....

[TXMomof4]

Here's my point again. I think that sexual purity is of lesser importance to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. What's more, I don't believe that there is any difference (spiritually) between greater and lesser sins in the eyes of God. Therefore, I don't think one should worry about someone's sexual purity instead of, say, jealousy, greed, or dishonesty.

 

I'm not going to get into all of the other business - but just wanted to say something about this little part. You are correct - Jesus doesn't view sexual impurity as any worse than greed, jealousy or dishonesty. But he doesn't say any of those things are ok. He moves it beyond the physical. It's relatively easy for me not to commit adultery. But to not look at another man lustfully? Sometimes that's a little harder. I'm not going to go out and murder someone (most likely), but I sure can wish them a lot of harm and be pretty darn angry and Jesus says it's just as bad. That proves one part of your point - there isn't ONE thing that is bad and then lesser degrees of bad.

 

However, your statement that Jesus wasn't concerned with behavior, just belief is disproven by those same verses. Correct belief leads you not only to correct behavior, but to correct motivation for those same behaviors. It's one thing not to sleep around because I'm scared of hell. It's another thing to not sleep around because I love my God and that man too much to put them through the hurt that promiscuity leads to. You are arguing that the two are separate. As long as my belief is in Jesus, it doesn't matter what I do. That's just nonsense! Of course my behavior matters, but my behavior alone isn't going to save me. My belief will lead me to better behavior, correct behavior.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

And even in a group like the Mormons, which claim to be led by a prophet, there are differences among the members about things like evolution, the age of the earth, and gay marriage.

There are no such differences among Jehovah's Witnesses. In over 437 languages and 230 lands they all believe and practice the same thing. You (not you, but anyone) can attack me for stating this, but it is simply a fact. These lands have not just missionaries but native peoples united in their desire to serve God. Native peoples who no longer use images in their worship, mix pagan practices in with their Christian religion, perform superstitious acts, or have more than one wife. If one is a babtized practicing Witness, then you do indeed agree on these things. Edited July 9, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Jehovah's Witnesses position on premarital sex: It is considered Pornea. It can result in expulsion from the Christian congregation. (1 Corinthians 5) It does not always as each case is treated on an individual basis. In addition, for example gossip, lying, stealing, and spousal abuse can all result in expulsion from the Christian congregation. They do not always as each case is treated on an individual basis. After being expelled, such a one has a chance to repent and be welcomed back. (2 Corinthians 2)

Edited July 9, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[KingM]

However, your statement that Jesus wasn't concerned with behavior, just belief is disproven by those same verses. Correct belief leads you not only to correct behavior, but to correct motivation for those same behaviors. It's one thing not to sleep around because I'm scared of hell. It's another thing to not sleep around because I love my God and that man too much to put them through the hurt that promiscuity leads to. You are arguing that the two are separate. As long as my belief is in Jesus, it doesn't matter what I do. That's just nonsense! Of course my behavior matters, but my behavior alone isn't going to save me. My belief will lead me to better behavior, correct behavior.

 

Good points. Let me think about this some more.

[KingM]

There are no such differences among Jehovah's Witnesses. In over 437 languages and 230 lands they all believe and practice the same thing. You (not you, but anyone) can attack me for stating this, but it is simply a fact. These lands have not just missionaries but native peoples united in their desire to serve God. Native peoples who no longer use images in their worship, mix pagan practices in with their Christian religion, perform superstitious acts, or have more than one wife. If one is a babtized practicing Witness, then you do indeed agree on these things.

 

I don't know very much about JW except for what I've read about some of the things that they prohibit, but I do have extended family who are Mormons and I think they would say the same thing. But when you get them together, they still interpret the scriptures and teachings of their faith in slightly different ways.

 

Practically speaking, however, how can you possibly get a group of people together and have them agree 100% on these things, even within an individual congregation? Even within a single family or couple?

 

My wife and I agree on 99% of everything, but there's always that 1% that leads to some interesting discussions. :)

[Tami]

KingM, may I suggest that you are a little rusty on your New Testament textual knowledge? You may want to go back and reread it, allowing the author to say what the author says. ;)

[LMA]

There are no such differences among Jehovah's Witnesses. In over 437 languages and 230 lands they all believe and practice the same thing. You (not you, but anyone) can attack me for stating this, but it is simply a fact. These lands have not just missionaries but native peoples united in their desire to serve God. Native peoples who no longer use images in their worship, mix pagan practices in with their Christian religion, perform superstitious acts, or have more than one wife. If one is a babtized practicing Witness, then you do indeed agree on these things.

 

Same for Catholics. People may complain about this or that about the Church, but the Church has official teachings. The positions are clear. Catholics may disagree on the Church's position, but their disagreement is only opinion.

 

Note to KingM, if you are around, I wanted to add this the other night, but I had no time. I just want to say that Jesus was definitely concerned about behavior. He was crucified for our sins so that we could be saved. He will give us our Last Judgment.

