The Sydney Anglican Archdiocese really is another country.
Justice Michael Kirby, I am convinced that if you remain unrepentant then you will be walking the same foolish path as Herod. Moreover, if you continue to claim to be a Christian Anglican and to make such assertions in the media interview I quoted earlier, I can only conclude that, like Herod, you are a coward, a liar, a deceiver and that you have set yourself up as the lawless one. That is not a conclusion which I seek but if there is no change then I shall be resigned to the position of acceptance regarding its truth. Furthermore, I am confident that if it is true then it will not only be revealed as truth but that the Lord will also exercise his authority over such folly.
Thus, the Reverend Richard Lane, Rector of St Stephen’s, Bellevue Hill, writing an unsolicited letter to Justice Michael Kirby.
You can read his correspondence with Kirby in full via the Sydney Morning Herald. I think Kirby both does a good job of explaining why Christianity and homosexuality are not incompatible and in displaying a lot more of the Christian virtues than the Reverend gentleman who wrote to him does.
Lane, like all homophobes who claims a scriptural basis for their prejudice, is being selectively fundamentalist and selectively literalist. A consistent fundamentalist and literalist would start by getting stuck into the rich, the oppressors of widows and orphans, the sort of people who turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves, and the like, and this would keep them so busily occupied that they’d never find time to work their way far enough down the list of scriptural condemnees to start picking on queers, witches, pelicans and women who wear ankle bracelets.
Those pelicans are truly satanic.
In related news, conclusive proof that Washington is Satanic:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/09/mccain-and-conspirac.html
I’m glad to see they’ve modified the letters in the PDF: the earlier one on the SMH site this morning had Kirby’s home address on the letters.
Yikes!
And most US presidents are apparently devil worshipers
Kim @ 3 I think it’s a bit of a no-brainer that if you join the points of The Pentagon you get a pentagram.
Also if McCain thinks Washington’s the City of Satan why is he so gung-ho about getting elected to serve Beelzebub The American People?
Exorcism opportunity?
At least all those devil worshippers aren’t popping the shocker. That’d be really dreadful.
I think I’d be more worried about Rev. Richard Lane than all the conspiracy nutters, rapturista and vote chasing old muddle heads any day. What a poisonous mongrel act to cloak yourself in the respectability of the church (coff) and proclaim your ignorance and superstition as enlightenment.
Is “enlightenment” the right word?
Enlightenment probably isn’t the right word (although “I am the way, the truth and the light” vs. Lucifer seems to me to be a weird conundrum, and that’s just in one book!).
Well, Lucifer was a fallen angel, don’t forget.
Now Herod, there’s a name to conjure with. It may be time for Bill Heffernan to bring forth some more forged “documents”, eh? Now that he’s sorted out the seat of Gippsland.
Kim wrote:
A widely misinterpreted one apparently – the Wikipedia entry on Lucifer is fun.
As for Rev. Richard Lane, well, the irony of using 1 Timothy (another widely disputed text whose authorship and interpretation is eye rolling) is probably lost on him, as it also exhorts christians to guard against false teachers. Like him.
Yeah, precisely.
Like I said, I think Justice Kirby got the better of the hermeneutical argument!
I was very impressed with Kirby’s arguments.
As Kirby’s partner Johan said, I cannot understand how an intelligent man like Kirby could believe in religion. However, in this case his religion gave him the ability to counter the usual Christian Taliban arguments on homosexuality.
Lane could have used capitals to more effect. For example:
But then he would have sounded like the Very Reverend Graeme Bird!
Just had to share this to give you some idea of Lane’s “form”:
Jews for Jesus Referee list
- Last Updated (Sunday, 27 May 2007)
Some of the folks who have commended our ministry and want to share a word with you.
Anglican
… Rev Richard Lane, rector, St Stephens, Bellevue Hill (NSW)
See: http://www.jewsforjesus.org.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=54
Neither fellow comes out of this fracas looking too flash.
The Reverend calls the Justice a coward and a liar who will burn in hell, while the Justice responds by intimating the Reverend could be an in-closet willy-woof. It’s pretty low-brow gear.
The Reverend spooks me more, though, coming across as sarcastic, aggressive, humorless and judgmental.
Jimmy
I scanned the PDF correspondence quickly, Jimmy, and couldn’t see where Kirby intimates the Good Rev might have a case of Closeted Woofterism, unless you mean Kirby does so by mentioning Ted Haggard?
Whilst the Rev does appear to be humourless, his lumbering and clubfooted attempts at such remind me of those occasions when Andrew Bolt thinks he is being deliciously satirical.
Mr C, I read that whole paragraph as the Justice saying (without actually saying): “My theory is that many people like you, good Reverend, might like a bit of the other, which is why you’re so f***ed up about it.”
Then, by way of evidence, he presents Reverend Haggard.
Rev Lane needs to see Lewis Black’s pisstake, on those who say that homosexuality is a “threat to the American family.” Black says perhaps he’s wrong, perhaps there is a gang of “gay bandidos…in their black coats and hoods, and matching pumps–very tasteful…” who break into a house where a young American family is sitting down to eat…[I won't spoil it though]
“and another American family is DESTROYED”
Hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk
The theological arguments that Lane espouses leaves me cold. Now from an atheist perspective, much easier to cut Lane’s arguments to shreds…ah well, another day perhaps Kim
The theological arguments that Lane espouses leaves me cold.
That’s if arguing by assertion, question-begging, appealing to Biblical authority and committing the No True Christian Anglican fallacy count as “arguments.”
Not terribly helpful to those who, like Kirby, want to be Christian and gay, Peter!
What a strange turn of phrase the Rev. uses. Is a ‘Christian Anglican’ like a ‘gay homosexual’ ??
To be fair, that was how Kirby characterised himself, I believe!
Given the recent media publicity relating to the South Australian incest couple, I doubt that Justice Kirby could judge in a matter like this, given his sodomitic lifestyle, which is arguably much the same or worse in moral terms.
The majority of Australians do not want sodomites controlling the destiny of their legal system. Kirby may be a good lawyer, but he a sodomite by all accounts, one of the majority of gays who spread Syphilis and HIV/AIDS in the Australian community and therefore not fit to hold public office.
Well Tom, homosexuals are not exactly shags on a rock. According to Leviticus 21, God also hates dwarfs, cripples, blind people, blemished people, people with flat noses, hunchbacks and folk with scurvy or “broken stones”. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/21.html
Please amend your “God Hates Fags” placard accordingly.
