Wanna talk about the Bible?

[_Coggins7]

This is nothing compared to how she behaves herself in the Telestial Kingdom. She could give any midshipman I knew in San Diego a run for his money in the language department.

[_Sam Harris]

And what has this to do with the Bible?

Your focus on me instead of the subject has a lot to do with your fundamentalist, elitist mindset. But I understand. Some people are so afraid of life that they have to use God as a pedestal. You should be pitied, not made fun of. Plutarch, I apologize for not giving your inferiority complex more gentle treatment.

But this is the way of the TBM. It was seen on MAD, it's been seen on just about every board that debates the LDS religion. When you cannot discuss the subject in a coherent manner, focus on what you percieve to be the shortcomings of the messenger. It's really cute.

I still fail to see how the Bible supports TBM elitism, and I haven't seen anything from BCSpace other than his personal interpretation of the many wide definition of greek and english words in the Bible. In other words, hermeunetics. Sucky hermeunetics, but hermeunetics nonetheless.

Well, here's another bone for you, BCSpace...the closest thing I could find to your Heavenly Mother in the Bible, a female God was Wisdom...that which was alongside God when the world was created. I still fail to understand how passages that have the word "god" in them and reference idolatry a few lines down can mean that human beings are individual gods, but if you need that to survive, that's fine. Knowing that I'll rule my own planet someday is not really on my list of things to be inspired about.

Plutarch, you haven't given me anything to engage, I'm sorry. See, this is what I hate. You claim victory before you ever show any substance! You have books on hand that claim to spell out how ancient Israelite marriage was done, yet you won't look at them to really do what you claim to be doing, which is proving me wrong. Marriage customs are spelled out in the Bible, so put your money where your mouth is, and show me how the legal process in the modern world today is exactly that of the ancient world.

Back to the subject of sex, which you did bring up, and about me no less. TBMs fail to see (and arrogantly so), that their world view is not the only one. I know y'all hate gays, I know that you feel if you lie down with someone before marriage, that person is a sinner. I know you feel that coffee and tea, not to mention alcohol deserve their own anonymous recovery program....the hallmark of a Christian to you all is what a person does with the outside...not who they are on the inside.

But I was never taught to interperet Christianity like that. I was taught that everyone is a sinner, no one perfect. Now, I know the fundies who have hijacked my thread with apparent concern about my mental status will see this as a justification for sin, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people mess up. You can sin and still be a Christian. That's what forgiveness is for.

Fornication is defined as sex outside of marriage. Like I said before in those parts of my posts you like to ignore in lieu of finding that which supports your view of a "person with a lot of baggage" Plu, I understand the commandment to wait until you're married, and why. But of course, if I told you why, you'd just go on about how much medication I need. Whatever validates you. But you see, there are some folks out there that Paul spoke a lot of vitrol against, the Old Testament spoke a lot of vitrol against, and Jesus said nothing about who cannot marry in most states in this country. It doesn't matter how how kind and giving they are, it doesn't matter how many times they turn the other cheek, what matters is that they're having sex with a person of the same gender. So they're just banned from God's love, right?

Plutarch, your legalism really doesn't leave room for the real world. And you and the other TBMs on this thread fail to see other points of view. I see yours because it used to be my point of view...until I realized how damaging to others it was. But anyways...

To me, fornication is sex that damages one or both parties involved. Loving exchang between two willing and responsible parties I cannot pass judgement upon. In your world where the proper dress, speech, handshakes and gestures makes a Christian, this isn't enough. But in the real world where there are people who will never meet your standards, let alone garner a dollar from you in passing while sitting on a street corner, this has meaning.

My boyfriend calls himself a Samaritan. He will not go to church. Why? Folks like you, Cog, etc. You're so holy, yet you can tumble with the meanest of them...yet use God to justify you. I've seen him give more, do more, and act better than many church folk. I pointed out to him what roles Samaritans played in the Bible, and how Christ saw them, and that gave him some comfort. Even a friend of his about to be ordained says he behaves better than most churchgoing people.

But because he will have a drink in the evenings, he's lost. Because he doesn't show up in suit on sunday he's lost.

What has any of this to do with the Bible? Nothing.

And neither has any of your comments, Plu. Neither does your legalism. You've discussed my personal life, but you haven't discussed the topic of this thread, nor anything in the initial posts. Because you cannot. Typical TBM tactic, creation of diversions to hide ignorance.

*picks up her baggage*

Have a nice day.

[_Sam Harris]

This is nothing compared to how she behaves herself in the Telestial Kingdom. She could give any midshipman I knew in San Diego a run for his money in the language department.

And despite all the hungry I have fed, naked I have clothed, for this alone I shall go to hell. Cog, it's just wonderful!