 

From my theology, regardless of whether or not people believe that there are different levels of sin (and for me, there are only two - venial and mortal), sin is still sin and it separates us from God.

 

If you are interested in traditional Catholic theology, I highly recommend the book The Last Four Things. It writes about the role that our own sin, which comes from our behavior, plays in our salvation and Christ's role in our judgment.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/4last-things.htm

 

(Again this was just for another viewpoint, if you are interested.)

[Lovedtodeath]

Practically speaking, however, how can you possibly get a group of people together and have them agree 100% on these things, even within an individual congregation?

 

My wife and I agree on 99% of everything, but there's always that 1% that leads to some interesting discussions. :)

There are some things that are fun to discuss and speculate about. We don't have a definitive answer for the dinosaurs. We like to imagine the earth being restored to an Eden-like state. We aren't sure how family members and mates will be happy if they are separated for a time. (between heaven and earth) That's all I can think of. All Witnesses receive understanding from the "faithful and discreet slave". )Matt 24:45) We all have the same 2 meetings per week with the same schedule of study, along with local and international conventions. Edited July 9, 2009 by Lovedtodeath
dinosaurs is capitalized... no?

[KingM]

I almost missed this, but I thought I should address it.

 

Throwing out everything that they then had to say and focusing only on the Hebrew Scriptures, or the gospels (which again makes no sense, you need to choose one) is not a reasonable way to understand the Bible.

 

I'm not sure I understand. I would certainly agree that the New Testament is more important to understanding Christianity than the Old Testament, surely you don't think the Old Testament should be completely discarded? If not, isn't it reasonable to quote from the OT as well? And isn't there disagreement among Christian sects as to which parts of the OT are still applicable?

 

For example, many Christians on this board quote the "quiver full" verse from Psalms 127, while other Christians do not place any special importance on this verse. Similarly, some people place greater emphasis in a literal interpretation of the creation story from Genesis, or still believe in circumcision. Nearly all Christians still hold special respect for the Ten Commandments, while discarding the dietary laws, but I'll bet there are more than a few Christian sects which follow some sort of kosher laws.

 

If you are as intelligent as you claim, then what would be your reason for doing this? (rhetorical please)

 

I don't think I claimed any special intelligence. I have been defending myself every time someone calls me stupid. It's probably childish to do so, but it's a natural tendency, don't you think? :)

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Same for Catholics. People may complain about this or that about the Church, but the Church has official teachings. The positions are clear. Catholics may disagree on the Church's position, but their disagreement is only opinion.

I appreciate you letting us know.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I almost missed this, but I thought I should address it.

You addressed it well. My views of the Hebrew scriptures were stated in an earlier post. (addressing yourself and Eliana) Edited July 9, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[KarenNC]

I am painfully aware that this is the intelligent, reasonable assumption of anyone who hasn't studied the Bible in its entirety. From that perspective, it seems like both the accurate Bible quoter and the proof texter are both simply providing Bible verses to support their personal positions.

 

Your position is understandable, and of great concern to anyone who hopes to make Christ's message known to all.

 

I would like to share my position with you for a moment.

 

Elizabeth, you continue to make judgments about the state of other people's knowledge of the Bible and to denigrate such without any information upon which to base that judgment other than that they do not appear to agree with you.

 

Let me share with you *my* position: I was very deeply involved with the Christian Church for over 30 years, with experience in the Presbyterian, Assembly of God and Episcopal Churches. I have read and studied the Bible extensively during that period, including multiple translations and a 4 year course on lay ministry (which included theology and the Bible, including in its historic context) through an Episcopal seminary (a course called Education for Ministry). I have read the Bible "cover to cover" multiple times. I have I have spent a year studying the Tanakh with a Reform Jewish rabbi, as well as spent many years reading extensively about Judaism (in its varying forms) from Jewish authorities.

 

The fact that I do not agree with the tenets of the Bible or think that asking "according to whom" when someone lays out as definitive what "the Bible says" is appropriate does not come from a lack of knowledge of its message, either to the Jews or the Christians. It does not arise from my being "confused", "under-educated", "narcissistic","intellectually lazy", "prideful", "dishonest", "unable to understand reason", "ethically challenged", etc

[KingM]

Same for Catholics. People may complain about this or that about the Church, but the Church has official teachings. The positions are clear. Catholics may disagree on the Church's position, but their disagreement is only opinion.

 

I'm not a Catholic, but I do know a few who disagree with the official church position on subjects. One thing I appreciate about the Catholic church is that these people are not excluded from the community because they hold differing views or because they are irregular church attenders. Nobody says, "Nope, you're not a Catholic."

 

I don't know about in other places, but in New England, at least, the Catholics seem to be a very inclusive, rather than exclusive community, the individual members accepting and non-judgmental even about outsiders like myself, and I admire this.