LOLZ @ Tom..
All it deserves, really…
“…one of the majority of gays who spread Syphilis and HIV/AIDS in the Australian community and therefore not fit to hold public office.”
I also blame pooves for the velour revival. Will no one think of the looming aesthetic holocaust?
Back OT, this is just another moral panic about sexuality whipped up by a celibate bloke in a frock isn’t it?
Leviticus also forbids the eating of bats, one of the few biblical strictures I have taken to heart. At least 1980 when I ate baked flying fox in Tonga. Which was delicious. Like mango-flavoured chicken.
But since then, no bats. And very few boys. Lots of tobacco though. Still going to heaven however. My name’s on the door.
Choose Gomorrah!
Indeed Kim, not helpful at all. OTOH sadly and the ultimate in unhelpfulness, that canard rears its ugly head again: “may teh wrath of god descend upon ye”
Perhaps I’ll ask Mr Dawkins or Dr PZ Myers to write Kirby a nice letter.
Still going to heaven however. My name’s on the door.
Heaven in many languages Nabs: “un deux trois” “ein zwei drei” “yi er san” “satu dua tiga”
No. The Very Reverend Graeme Bird sounds like this:
Re Satanic Washington – The planners were probaly Freemasons, not Satanists. Bit of a difference. As for the homophobic rubbish, well, we’ve seen it all before, don’t you agree? Trouble is, there’s probably some morons out there who’ll take it on board.
“Is a ‘Christian Anglican’ like a ‘gay homosexual’ ??”
I think Justice Kirby chose the order of those words deliberately. A Christian Anglican as opposed to its binary opposite, a non-Christian Anglican, or even a fucked up Anglican, or, sigh, just a Sydney Anglican (and there is a whole world of homophobic connotations in those two nouns together). It was prescient of Kirby to choose that order, as Lane’s response makes clear what the difference is.
As for the Lord’s very own, railing about sodomy upthread -, dude, you know the drill, take out the log and all of that. Before we can discuss the issue that has you clutching at your pearls, please list all your sins here. I know you have them. Because Jesus’s blood was spilled for them. Your sins have to be heinous and disgusting because without your hopelessnes, the salvation offered by Christ would be meaningless right? And you wouldnt want to nullify the crucifixion. So whats your poison Tom? What did Jesus come to save you for specifically? Somehow, I suspect it has something to do with the hatred within you, you fucker. Go learn about that, and stop hiding your homophobic fragilities behind the word “christianity”.
Congrats to the SMH for providing the source materials too, I hope that this is a sign for things to come. It’s an underutilised resource in online news delivery.
There’s been a bit of it, like this one from last Wednesday’s Herald.
It would be nice if they provided a bit more explanation of the alterations to the texts, though, like the underlining in the Kirby text, and the highlighting in the Walker notes.
41 comments ans still no-one who can show how Christianity and an explicit homosexual lifestyle is consistent.
It is as consistent as an explicit adulterer.
Nab – no heaven for you, smoking that evil tobacco, Levitidiculous roundly condemns partaking of tomato, tobacco & potato. Also chocolate. And corn chips.
Not so. Jesus never condemned homosexuals. He did condemn adultery. Also those hypocrites who cared more for the letter than the spirit.
Not a Christian but would remind those that are -
“Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you – because God will judge you the same way you judge others. Why then, do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye? How dare you say to your brother “Please, let me take that speck out of your eye’ when you have a log in your own eye?” You hypocrite! (Matthew 7)
(I could quote several similar verses, but this’ll do).
A Christian has no right to judge anyone. Judgement is God’s business, not yours. Your duty is simply to love other people and serve them to the best of your ability.
Only those who know they are perfect have the right to throw the first stone – and Jesus makes it very clear that that means no mortal has that right. (He even says that, on earth, he cannot judge people).
I remind Christians reading this that one of the messages of the Gospels is that Christ did not befriend ‘respectable’ people – he chose lower class fishermen, tax collectors, etc who were looked down upon by the ‘good’ people in society.
For his example of proper behaviour, he used a ‘Samaritan’ (to understand the impact of that in the context of his society at the time, retell the story using ‘Moslem’ instead).
As I said to start with, I am not a Christian. If you are one, however, you are supposed to put love of others first, ahead of your own opinions, your own judgements and your own prejudices.
Try it.
Jesus did not have to condemn homosexuality. It was already condemned in the O/T and within Jewish tradition. He did speak out about poor tradition on the sermon on the mount. Jesus certainly did not say homosexuality is now no longer sinful.
What does Jesus say at verse 15 of Chapter 7. Err make judgements about people who are false prophets.
I do believe the Minister involved here is saying what should happen to Kirby is what happened in 1 Cor 5. it is a very similar situation.
Christians are told to use judgement every day of the week and use very good judgement of who belongs to church.
There is some knowledge of biblical doctrine shown here worthy of the Uniting denomination
Looks like there are still many folks who care very much about what the Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Provisionals) (PLP(Prov)) thought about “explicit homosexual lifestyles”.
Antiquarianism does have its small fascinations, I suppose.
But just one question: where did the PLP(Prov) gather information about these “explicit homosexual lifestyles” of which they disapproved so heartily?
What was the location of the Castro District of 1st-century Jerusalem?
Did the Village People of that era consist of a Roman soldier, a Samaritan, a carver of marble plinths, and a Phoenician sailor?
Katz,
Suspect they heard nasty rumours about Tiberius’s sex life at the very least. Mybe they wuz scared it (whatever it was) would spread.
But PB, from my admittedly sketchy understanding of the New Testament, I’m pretty confident asserting that “explicit homosexual lifestyles” were in no way identified as being characteristic of Roman, imperial practices.
This self-restraint contrasts starkly with the attitude of Islamist fundamentalists today who assiduously associate the US and especially its armed forces with every sexual deviancy imaginable in the doubtless fertile minds of the severely sexually repressed.
No, it seems that the PLP(Prov) turned its doctrinal guns only on Judaeans who sere wont to “drop anchor in Poo harbour” (to quote “Little Britain”). To extend the metaphor, I still await confirmation that there was more than one gay in the Judaean Village of the 1st century AD.
The Romans had a bit more of an ambivalent view of same sex practices and relationships compared to the Greeks – you can see that from reading poets such as Propertius and Juvenal.
And Augustus was a bit of a prude. There’s some evidence of shifting attitudes and norms from the Republic through the Empire.