[_Sam Harris]

TBMs, can you start a thread on how it's more important to be a good Mormon than it is to be a good person? So the emphasis on other people's behavior can have a proper context?

I never pretend to be an angel, and I'm not sorry for who I am. But this doesn't have anything to do with a critical look at the Bible, so take the BS somewhere else, can you be an example in deed as well as word and respectfully do that?

Or are you being a good soldier for God (ahem, Joseph Smith) by continuing to paint a false picture of me?

[_rcrocket]

GIMR:

Why don't your forget about what you think I think about your personal life. I don't care. Quit bringing up your personal life with me. I ask you these questions because in your past posts you seemed to indicate your belief, perhaps I am wrong, that as far as morality goes, anything goes for the committed Christian. I'd like to maybe have you provide me a better understanding of this theology.

You asked for information on marital customs at the time of Jesus; I gave it to you chapter and verse. But your new post seems to want to limit me to the Bible. Marriage in both the Old Testament and New Testament indicates a formal convenant. Jews couldn't divorce under Jewish law, but they could resort to Roman law for a divorce.

Marriage was enforceable by a license and law. "[B]y law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive . . . " Romans 7:2. So, marriage was never viewed as just hopping in the sack with one another; Paul refers to that several times as "fornication" and Jesus as "adultery." So, it is hard for me to read the scriptures as seeing "anything goes" and yet retaining one's standing with God. Paul, in writing to the "saved" Romans, warned: "For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Romans 11:21. I think this is a significant passage emphasizing the need for continued commitment and commandment-keeping.

So, vitriol aside, do you think that a fornicator, who remains such, can retain a "saved" status?

P

[_Yoda]

GIMR:

Why don't your forget about what you think I think about your personal life. I don't care. Quit bringing up your personal life with me. I ask you these questions because in your past posts you seemed to indicate your belief, perhaps I am wrong, that as far as morality goes, anything goes for the committed Christian. I'd like to maybe have you provide me a better understanding of this theology.

You asked for information on marital customs at the time of Jesus; I gave it to you chapter and verse. But your new post seems to want to limit me to the Bible. Marriage in both the Old Testament and New Testament indicates a formal convenant. Jews couldn't divorce under Jewish law, but they could resort to Roman law for a divorce.

Marriage was enforceable by a license and law. "[B]y law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive . . . " Romans 7:2. So, marriage was never viewed as just hopping in the sack with one another; Paul refers to that several times as "fornication" and Jesus as "adultery." So, it is hard for me to read the scriptures as seeing "anything goes" and yet retaining one's standing with God. Paul, in writing to the "saved" Romans, warned: "For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Romans 11:21. I think this is a significant passage emphasizing the need for continued commitment and commandment-keeping.

So, vitriol aside, do you think that a fornicator, who remains such, can retain a "saved" status?

P

Since you obviously either did not read, or could not comprehend GIMR's post, I'll answer this question for you. (GIMR, I'm just trying to save you a headache. If I misrepresent your view, please feel free to jump in. Poor Plutarch seems to have reading comprehension problems.)

If you read GIMR's post, you will see that yes, she recognizes that fornication outside of marriage is a sin according to the Christian world. Hence, the following quote:

Fornication is defined as sex outside of marriage. Plu, I understand the commandment to wait until you're married, and why.

However, she points out that the Evangelical Christian world views ALL people as sinners in some form. Hence, the following quote:

I was taught that everyone is a sinner, no one perfect. Now, I know the fundies who have hijacked my thread with apparent concern about my mental status will see this as a justification for sin, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people mess up. You can sin and still be a Christian. That's what forgiveness is for.

I believe, her point, is that according to the Bible, it is not OUR place as man to judge another for his or her sin. It is God's place, and God's alone. And, although God is a just God, he is also a merciful God.

Does that about sum it up, GIMR?

[_rcrocket]

I was really looking for an answer from GIMR.

One is really copping out by saying that everybody is a sinner and that it is not our place to judge. If you rely upon that formula then, basically, anything goes. If one believes the New Testament provides a model for Christian ethics, I would like to know from GIMR (and now you) as to whether those ethics justify continued fornication.

It really is that simple. I have read and digested GIMR's posts. She just doesn't want to answer the question.

Maybe if you looked at the question a different way: Is it appropriate for a Christian pastor to preach that a continued fornicator is not right with Jesus's teachings?

[_Yoda]

Maybe if you looked at the question a different way: Is it appropriate for a Christian pastor to preach that a continued fornicator is not right with Jesus's teachings?

Of course it is.

You're making an argument where there is no argument. At least as far as I am concerned. I'll let GIMR answer for herself.

