Methodists Vote to Keep Traditional Marriage Stance

[Crazyhole]

When you adjust your christian faith to match what society feels is acceptable you arent worshipping Christ, you're worshipping the world. Its another form of vanity. You can love your neighbor and still recognize that God is the eternal source of love and wisdom.

 

[DaShuckster]

When you adjust your christian faith to match what society feels is acceptable you arent worshipping Christ, you're worshipping the world. Its another form of vanity. You can love your neighbor and still recognize that God is the eternal source of love and wisdom.

Ignoring reality and blindly embracing ages-old fears has absolutely nothing to do with "love and wisdom."

 

[jt_knight]

Sorry for the long response, here’s a summary:
· Jesus is a reliable source for Christian marriage.
· Natural does not equal sanctified.
· Galileo is instructive for why we can’t impose extra-biblical ideas on scripture

First, let me say I have no moral high ground to stand on. I, as much as anyone else, am a sinner deserving of God’s judgment. But thanks be to God that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). I’m only quoting scripture because this is an intramural debate among Christians. It seems reasonable that Christians examine what scripture says on a particular topic when discussing whether Christians should adopt one position or another.

Second, Jesus affirmed the entire Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), including the Torah (of which Leviticus is included) (John 5:46). Jesus addressed the contemporary arguments about marriage by affirming God’s design for marriage by quoting Genesis chapter 1 (Mat. 19:3-12). I suspect the reason Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality is that it is unlikely Jews were openly practicing homosexuality in first century Palestine because in their zeal they were quick to execute anyone caught in sexual sin (John 8:4). Jesus forgave the adulterer but commanded her to leave her life of sin (Jn 8:11). He didn’t excuse her sin because it was a naturally occurring desire for companionship.

As an aside, Jesus didn’t say anything about income inequality but that does not mean he would necessarily bless legal regimes which permit ever-expanding inequality. (I’m not arguing for or against, just using as an example).

Third, just because something occurs naturally does not mean it is a sanctified desire. By nature, I am inclined to all kinds of sinful actions, including sexual immorality, but that does not mean God blesses it. Rather, we are to abstain from sinful desires (1 Peter 2:11) and put to death (metaphorically speaking) the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

Finally, the Bible does not and has never taught the geocentric model. The story of Galileo is an example of the church adopting the prevailing scientific/cultural attitude of its day (Ptolemaic astronomy) and imposing it on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself. This is exactly what proponents of redefining Christian marriage are attempting to do.

 

[Crazyhole]

Sorry for the long response, here’s a summary:
· Jesus is a reliable source for Christian marriage.
· Natural does not equal sanctified.
· Galileo is instructive for why we can’t impose extra-biblical ideas on scripture

First, let me say I have no moral high ground to stand on. I, as much as anyone else, am a sinner deserving of God’s judgment. But thanks be to God that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). I’m only quoting scripture because this is an intramural debate among Christians. It seems reasonable that Christians examine what scripture says on a particular topic when discussing whether Christians should adopt one position or another.

Second, Jesus affirmed the entire Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), including the Torah (of which Leviticus is included) (John 5:46). Jesus addressed the contemporary arguments about marriage by affirming God’s design for marriage by quoting Genesis chapter 1 (Mat. 19:3-12). I suspect the reason Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality is that it is unlikely Jews were openly practicing homosexuality in first century Palestine because in their zeal they were quick to execute anyone caught in sexual sin (John 8:4). Jesus forgave the adulterer but commanded her to leave her life of sin (Jn 8:11). He didn’t excuse her sin because it was a naturally occurring desire for companionship.

As an aside, Jesus didn’t say anything about income inequality but that does not mean he would necessarily bless legal regimes which permit ever-expanding inequality. (I’m not arguing for or against, just using as an example).

Third, just because something occurs naturally does not mean it is a sanctified desire. By nature, I am inclined to all kinds of sinful actions, including sexual immorality, but that does not mean God blesses it. Rather, we are to abstain from sinful desires (1 Peter 2:11) and put to death (metaphorically speaking) the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

Finally, the Bible does not and has never taught the geocentric model. The story of Galileo is an example of the church adopting the prevailing scientific/cultural attitude of its day (Ptolemaic astronomy) and imposing it on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself. This is exactly what proponents of redefining Christian marriage are attempting to do.