A lot of what is thought of as a “Christian” attitude to sexuality actually comes from its environing culture and has zip to do with scripture.
So, in all, am I correct in concluding that neither Jesus nor his disciples would have had any experience, either direct or indirect, of “explicitly homosexual lifestyles”?
Whatever, they thought of this issue came solely from their doubtless fertile imaginations.
Which raises the question: why were they thinking about this stuff? Surely with all those goats around Judaea, there would have been thousands of Kiwi/sheep style jokes.
Does the New Testament have any words of condemnation of New Zealanders?
I’m not sure they were thinking about this at all, Katz. I’m buggered if I can remember anything condemnatory of same sex practices in the Gospels.
we are not talking about Roman or Greek attitudes towards acceptance of homosexuality.
The act is condemned in both O/T and N/T as well as Jewish tradition.
The ‘christian’ attitude towards homosexuality like adultery or even fornication came from Jewish ‘culture’ and had a lot to do with scripture.
You will see more talk on adultery and fornication because like today they were both much more prevalent than homosexuality.
Well that’s a missed opportunity, Mark.
Think of the comic credibility the Evangelists would have got if they had invented the Kiwi joke.
Please provide a specific reference in the Gospels for such a condemnation.
But wait! Perhaps the Evangelists didn’t miss the opportunity after all…
The tension is killing me.
Why would there need to be any condemnation in the Gospels.
If Jesus was accepting of the practice then he would have said so and why things had changed from the law. He did in other issues.
He didn’t have to because it was a given.
It is condemned in Romans, 1 Cor 6 ( where Paul uses language very similar to the law) and in timothy.
It is up to people who assert there is a change in the law to show where it is and why.
Thus far history shows such people like the said Kirby have no clothes
I’ll leave you to it, Katz. I’m gonna spend my Sunday arvo drinking with tax
collectorseaters and sinners, just like the good Lord did…But IANCL,
What about those “explicitly homosexual lifestyles” you were talking about upthread?
Where and how did Jesus and the Evangelists find out about them? Did Purity Police rove the public loos of Jerusalem picking up and executing errant Rugby Union coaches?
Were these crimes the subject of Holy Land tabloid tattle-tale? Is there any echo of this stuff in the writings of the New Testament?
And if not, how can you know that there were “explicitly homosexual lifestyles” in 1st-century Judaea?
On that logic IANCL, Xtans shouldn’t drive cars, ride bicycles, fly in aeroplanes,watch TV, and definitely should not go on the internet.
Katz,
like the original writer you are missing the point.
The Minister in question and the church is concerned about a ‘member’ of the church who adopts and openly flaunts such a lifestyle which is condemned by scripture.
It would be like a person saying he could commit adultery anytime because it is not sinful.
As I stated previously 1 Cor 5 tells the Church to cast such people out of the church.
Just for Mark,
Christians believe all scripture is written by God not just the Gospels.
Jesus did talk to tax collectors, prostitute etc however if they rejected his message he dusted his feet and went on to talk to others.
Terribly judgemental fellow
IANCL,
Matthew – a tax collector.
Mary Magdalene – allegedly a prostitute
Paul – a misogynist homophobic hallucinating murderer (Remember Stephen?)
The list goes on but I can’t be bothered. Oh, yeah, and I thought the message was something to do with love, especially love of sinners, repented or not. But I guess we’re not talking about the same Jesus, are we?
But IANCL, I’m quite willing to stipulate that there was much adultery in 1st century Judaea (and many consequent stonings).
Indeed, Jesus is on record as putting an end to one of these doubtless many stonings.
But did Jesus ever intervene on behalf of a 1st-century Alan Jones, whether rightly or wrongly, accused of adopting an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”?
There is absolutely no evidence in the NT of Jesus ever doing such a thing. Do you think he would have if given the opportunity? I think he might.
But that is beside the point. While there is every evidence of adultery occurring in 1st-century Judaea, there is absolutely no evidence of anyone adopting an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle” in 1st-century Judaea.
Or are you saying that Jesus was equally condemnatory of anyone adopting an implicitly homosexual lifestyle?
If that is the case, then Benny Hill is in deep trouble.
Doesn’t stop ‘em does it?
Well I’m not entirely sure all Christians believe that. It wasn’t what the Catholics taught me anyway.
>
Thing is science shows that the Bible was produced by certain individuals over many centuries. The early books of the Old Testament for example. It’s a human document. These sorts of discussions always get into matter of ‘what Jesus would say and blah blah blah – it doesn’t matter. If God genuinely condemns homosexuality he’s an arsehole ’cause he created it in the first place. The God that so many Abrahamic purists worship seems to me a petty, mean and sadistic entity.
>
The sexual ethics of these religions was probably applicable to a desert tribal people 2000, 3000 years ago. These days it’s simply a recipe for misery. Feel free to have a really unhappy sex life but keep it to yourself. The rest of us are having fun. And if God doesn’t like it He’s only got himself to blame. He made us the sexy monkeys we are. What does He expect?
Jesus broke the law of the Sabbath and said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the law was there to help people, not to find ways to condemn people like the scribes an Pharisees. But if your church wants to reject the message of Jesus in order to become whited sepulchres, Homer, then that’s your choice.
Paul, both Matthew and Mary changed their ways because they recognised their sinful lifestyles.
Katz,
you are missing the point. this is about a person who openly flaunts a lifestyle ,which is condemned in scripture, and says there is nothing wrong with it. In Corinth it was incest. Here it is Homosexuality.
Zarquon,
If there is a connection between homosexuality and the Sabbath you haven’t made it.
According to your logic a person could do anything say bestiality ( hey Jesus did not condemn that) and that is okay.
The Law merely helps you see what is sinful. It does not help you overcome it.
The Law is and was brought here to help people come to Jesus!
That is the problem the Pharisees had
No IANCL, you are misunderstanding.
What did these writers of scripture understand to be an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”?
For example if the Evangelists had watched a video of the Village People would they have recognised that lifestyle to be homosexual? I am sure that you, IANCL, have no trouble recognising that the Village People espoused an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”.
Now let’s go back to 1st-century Judaea with that image in our minds of the Evangelists grappling with the Village People.
How would the Evangelists have described an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle” in terms that would have been understandable to the folks who may have read their gospels at the time?
Did the Evangelists ever describe this lifestyle? If not, how do we know that they were condemning?