My point...and I thought from GIMR's post, her point as well...was that whether or not sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to Christ, it doesn't mean that it is our place to judge that person, or devalue that person. The sin is to be dealt with between Christ and the sinner.

[_rcrocket]

Maybe if you looked at the question a different way: Is it appropriate for a Christian pastor to preach that a continued fornicator is not right with Jesus's teachings?

Of course it is.

You're making an argument where there is no argument. At least as far as I am concerned. I'll let GIMR answer for herself.

My point...and I thought from GIMR's post, her point as well...was that whether or not sex outside of marriage is considered wrong according to Christ, it doesn't mean that it is our place to judge that person, or devalue that person. The sin is to be dealt with between Christ and the sinner.

And, thus, goes the argument against Joseph Smith.

I have not pretended to "judge" any person or "devalue" any person. But, the Bible is a canon of ethical sayings. GIMR, you say you are a theology student; explain your theology. I don't want a complete download of your oppressed life.

P

[_Sam Harris]

GIMR:

Why don't your forget about what you think I think about your personal life. I don't care. Quit bringing up your personal life with me. I ask you these questions because in your past posts you seemed to indicate your belief, perhaps I am wrong, that as far as morality goes, anything goes for the committed Christian. I'd like to maybe have you provide me a better understanding of this theology.

You asked for information on marital customs at the time of Jesus; I gave it to you chapter and verse. But your new post seems to want to limit me to the Bible. Marriage in both the Old Testament and New Testament indicates a formal convenant. Jews couldn't divorce under Jewish law, but they could resort to Roman law for a divorce.

Marriage was enforceable by a license and law. "[B]y law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive . . . " Romans 7:2. So, marriage was never viewed as just hopping in the sack with one another; Paul refers to that several times as "fornication" and Jesus as "adultery." So, it is hard for me to read the scriptures as seeing "anything goes" and yet retaining one's standing with God. Paul, in writing to the "saved" Romans, warned: "For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Romans 11:21. I think this is a significant passage emphasizing the need for continued commitment and commandment-keeping.

So, vitriol aside, do you think that a fornicator, who remains such, can retain a "saved" status?

P

Look. YOU brought it up. I responded. Just because my testimony is too bright for your fundamentalism doesn't excuse the assumptions you made.

My theology is not "anything goes". But it is vast enough to include the humanity and failures of others, which you as a TBM are incapable of doing.

It's sad how you could not discuss anything of worth in this thread, you didn't address anything in the initial post I created, you didn't do anything other than tell me who I am and what I do with my body, and when cornered, you did what shady lawyers do best...lie about it.

This thread died down once before when actual fruitful discussion from LDS and non alike was going on. I'm not going to carry this on for weeks with people who have come to their conclusions about what I'm saying, completely throwing out the window any need for literacy.

I'm a progressive Christian with evangelical leanings. My theology is this: I believe in God from a Christian point of view, but I question everything, as I have a right to do. I am not afraid to look at the Bible with a critical eye, I'm not afraid to face the contradictions, I am not afraid to find value in other faiths, and I'm not afraid to say that some of the creeds that fundamentalists throughout Christianity (TBMs included) use are archaic and sadistic.

I was "raised" in my faith on watching the Bible specials on the history channel. I read Spong as well as TD Jakes and Joyce Meyer. I balance my faith with reason. I don't dwell in a world where everyone has to be or think like me. Those who live in a world of fundamentalism cannot understand that, are often afraid of that, and often respond to such a stance with character defamation and fear. But I understand this. It's pathetic, but I understand this.

I have not pretended to "judge" any person or "devalue" any person. But, the Bible is a canon of ethical sayings. GIMR, you say you are a theology student; explain your theology. I don't want a complete download of your oppressed life.

Plutarch, it's really sad how afraid of being human you are. Firstly, I'm not oppressed. But I understand that TBMs must put up the facade of being perfect, so anyone who talks about being weak or having suffered is intolerable. I have explained part of my theology above (which no doubt you will not understand). No, it does not match "traditional" Christianity. I feel traditional Christianity to be outdated given the world we live in.

I never said that I believed the Bible to be the only source for ethical living. My point in this thread was to examine why people try to use the Bible to justify things like hatred, when they are incapable of seeing the humanity in the writings of the Bible, not to mention the social, cultural, and economic contexts. But in attempting to divert away from the subject, an impassionate look that the Bible by focusing on my sex life and mental status, you missed that.

I was so impressed in my Old Testament class that they didn't tell me what I had to believe, the book gave many theories, and let the student choose for himself or herself. It's sad that the Christian world as a whole is still catching up on this theory.