There is a fine line between reinterpreting and bastardizing. The church in general has always struggled with that line.

 

[Crazyhole]

Ignoring reality and blindly embracing ages-old fears has absolutely nothing to do with "love and wisdom."

Reality at one time included moloch and baal worship. Should the church have adjusted their beliefs to accept that reality?

 

[Crazyhole]

Sorry for the long response, here’s a summary:
· Jesus is a reliable source for Christian marriage.
· Natural does not equal sanctified.
· Galileo is instructive for why we can’t impose extra-biblical ideas on scripture

First, let me say I have no moral high ground to stand on. I, as much as anyone else, am a sinner deserving of God’s judgment. But thanks be to God that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). I’m only quoting scripture because this is an intramural debate among Christians. It seems reasonable that Christians examine what scripture says on a particular topic when discussing whether Christians should adopt one position or another.

Second, Jesus affirmed the entire Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), including the Torah (of which Leviticus is included) (John 5:46). Jesus addressed the contemporary arguments about marriage by affirming God’s design for marriage by quoting Genesis chapter 1 (Mat. 19:3-12). I suspect the reason Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality is that it is unlikely Jews were openly practicing homosexuality in first century Palestine because in their zeal they were quick to execute anyone caught in sexual sin (John 8:4). Jesus forgave the adulterer but commanded her to leave her life of sin (Jn 8:11). He didn’t excuse her sin because it was a naturally occurring desire for companionship.

As an aside, Jesus didn’t say anything about income inequality but that does not mean he would necessarily bless legal regimes which permit ever-expanding inequality. (I’m not arguing for or against, just using as an example).

Third, just because something occurs naturally does not mean it is a sanctified desire. By nature, I am inclined to all kinds of sinful actions, including sexual immorality, but that does not mean God blesses it. Rather, we are to abstain from sinful desires (1 Peter 2:11) and put to death (metaphorically speaking) the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

Finally, the Bible does not and has never taught the geocentric model. The story of Galileo is an example of the church adopting the prevailing scientific/cultural attitude of its day (Ptolemaic astronomy) and imposing it on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself. This is exactly what proponents of redefining Christian marriage are attempting to do.

Just curious, what is your opinion on the idea of duality?

 

[fabknight]

Sorry for the long response, here’s a summary:
· Jesus is a reliable source for Christian marriage.
· Natural does not equal sanctified.
· Galileo is instructive for why we can’t impose extra-biblical ideas on scripture

First, let me say I have no moral high ground to stand on. I, as much as anyone else, am a sinner deserving of God’s judgment. But thanks be to God that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). I’m only quoting scripture because this is an intramural debate among Christians. It seems reasonable that Christians examine what scripture says on a particular topic when discussing whether Christians should adopt one position or another.

Second, Jesus affirmed the entire Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), including the Torah (of which Leviticus is included) (John 5:46). Jesus addressed the contemporary arguments about marriage by affirming God’s design for marriage by quoting Genesis chapter 1 (Mat. 19:3-12). I suspect the reason Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality is that it is unlikely Jews were openly practicing homosexuality in first century Palestine because in their zeal they were quick to execute anyone caught in sexual sin (John 8:4). Jesus forgave the adulterer but commanded her to leave her life of sin (Jn 8:11). He didn’t excuse her sin because it was a naturally occurring desire for companionship.

As an aside, Jesus didn’t say anything about income inequality but that does not mean he would necessarily bless legal regimes which permit ever-expanding inequality. (I’m not arguing for or against, just using as an example).

Third, just because something occurs naturally does not mean it is a sanctified desire. By nature, I am inclined to all kinds of sinful actions, including sexual immorality, but that does not mean God blesses it. Rather, we are to abstain from sinful desires (1 Peter 2:11) and put to death (metaphorically speaking) the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

Finally, the Bible does not and has never taught the geocentric model. The story of Galileo is an example of the church adopting the prevailing scientific/cultural attitude of its day (Ptolemaic astronomy) and imposing it on the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself. This is exactly what proponents of redefining Christian marriage are attempting to do.