The connection is obvious, I am not CL. Breaking the law is not. After all I bet you’ve had shellfish or prawns. (Also Jesus did say not to mistreat animals. “Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain”) As for the law being there to bring people to Jesus, what was his greatest commandment? And he said if you are offended by the homosexual lifestyle, that’s your problem, not theirs (If thine eye offend thee…)
‘Tis the Law that what is natural is Sin? The Lord sayeth I shall make you thus. You will not be able to slake thy desires tho’ they be strong. Tho’ the self-denial will drive you to perdition. If thouest slake thy desires to Hell with ye.
>
Something Monty Python once said about the Lord being a rotten bastard comes to mind.
>
Oh well take comfort in the very good possibility that such stuff will in future sometime be thought quaint and bizarre. Kinda like the way we regard snake fertility cults and that kind’ve thing.
CL/not-CL is right. Homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus. In fact it says homosexuals should be killed. While Jesus says nothing about homosexuality – it is Paul who condemns it – Jesus does not say the old Jewish laws are invalid. Therefore it must be presumed that Christians are duty bound under Jewish law to kill homosexuals.
Theology is a thing of unreason altogether, an edifice of assumption and dreams, a superstructure without a substructure. — Ambrose Bierce
Katz, the village people are members of a church! you still are missing the point.
Zarquon, previously you backed me up without realising it because Jesus told Jews about when their tradition contradicted scripture.
I do believe Jesus talked about what people could eat and not eat and Peter certainly was.
You seem to misunderstand what a theocratic state and a church is.
Silkworm doesn’t read all the bible. in 1 Cor 5 a man is to be expelled from the church. what does the law say? by the way you need to understand the difference between repentant and unrepentant sinners are. You are a bit like Zarquon.
As I said the doctrine shown here shows little understanding of what is in the bible.
Does that mean that they did not espouse and “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”?
for heaven’s sake IANCL, check your thinking!
Actually I contradicted you because Jesus is saying that the Scribes and Pharisees were following the law and making a big deal out of their literalism and using that to condemn others. (sound familiar?)
We’re not talking about doctrine, we’re talking about Jesus. Who pointed out that you shouldn’t condemn people just because doing so makes you feel superior to them.
I am not at all surprised that there are such sinners as Kirby lurking in our system of law. Our modern sexual morality has strayed a long way from biblical principles. Exodus 21 comes straight after the 10 commandments and begins with the clear and unambiguous statement “These are other laws that you must obey.” This is the law of sex slaves and polygamy.
Vs.10 states “If he himself marries her (concubine) and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.” Today monogamy and free choice have become so entrenched in our modern way of life it has become recognised by all but the truly faithfull as “normal” and wholesome” in deep ignorance and disrespect of Gods plan for our lives.
God’s great lawmaker King Solomon had 60 wives and 80 concubines and was clearly a strong and faithfull instrument of God in the courts of man.
Kirby with his liberal wishy washy excuses of love, faithfullness and commitment to his one single partner clearly puts him right out of step with biblical law and as such he should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Kirby and the other monogamists should be replaced by real men of God or our whole legal system will become a vessel for Satan’s perverted designs.
Katz,
This only has bearing on people within church so your village people example misses the point.
No Zarquon they were not following the law. They said on Jewish tradition one couldn’t do any work thus they wanted to kill Jesus because he healed people on the Sabbath. He actually spoke out about the tradition about an eye for eye which was wrong.
He didn’t speak out about homosexuality.
Who is talking about being superior. that is a blatant red herring.
We are only taling about repentant and unrepentant sinners.
the former make up the church the latter make up society.
Well Jesus did say to people to treat unrepantant sinners as the jews treat the gentiles or tax collectors !!
Huh?
Are you saying its ok for persons to behave a certain way if they are not members of a church, but not ok if they are?
What sort of weird morality is this?
Do you agree that the Village People (the band that sang YMCA, among other hits) did espouse an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”?
And finally to cut to the chase, your failure to answer these questions would prove your lack of good faith in this discussion:
1. From the point of view of the Evangelists living in 1st-century Judaea, what would they recognise as an “explicitly homosexual lifestyle”?
2. Where would the evangelists have had experience of such a lifestyle so that they could write about it in a way that made sense to their contemporaries?
Katz, please pay attention,
The minister who was criticised was talking about people who are members of a church.
So am I.
Churches uphold discipline in their family.
It is not about morality in the community, it is about morality within the church.
john misses the obvious point that in every tale we read in the bible of polygamy it leads to major problems. I might also point out in the very second chapter of the book it talks about a husband and wife not wives.
Katz, read 1 Cor 6. quite explicit
IANCL
Now you are interpreting and imposing your cultural values onto the word of God. If polygamy exists as an example of misfortune why is it enshrined in biblical law? It seems to me, purely on the text, that the major problems may arise through not obeying the law – by not looking after or sleeping with your older wives. That seems to me how gods law works, if you follow it you are O.K. and if you don’t, then and only then will you face major problems.
There is much more biblical law entrenching polygamy than there is proscribing homosexuality. I though you of all people would defend what the bible says.
Cahpater 2 of which book excludes polygamy? Chapter 2 of Exodus is the story of young Moses and how he was given a concubine, the daughter of a priest (who gave him the said chattels).
But if chapter 2, of whatever book, clashes with the law given to Moses by God, which am I to believe? You have confused me now.
Chapter 2 of Genesis? Polygamy is hardly a concern when there are only two people in the whole world.
Oh I get it, because it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve that means God wants us to be heterosexual as well as monogomous.
I reckon Adam would have been just as horny if Eve was a man, and Eve would have been equally horney if Adam was a woman, because God made us horney.
That’s why he gave us men the polygamy and concubine law.
And the laws to condemn, punish and kill promiscuous women.
When God’s law is obeyed there are no “major problems”.
JohnTracy _ Exodus 21 was an especially entertaining read – lurved the selling of daughters into slavery which is the bed, board & bonk referencee you slyly pretended referred to a wife. Most of the rest is about how the owners of women can dispose of them.
Great stuff. Nice to know the sort of people who prowl amongst us, seemingly sentient but in fact mired in moral myopia, bigotry & ignornace. Could you perhaps adopt another biblical custom and, if you insist on using public streets, ring a bell whilst shouting “Unclean of Mind, Unclean of Mind”?
I Cor 6
What’s explicit about this?
Very strange taxonomy.
1. Heterosexual relations outside marriage.
2. Adoration of graven images.
3. A man being like woman (whatever that means)
4. Something unclassifiable about abuse with mankind.
But here’s my questions:
1. What are the markers of the grave sin of effeminacy? Presumably its ok for a woman to be effeminate. But where do the permissable boundaries of effeminacy lie? Are they fixed, or have they shifted over time?
