Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ScienceRocks, Nov 26, 2017.
Both Pence DNA and George Washington DNA lie in the same Rector-Gard Cemetery in Ohio.
I know that Anglicans believe it is AOK for their monarch to take over their national church in one of the most grotesque displays of the union of church and state in all history.
The Anglican bishops allowed the monarchs of England to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent people as he sacked the monestaries of England in order to finance his wars in France.
I know that the Anglican church has steadfastly supported their definition of everything regarding basic morality within their so-called church (established by theives and murderers) to the point their own Third World bishops threatened to revolt.
I know that the Anglican church and all its children denominations are losing members at a catastrophic rate.
Guess they realized what a toxic religion they had been raised in.
Yes, the partners should be properly matched.
Your explanation is a more exact way of speaking to the same point I am trying to make,
though I'm trying to cover broader ground at the same time
(incidentally this also applies to why believers under
spiritual laws of the church "should not be yoked" with secular gentiles under
civil and natural laws that REJECT the laws of the church; if the govt laws
are in harmony and consistent with church laws, there is no conflict. if people
cannot agree because of beliefs, this is why I am saying they should SEPARATE
and govern themselves under their own laws, leaving the govt to where all people AGREE)
You may see this passage as just "Paul" speaking, on practical matters,
without the direct authority of Jesus;
but "natural laws" that govern humanity also come from Nature or God
which humanity came from. Jesus fulfills these laws as the authority of "justice"
but anyone including Paul you or me can CITE natural laws that apply universal human nature/beings in general.
There are TWO paths, the secular gentiles under Natural laws
and the believers under scriptural laws and authority; Jesus fulfills BOTH paths as the spirit of justice,
and believers are supposed to respect BOTH authorities, and that's where the two paths either need
to agree on laws to make these public for everyone or agree to separate (as Jesus said: render under
Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God what is God's). These two should never impose on each
other through govt, so I see a massive need to separate jurisdictions and govern locally by consent of
each community that agrees with each other, and quit making federal cases and issues over beliefs!
As for the other Biblical laws that speak even stronger to proper spiritual relations,
I cited two of the 10 commandments (which I guess you would
say came from Moses not Jesus)
1. not to commit adultery
2. not to covet thy neighbor's wife or anything that is thy neighbor's
And in Matthew 5:28, to commit lust or "covet" in spirit is already
I found a more detailed explanation, linked as well as copied below,
that the lust in itself isn't the real target here
but "coveting that which isn't rightfully ours"
"Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust": Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1 | Jason Staples
The argument I focus on refers to ANY sexual relationship being improper
is if those two people are NOT each other's spiritual complements,
and if they are really intended to be the spouse or partner of OTHER people.
(this applies to rape, incest, child abuse, relationship abuse, sexual abuse, etc.
and not just targeting homosexual relationships)
The idea is those people should reserve sexual relations for OTHER people who ARE their
"proper partners" (NOTE: for couples who practice open marriages and connect with
other couples, equally "yoked" as soul-mates who consent to and believe the same things
about marriage: This reminds me of Jesus answering about marriage and the resurrection:
30In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven. 31)
Where people have their own private beliefs, by the First Amendment these cannot be banned from practice
(except where illegal actions violate other laws such as on rape, incest, child abuse, etc.),
but this goes BOTH ways: the govt can NEITHER "establish or prohibit" the free exercise of religion
which I interpret to be beliefs including political beliefs and not just organized religion or that is discriminating
and not protecting all individuals if they have to belong to certain religious groups for the law to apply.
The problem is gentiles and nonbelievers cannot be forced by law and govt to endorse and comply with beliefs,
but this isn't being equally applied to believers who argue that LGBT policies are faith based "beliefs."
The LGBT beliefs keep getting pushed as more inclusive neutral default to "include" more freedom,
but instead it is PENALIZING and forcing people who don't believe in endorsing same sex marriage
to be under govt and laws that recognize and incorporate this. It's one thing if the law ALLOWS the practice
in private, but another thing to ENDORSE same sex marriage as a "right by law" instead of a free choice of religious
or spiritual practice. That's like two groups arguing over adult or infant baptism, or sprinkling or full immersion,
and the govt orders all the public to RECOGNIZE as a right all people's right to a baptism. That's a religious or spiritual practice and it's already protected under the First Amendment.
The most consistent argument I support
is that govt should not be in the business of regulating or defending, banning or penalizing people
for their beliefs about marriage any more than beliefs about baptism or communion etc.
I understand that since there has been such bullying and discrimination against
both the LGBT community as well as ADVOCATES, this has been fought as a civil rights issue.
But it's NOT the same as race which is genetic, so this has caused added conflict on
the issue of whether or not to recognize a new "class" of people or protections, if
at least SOME of the conditions are "external behavioral choices" more like the freedom to exercise one's faith.
Part of the reason for backlash both ways,
a lot of these SAME LGBT community members and rights advocates
EQUALLY "malign, harass, abuse and reject" Christians, Christian practices and beliefs, and especially
slander anyone defending "ex gay" testimonies and healing therapies that have been used by
people to heal from abuses that changed their orientation that wasn't natural for them or wanted.
So this is why I argue that LGBT and Christian practices and expression
should be treated EQUALLY as CREEDS, and not penalize people of either beliefs.
The discrimination is mutual and not one sided, so any laws that are enforced
should recognize and protect the beliefs on both sides from infringement by or on others of opposing beliefs.
Otherwise, laws that are onesided are going to "discriminate by creed"
if they only recognize and punish one side for abusing, harassing and maligning the other.