2. This “self-abuse” with “mankind”. What precisely did Paul have in mind when he penned these words to his Corinthian brethren? Why “mankind”, why not just “men”?
It’s all very mysterious, especially when Paul was so up-front about fornication and adultery. Those acts involve sexual penetration. So presumably would buggery in Paul’s view. But he shies away from mentioning this fact. So, again, where were the boundaries of permissability?
Are there any other NT bits?
And another thing, Paul wasn’t writing to Jews steeped in the traditions of Jewish law and custom. He was writing to Greeks. How can we assume that Paul meant to emphasise and to reify Jewish law in this letter? These Corinthian Greeks wouldn’t have a clue about what he was talking about.
How much mention did Paul make of the OT. My suspicion is very little. His one big reference to Jew customs and law — circumcision — he pooh-poohed.
So much for stickling for Jewish law and custom!
St Paul is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, that this is a sin of idolatry, and that these and other sinners, such as “haters of God” (atheists?) deserve to die.
Romans 1:22-23 states: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men or birds or animals or reptiles.” In verses 24 and 25 he goes on to include amongst these idolators women who engage in “unnatural relations” (anal sex? lesbianism?) and male homosexuals.
Paul concludes in verse 32 that all these deserve to die. He thus brings his teaching into line with that of Leviticus which condemns homesexuals to be killed by stoning.
IANCL – Christ made it clear – again and again – that it is not for us to judge others, but to love them. Their sins are between themselves and God; it is not for you, who are not perfect yourself (again, this is emphasised again and again throughout Scripture – you cannot judge unless you are perfect. Christ says, again and again, that he cannot judge people whilst on earth for that very reason) to judge others.
You argue that it is a matter of Church discipline. Again, it is not the Church’s job to discipline or judge, only to accept and love.
You make constant references to the law of the Jews. Jesus replaced all the commandments with two – love God before all else; love your neighbour as yourself (several biblical references)
Similarly, Peter’s vision of the clean/unclean food emphasised that the laws of the OT were not meant to apply to the new church; if they had, noone who was not Jewish could be accepted into the church – the Messiah was only meant to come to the Jews.
It is very dangerous, as a believing Christian (I emphasise again I am not) to take on tasks which God has reserved for himself. Judgement is for Judgement Day, and for God; if you truly believe that you are a Christian and you don’t understand that, you may well be one of those who believe that they are saved but in fact are not (again, multiple references throughout the scriptures to people who believe that they are followers of Christ but will not be accepted as such on Judgment Day).
Read the NT – especially the Gospels – with great care and try and put them into practice. The only reason that I don’t call myself a Christian is that I find the latter almost impossible…if you find it easy being a Christian, that in itself is a warning sign.
Unclean mind! Unclean mind!
Amphibious,
Actually, sarcasm about Hebrew patriarchy aside (I was joking you know?), We understand the English language bible that we read as a text of contemporary culture and language, we focus on words such as “slave” and understand this in terms of modern history.
However, if you abandon your own preconceptions of the language and, for example, replace the word “slave” with “disposessed refugee” and then look at how “dispossessed refugee” (man) law is presented in the bible, including in Exodus 21, what appears is a generous structure for prosperity and integration into mainstream society including after only seven years, ownership of wives, land and livestock.
Similarly concubines. I do not deny for a minute the patriarchal fantasy at the centre of this sociology. However the collective of wives and concubines was the basis of a very strong womens culture and law which is not represented in the bible which is mens business.
I bet the women’s tents were hothouses of lesbianism, especially if they dont get to root their husband more than once every few months (remember law says he still has to root them all) Similarly I bet the neutered bodyguards, the only men allowed in the womens tent kept a few secrets of their own also.
It seems to me that incorporation into the hareem is more about connecting with women than with men but, in the bible at least, this womens reality is only described in terms of its connection to men.
The bible believing christian only believes in their own culture and morality that they easily find in the English language of the bible. This is why the bible is the word of god, because it is the christian’s own word. God has been created in the image of the christian.
Katz, r.e Corinthians (and Silworm r.e. idolatry)
“Fornication” has come to mean sex outside of marriage. The Hebrew and Greek root of this word is temple prostitution – Roman tax gathering in the temple. When this activity is put beside idolatry, as it is, it gives a clue to the essence – maintain the culture, reject foreign gods and philosophies. Similarly the reinforcement of division between mens business and womens business. This should not be interpreted as sexual activity but in maintaining the indigenous Judean culture – the strength of mens and womens business as in Australian Aboriginal culture. There are social roles for men and for women in tribal culture that must be maintained for the survival of family and culture, especially in a colonised place like Judea or Australia.
Fornication and the sexual division of society is not about sex sin but about Jewish nationalism. it is the Roman imperialist perspective itelf that has censored and translated the jewish wisdom, especially the representation of Paul who does indeed dismiss the old law of Judea and effectively extinguish the Judean nationalism inherent in the whole bible including the words of Jesus. The Jewish (and indigenous) nationalism inherent in the bible has been replaced with a theology of personal sin, invented by Rome and in no way connected to the old law of the bible, which, apparently, Jesus came to fulfill and not destroy.
There is no doubt that Paul had it in for a whole raft of folks, probably including homosexuals. There can be little doubt of that in my mind.
But Silkworm, when you look carefully at the passage you refer to in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, he was talking about the generally fallen condition of mankind.
Thus:
Now, this is very fascinating, because at the time of writing by Paul nothing that Christ said had actually been written down. All the Christians had was recollection. Indeed, when Paul eventually went to Jerusalem he ran into a lot of conflict with those folks who actually knew Christ and disputed what Paul was representing Christ to have said.
All the above business is about how the whole of mankind should have been able to see what was obvious, i.e., that thare was one Big God who made everything. You didn’t need Christ to tell you that.
But not recognising the truth, which for Paul was as plain as a pikestaff, the whole of mankind went off the rails, to wit:
Now, it’s clear that Paul is making all this up out of whole cloth. He’s not talking about anything Christ may have said. Rather he is creating and articulating a general model for the fall of mankind. And when mankind ignores the evidence of Big God, according to Paul, the necessary consequences are women not knowing their place and men buggerising each other.
And this returns me to my initial observation, which is that there is no evidence that Paul had ever viewed examples of “explicitly homosexual lifestyles”. Rather he simply conjured this bugaboo out of thin air to scare his devotees straight.
Thus Paul hated and abominated homosexuality. But he didn’t hate it because of his knowledge of what Christ may or may not have said about homosexuality. Rather he hated it because homosexuality, like female emancipation, represented a challenge to Paul’s sense of hierarchy and order.
p.s.
I might also note, though I have no biblical reference, homosexuality and pedophilia was a part of the invading Roman culture. Those Jewish folk who sexually collaborated with the invader may well have been condemned for their homosexual activity, not because of the act but because of who it is with. e.g A Roman soldier or some other worshipper of other gods. However Roman theology would not represent this principle but reduce the text to a matter of personal sexuality.
JT – I bet the women’s tents were hothouses of lesbianism, especially if they dont get to root their husband more than once every few months (remember law says he still has to root them all)
I see that your Unclean Mind is just a fizzing & a popping there John Boy but there is no reference in the Torah to equal tupping – that’s the Koran you’re invoking,
as with,
Similarly I bet the neutered bodyguards, the only men allowed in the womens tent kept a few secrets of their own also.
No, a euncuh was an abomination to the hebrews, even a slave, and would not have been let inside any tent, never mind the one housing the great treasures of totty.
Amphibious,
why do you say eunuchs were an abomination?
Isaiah 56 4&5……
For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.
Esther 2.8….
When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many girls were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai (the eunuch in charge of the king’s harem). Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem. 9 The girl pleased him and won his favor. Immediately he provided her with her beauty treatments and special food. He assigned to her seven maids selected from the king’s palace and moved her and her maids into the best place in the harem.
Surprising how few Christian leaders, propagandists and proselytisers actually quote the dude himself.
Instead they always keep harkening back to that tome of blood and thunder desert nomad yarns, some political journalism and whacky John’s raveup tacked on the end – assembled at the Council of Nicea (which would have been like a lN Antarctica Treaty conference/WTO Doha Round but with worse translators).
One true god right?
Roman Catholics
Greek Orthodox Catholics
Anglicans
Episcopalians
Calvinists
Coptics
Lutherans
Hussites
Taborites
Unity of the Brethren
Utraquists
Apostolics
Cathars
Presbyterians
Baptists
Church of the Latter Day Saints – Mormans
Anabaptists
Amish
Apostolic Christian Church
Hutterites
Mennonites
Methodists
Wesleyans
Uniting Church
Christian Scientists
Nazarenes
Plymouth Brethren
Exclusive Brethren
Pentecostalists
Christian Israelite Church
Branch Davidians
Shakers
Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb
Christadelphians
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Unification Church
Pentecostalism
Apostolic Brethren
And that list only encompasses a 20th of the Christian sects, cults and business organisations you can find through a brief google. They’re all basically ritual mongers offering you some kind of group transcendental experience with some good music and occasionally sublime architecture thrown in.
Go for it if you’re so inclined. Just learn how to gracefully duck when these wacky sects go for you.
Except the Quakers. They’re cool. No one picks on Quakers.
IAMCL, are you currently wearing a polyester/cotton shirt or any other garment made from two fibres mixed together?
If so, I’m afraid I’m going to have to smite you.
McKenzie,
you have a problem with Jesus. not only did he advise people not to have anything to do with unrepentants he also said he came to divide families.
Learn what love is about.
Silkworm,
Paul is not talking about punishment. Otherwise in 1 Cor 5 the person would be put to death notmerely expelled.
If you had read properly you will have seen there were people in the church at Corinth who were previously homosexuals.
Paul was so against women he said wife’s controlled their husband’s bodies!
john,
If you cannot see that everytime a person who is introduced who has more than one wife or a concubine faces problesm because of this ( Abraham, David, Soloman etc) then I am afraid you are missing something.
There is no entrenchment of polygamy in the bible which is why Jesus quotes Genesis 2.
What we have in this instance is a writer who has no idea why the minister in question objected to Mr Kirby and almost all consequent writers reasonably ignorant of pretty basic bibilical doctrine
IANCL,
Why do you think the minister objected to Mr. Kirby? As I follow the church debate it seems to be that the opposition to homosexuality is based on bible law. Is this how you see it?
Bible law is bible law! Polygamy and the rejection of mixed fabric is bible law. Circumcision is bible law!. You either accept it as the literal word of god or you do not. It appears that you do not with your weak dismissal of polygmy and concubine law. Despite a clear biblical demand (not even a principle) you dishonestly use David, Solomon and Abraham as some kind of reason to disregard bible law.
Lets look at Abraham…. What was his problem? Was it because he had concubines? NO! never a mention of anything wrong with that. The problem was he had a child with his concubine in contradiction to God’s promise that old Sarah the Jew would bare him a child. The sin was not polygamy but lack of faith. To use this story (and the others) in an attempt to dismiss the law that god gave to Moses will book you a seat in hell for sure.
Your biblical rejection of homosexuality is no less ridiculous than my above biblical rejection of monogamy. You dismiss biblical marriage law because it does not fit with the assumptions and values that you hold so you are able to cherry pick the bible and use what is helpfull to your own perspective and ignore the other bits. Is this not the same as what the christian homosexuals do?
Helen – I believe the mixed fabric law, like the fornication law, is a matter of nationalism and cultural survival. Imagine Scottish clans mixing their tartans – outrageous!
Not true IANCL.
Below is the only sin specifically charged to a member of the Corinth church in I Cor 5:
This has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.
I am sorry John but you are really off the planet, There is bnothing in the law accepting polygamy. Tell us what Jesus said about Marriage?
The problem involving Abraham came about because of the child to the concubine which err cuts across your argument. Tell us how this woulld have happened without the concubine.
In almost every example polygamy we see in the O/T we see problems that emerge because of it.
you are guilty of what you are accusing me of.
Katz, err go to the next chapter. compare verses 9 & 11
the greek word porniea applied to all sexual activity outside marriage and Jesus did use the word.
IANCL
You say…”There is bnothing in the law accepting polygamy”. How then do you explain Exodus 21, the law given to Moses with the 10 commandments?
Abraham would have been faithful to his god if he had continued to have only a sexual relationship with his concubine (as was the concubine’s role). The decision by Sarah (always the womens fault in the bible) to encourage the concubine to have her husband’s child is the problem because God had promised Sarah his child and she didn’t believe this was possible.
Can you give any bible reference anywhere discouraging polygamy in the same way it discourages homosexuality or mixing fabrics? (that is, beyond the N.T. encouragements to not marry at all).