Again, if people disagree and reject in private, that's our free choice.
but this business of getting GOVT involved in "taking sides and endorsing beliefs
of one over the other" is where the conflict over political beliefs has risen to the
same level of First Amendment free exercise of religion where govt should neither establish nor prohibit either side.
"Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust": Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1 | Jason Staples
The first thing to understand in this passage (and in the Sermon on the Mount in general) is that Jesus is in no way intensifying the Law here, nor is he really saying anything new. What’s that, you say? The Law doesn’t forbid lusting after a woman, so Jesus has obviously turned things up to eleven by doing so?
Well, as it turns out, the Greek word usually translated “lust” in this passage (ἐπιθυμέω; epithumeô) is precisely the word for “covet” (Hebrew חמד) in the Tenth Command in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which says:
οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου. οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν. (Ex 20:17 LXX)
“You will not covet your neighbor’s wife. You will not covet your neighbors house or his field or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or any animal which is your neighbor’s.”
Looks pretty familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, it’s basically identical; the word translated “wife” here is the same that is translated “woman” in Matthew (there’s no distinction between the words “wife” and “woman” in Greek; both English words translate the same Greek word γύνη; gynē).
Jesus isn’t saying anything new at all in Matthew 5:27–28; instead, he directly cites one of the Ten Commands to remind his audience that the Law not only prohibits adultery, it prohibits coveting with the same severity. This is not an intensification of the Law; it’s a reminder of what the Law already says. In addition, Jesus gives no indication that he regards the Law as too difficult to keep—he not only assumes that his followers can follow his interpretation of the Torah but commands them to do so.
Now that it’s clear that Jesus isn’t saying something specifically new here but is instead calling attention to the Tenth Command, the next order of business is to understand the tenth command and the concept of “coveting.” The first thing to understand is that when the Hebrew חמד or Greek ἐπιθυμέω are used as verbs in the OT, it denotes desire directed at obtaining the specific object in question and not merely the existence of the desire itself.
Strikingly, the nominal (noun-form) concept of “lust” or “desire” (even the sexual variety) is nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor is it equated with sin—only the potential to sin: “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then, when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin. And when sin is completed, it brings forth death” (James 1:14–15). Note that James clearly distinguishes between “lust” (that is, desire) at the stage of temptation and “sin,” which is the actual commission of an act.
In keeping with this distinction, Tenth Command specifically forbids the action of coveting (hence the verbal form), perhaps best understood as forbidding fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own. (A fuller way to understand “coveting” is analogous to the modern legal concept of “attempted” lawbreaking, but that’s a subject for for another post.)
Even if people are not believers who embody and invoke the spirit of Jesus as the authority of Justice,
even if they are "secular gentiles" following the Natural laws in the Bible,
Jesus as Justice governs that fold as well.
These are not fakes, they are just followers of the other path.
We are still supposed to seek reconciliation and agreement on truth,
whether we are addressing secular gentiles under natural laws
or fellow believers under scriptural laws and authority.
Jesus still governs BOTH paths, so that where the two AGREE
in the spirit of truth and justice, these two paths are in harmony not conflict.
The key JimBowie1958 is to address the secular audience
using their secular laws. So if they follow Constitutional principles,
and believe in "Equal Justice Under Law" then we should be able to
resolve issues so the laws are fair, inclusive and representative of all people.
Just denouncing people for being of other beliefs isn't going to solve the problem.
It just alienates the audience or causes "backlash" of trying to discredit you back!
It's more effective to recognize their belief set is different,
then invoke the natural law principles of separating private beliefs from public policy.
We can't get to that agreement to separate our beliefs from govt policy
if we are too busy bashing each other for what is contained in our beliefs.
This is not necessary to agree with anyone's beliefs, valid or not,
in order to invoke common standards to keep those out of govt!
Time for the cheap toxic garbage that you appear to support to explain people like frankie graham, jeffress, focus on the family, sluts like moore, dobson, and all the others who wish to prostitute the Christian faith. The Christian faith has the potential, and has carried out this potential, for many hundreds of years. Yet now we have the garbage like these guys trying to tear it down and reduce it to nothing but cheap hate. It's more than disgusting.
Visit Canterbury, Westminster, St. Paul's in London, the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Notre Dame. No cheap huckster of a used-car salesman will ever match the incredible experience of being a faithful Christian. And I have left out the entire experiences of faithful Christians around the world, including all of the Orthodox faiths, the faith of the Ethiopians, the Greeks, the Russians, the Copts, the Armenians, and such things as the Miracle of the Holy Fire. Christianity is supposed to have a focus on spirituality. What is now being marketed in the U.S. as "Christianity" has no dignity or spirituality and has nothing to do with the faith in Jesus, the spirituality, and the honor of the Christian faith.
why wouldn't they be? is their brand of christianity less valid than yours?
I would have to add, having seeing this quote with your posts so many times, your addition of the quote from Springsteen, "Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" is so so true. A wise man, a talented man, a visionary, Mr. Springsteen.
So you think fundie "Christians" are more guilty of that than the "vicar of Christ" Pope. Strange.
Not strange. Look at history. As a former Catholic, raised that way, I still do not accept why these fundie folks of the "evangelicals" think that they are the post-reformation know-it-alls.They just are so are not.
For some 1500 years the Trinitarian Popes have claimed to speak for God and claimed to have right to boss everyone else around.
You bash "fundies" because you are a common Trinitarian anti-Christian bigot
Separate names with a comma.