Like I said upthread, Paul probably did have direct experience of Greek sexual mores, but only in Greece. And as I have said, it is doubtless that Paul hated and abominated homosexuality.
But my central point is that Paul did not invoke OT authority to justify his own feelings on the matter. neither did he invoke any words of Christ.
Paul merely allowed his readers to conclude that Christ had the same condemnatory attitude toward homosexuality as Paul did.
The world that Paul encountered in Greece was very different from the world encountered in Judaea. Greek sexual practices must have come as quite a shock to Paul. I doubt that the gospel writers would have been exposed to anything remotely like it.
And as you say IANCL, the word “porniea” covered a very wide range of activities. One cannot assume that Christ had homosexuality in mind when he used the word.
p.s. IANCL,
Do not misunderstand me as Amphibious has, I am not promoting polygamy as God’s instruction on sexuality, as you promote heterosexuality. My point is that if you are going to condemn homosexuals on the basis of the bible then you have to take the rest of the bible seriously too.
However, to take the bible seriously you have to seriously understand the culture and sociology of biblical law. Except for orthodox Jews (who I understand now shy away from polygamy these days) it is a misuse of scripture to impose your own cultural norms and assumptions onto the bible such as the monogomous heterosexual nuclear family which never existed in biblical times.
My other point is if we are going to base our contemporary sexual morality on biblical law and principle we must honestly face up to the fact that the bible outlines an oppressive, mysogenist, patriarchal mode. Are you seriously saying such oppression is what we should be striving for?
Jesus spoke Greek? Makes you wonder how he ever managed to attract an audience.
Porniea is a general word meaning sexual sin. It gives no clues as to what this sin might be. What gives clues as to the nature of sin is the context in which the word is used, which is always a call to resist idolatry. Temple prostitution was undoubtedly a sexual activity but it is the idolatry of the fertility cults and the Roman tax collection that makes it a sin.
However the Greek word “moicheia” has a clear meaning – adultery – but this word was not used.
Katz,
i said perhaps originally that homosexuality was little practiced in Israel/Judah. It is perhaps the only part of ‘culture’ they didn’t wish to imitate from their neighbours.
John,
most people take that verse as a person taking on slave like Abraham did. The major reason for this was debt. There was no bankruptcy law so responsibilities had to be laid out
I am almost certain this joke appeared first on Jesus’General (an 11 on the manly scale of absolute gender), but I can’t find it in the archives there. Sorry to the originator if that attribution is wrong:
su wrote:
Heh heh. I wonder, if Satan directly invented a food, would it be Oysters Kilpatrick?
I mean, it’s shellfish AND pigs. I hope all good christians are avoiding it, besides it being a waste of perfectly good, sweet, fresh oysters (drool).
Yes. Any excuse will do.
Homosexuality is natural Homer. It’s nature not culture. Roughly 10% of the population are attracted to the same sex. Get over it.
Too long:
>
it is doubtless that Paul hated
and abominated homosexuality.>
That’s better.
Katz,
I reckon the Judeans had plenty of exposure to Greek and Roman sexual practices. Judea was after all occupied by foreign soldiers.
Today, U.S. and Australian sexuality is foreign to Iraqis. East Timorese. Solomon Islanders, Afghanis etc. but I am sure the occupying forces provide good lessons in western sexuality including child prostitution as was occuring in Judea.
You have to understand rape and military sexuality to understand Hebrew sex law.
IANCL,
I dont really understand your point @ 104 but I get very suspicious at any attempt at credibility based on what “most people” say, after all, “most people” are ignorant, especially of ancient semitic anthropology and law. “Most people” are totally caught up in their own culture and values and are unable to read the bible from any perspective other than their own.
But, are you denying that Abraham had sex with his concubine before Sarah suggested the concubine carry his baby? You seem to be denying what the bible says here just as you deny Exodus 21. Such denial makes for a very weak base to criticise homosexuality from a biblical base.
Su,
most of that has already been covered. I would say it comes under the difference between a theocratic state and a church see 1 Cor 5 for example for different punishment but the same sin.
Jesus did change laws with regard to food which is related to above
Can you point to any evidence to support this assertion?
The Evangelists covered a lot of ground in their quadripartite coverage of the era. We got lepers, heavy menstruation, revivification, crazy demon-possessed swine but as far as I know not one mention of military or civilian sodomy.
Indeed, from the Evangelists you’d hardly know that the Romans were an occupying force, except for the “Welease Wodger” set pieces. No Romans broke up the Marriage at Cana. They didn’t come by to watch some dude feed a huge multitude with a coupla loaves and fishes. Where were the Romans in the rest of the story?
I am not CL wrote:
This is otherwise known as the “new covenant” get out of jail free card, used sparingly on bits of the Old Testament christians don’t like, while mystically not being applicable to the bits they do. It’s the hermeneutical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Try again please.
It’s not Wodger it Wodewick get it right. He’s a Wobba.
>
Again the concept that homosexuality is a cultural trait is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
>
Various cultures may have various attitudes to sex which will affect the mode of its practise and expression. But cultures do not create homosexuality. That is a nonsense. And this whole let’s pick thru the fucking Bible for bits and pieces of pseudo-legalese is simply playing a game that says certain people have a right to cast aspersions on the morals of people simply because they are homosexual.
>
This stuff was written by people who probably thought that evil spirits were responsible for disease and that bad storms were the result of an inadeuate sacrifice or some such. Sure the Bible still resonates, it’s still relevant but put it in a bit of context. We are not creatures who fear the night any longer. We don’t think the Earth is flat. We don’t jump at the slightest noise cause of the demons. Jesus H. Christ on a very unpleasant Friday afternoon – grow up.
Indeed Adrien.
That’s why my first comments on this thread were about “explicitly homosexual lifestyles”.
Who can doubt that Judaea had its sufficient quota of homosexuals?
But the local Purity Police were so crazy hung-up about any sexual deviancy that any attempt by some local gay fellows to set up a prototypical Village People band would have been summarily stopped with a jolly good stoning.
Katz,
It is somewhat naive to expect that invading armies did not engage sexually with the colonised population. Boy prostitution was an accepted part of Roman society. Do you think the Romans would have kept it in their pants simply because they were away from Rome?
However the main point you dont seem to have taken on board is that the bible we read today is a construct of the Roman state, so you will not find the truth about what the Roman soldiers did.
The radical nationalism of the Jesus movement was sanitised and transformed to an individual morality based on obedience to the Roman state (and church).
However, I suggest that the temple prostitution, worship of European fertility gods and the collection of Roman taxes through prostitution that Paul and others spoke out about was a phenomenon of the roman population, devout Jews would not have a part of it.
I agree whole-heartedly.
But I think that it would be very difficult to sustain the argument that the later redactors of the Evangelists’ gospels cut out all the naughty bits about Romans to avoid hurting Roman feelings. After all, as we have seen, the redactors left the naughty bits written by Paul.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the naughty bits weren’t in there in the first place.
And that means that the Evangelists never talked about “explicitly homosexual lifestyles”.
I think those things would’ve been a feature of other Near-Eastern religions like the Cults of Ba’al and Astarte. The Romans were a fairly stoic people sexually. They tend to get a bad rep because of the debauches of certain bored aristocrats but their sexual morality resembled the Jews a lot more than it diverged from it. In fact the Jews and the Romans were quite campadre for a time.
>
The Romans did, unfortunately, underestimate the fierce committment of Jews to their anti-idolatorous faith. And likewise sadly had the unfortunate tendency to follow meglomaniac nutbags like Gaius Caligula.
>
Also just what was constitued by a devout Jew was under considerable dispute. The Jewish religion was undergoing a watershed not unlike the Prostestant Revolution at the time.
Katz,
I agree when you say “And that means that the Evangelists never talked about “explicitly homosexual lifestyles”.”
Homosexual activity is different from homosexual identity which is different from homosexual lifestyle.
I made reference to Aboriginal culture before with mens and womens business and the law that defends/entrenches mens and womens busines because I think such anthropology opens our eyes to what might have been going on in biblical times from a perspective other than Rome. The tribal family structure and connection to land is similar.
Traditional Aboriginal culture, in the old days, included sexual activity in the context of mens and womens business. Homosexual acts were part of what it means to be a real man or a real women. However there were still hard rules for men to be men and women to be women, rules which clever or powerful individuals could easily skirt around (bad pun?) Also there were classes of effeminate men (in S.E.Qld) who did not share the socialisation as warriors and operated as a chidcare emergency response group – trouble with kids would be solved by these loving men.
Customary law marriage law, also polygamous, is based on a system of moities (subgroups) which defines who may marry who. A person who has regular promiscuous sex with a range of partners or has multiple spouses of the correct moity is upholding marriage law. A single connection to the wrong moitie (one night stand or co-habitation) is a serious adultery.
The culture and nature of relationship in old Aboriginal culture creates notions of sexuality very different from what us modern migrant Australians might identify with. The various sexual rights and wrongs of tribal culture are fascinating but ultimately irrelevent to us in terms of form and structure. So too, I suggest, when attempting to make sense of biblical sexual morality.
The 2000 and 3,000 old middle eastern culture of the bible is so far removed from right here right now there is nothing we can learn from the specifics of biblical social rules. It is the essence and the essence only that is relevant.
As for Jesus and his new covenant. Nearly every book of the old testament is also the story of a new covenant.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of what the new covenant is.
it isn’t the change in the law. That is what we are judged on.
It is Jesus taking our place. He both takes our punishment for disobeying the law but also is the only person who actually upheld the law whilst he lived.
Temple prostitution was for the most part well before roman colonisation.
katz, you still are missing the point.
what is being talked about here is homosexual practice being accepted as compatible with Christianity. It isn’t and as yet none of the liberals thus far has shown it is.
Jesus cannot save someone who does not recognise what they are dong is sinful inded isaying the opposite.
As I have said previously even Jesus said having nothing to do with such people.
what a judgemental person he was
“It is Jesus taking our place. He both takes our punishment for disobeying the law but also is the only person who actually upheld the law whilst he lived.”
Can you provide any reference from Jesus to support this?
Nice JT. I like this taxonomy:
And I ask IANCL under which category/categories helpfully provided by JT does his “homosexual practice” fall?
And I note that now IANCL seems to be sliding “explicit homosexual lifestyle” out of the argument and sliding “homosexual practice” in. Don’t think that I haven’t been paying attention IANCL!
And finally, which of these is that Sydney Anglican minister using to justify exclusion of Justice Kirby from the Church?
What is sin?
According to Genesis, sin is eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What is the message of the church? – the knowledge of good and evil! The church is institutionalised sin.
err john the whole N/T is about this. It is why Jesus is called the Messiah.
Katz, we are talking about sexual activity either actual or imagined (lust). That Jesus puts up a high bar
So the Sydney Anglican minister is justified in excluding Kirby on the basis that Kirby has exhibited lust?
How does he know that Kirby has exhibited lust?
ANCL,
The book is indeed about the messiah, the king of the Jews who will save Israel from the forein occupier, born of the royal bloodline of David (through his father Joseph! – first chapter of the NT, so much for the virgin birth).
I repeat again, can you find one reference from Jesus? If the book is full of such things then this should not be too hard for you.
What did Jesus say. he did have an aweful lot to say about salvation? One thing was, when asked by the rich young ruler what he must do to enter the kingdom of God? Jesus’ response was to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Can you explain how this fits into your substituted punishment theory?
Returning to the detail of Rev Lane’s admonitions, by biblical account Herod instigated the slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill the infant Jesus. So Rev Lane’s comment
could not be more offensive to anyone who holds that Jesus was the Son of God. It’s nothing less than a statement that likens Kirby to a ruthless despot who sought to kill the very being that Anglicans deifies, and who did not care how many infants were murdered in the process.
It’s an accusation of last resort – pretty much the liturgical equivalent of Godwin’s Law – so I’d hope that alarm bells are ringing throughout the Anglican hierarchy.
I am not CL said:
Y’know, getting a bar is usually part of the lust. Just sayin.
Jesus is allowed to be judgemental, IANCL – that’s his role.
YOU, as a Christian, are not; neither is Rev Lane, or the church.
Doing so means you take on for yourself a role which has been reserved for Christ, itself a major sin.
Christ did not say you had to reform your way of living, or stop sinning, to be either a Christian or to earn eternal life – “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my words and believes in him who sent me, has eternal life. He will not be judged…” (John 5:24).
Of course, if you love God you will try and do what he wants, but in the end loving God is enough.
Christ died because there was no other way to liberate people from sin – his death is a recognition that humans are incapable of perfection. His death is meant to compensate for that.
Again, I repeat: the commandments which override all others (or should for a Christian) are – love God above everything else and love other people.
At the risk of sounding like St Paul, love is not judgemental.