Welcome to the cooler, JT!! Has ninja or chemmie called you an idiot yet?

 

[UCFWayne]

Welcome to the cooler, JT!! Has ninja or chemmie called you an idiot yet?

shookster already called him a bigot so hes partially there.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Welcome to the cooler, JT!! Has ninja or chemmie called you an idiot yet?

He's already been labeled a bigot by @DaShuckster

 

[DaShuckster]

The fundamentalists can call it a 'fad,' and continue ignoring science but this issue is a much bigger deal than how we worship. This involves who worships at the table with us.

You don't have to be Einstein to understand why homosexuality has been an ages-old bugaboo. But it's time to put away our old fears and embrace the faithful of all sexual orientations. You can throw old scripture at this issue 'til the cows come home. It's nothing new. Southern Preachers used to do that back in the day to defend slavery for crying out loud. In a similar vein, continuing to believe 'God is anti-gay' in the face of all we now know about human sexuality is absolutely absurd.

Since we're quoting Bible verses, what about Genesis 1:27? If we are created in God's Image, why are humans -- and God's other creatures -- created with different sexual orientations?

The bottom line is that this issue will no doubt create splits in many Worldwide churches because the majority of American Christians -- including a majority of American United Methodists -- believe in opening their arms to the LGBT community. I find it impossible to believe that my congregation will accept the notion we should treat our Gay brothers and sisters as second class citizens within our church.

 

[btbones]

I just find it absolutely impossible to believe that Jesus would want us to do anything other than welcome folks who want to worship with us. No way that we are committing some sin by being respectful and and welcoming to them . If you disagree with someone it doesn't mean you have to condemn them , doesn't really mean you have to change your beliefs . But turning your back on them is unacceptable imo

 

[Crazyhole]

I just find it absolutely impossible to believe that Jesus would want us to do anything other than welcome folks who want to worship with us. No way that we are committing some sin by being respectful and and welcoming to them . If you disagree with someone it doesn't mean you have to condemn them , doesn't really mean you have to change your beliefs . But turning your back on them is unacceptable imo

I dont think anybody is turning their back on people. Its a matter of whether to embrace the sin as opposed to embracing the sinner

 

[DaShuckster]

I dont think anybody is turning their back on people. Its a matter of whether to embrace the sin as opposed to embracing the sinner

Sorry Crazy, but do you realize how absurd that approach sounds when we're talking about an openly gay couple wishing to join the church?

 

[Crazyhole]

Sorry Crazy, but do you realize how absurd that approach sounds when we're talking about an openly gay couple wishing to join the church?

Nobody is telling openly gay couples that they can't join a church. They are saying that they won't be involved in marriage ceremonies. Gay people are welcome in nearly every major church.

 

[DaShuckster]

Nobody is telling openly gay couples that they can't join a church. They are saying that they won't be involved in marriage ceremonies. Gay people are welcome in nearly every major church.

"Greetings! You're welcome in our church as long as you don't flaunt your lifestyle in our faces by wanting to get married here or anything like that."

 

[Crazyhole]

"Greetings! You're welcome in our church as long as you don't flaunt your lifestyle in our faces by wanting to get married here or anything like that."

You and I are both sinners and we both are welcome at church, but we wouldn't expect the church to change their doctrine to match our sins.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Welcome to the cooler, JT!! Has ninja or chemmie called you an idiot yet?

lmfao you are incredibly obsessed with me. I'm still living rent free in your head.

By nature, I am inclined to all kinds of sinful actions, including sexual immorality, but that does not mean God blesses it. Rather, we are to abstain from sinful desires (1 Peter 2:11) and put to death (metaphorically speaking) the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

Interesting, so you have homosexual desires but know they are a sin so you are able to resist them?

Also since you still believe the Old Testament commandants are valid since you reference them as a reason why homosexuality is a sin, I assume you of course do not eat shrimp, never wear any clothes made of polyester or nylon, and haven't shaved your beard. Don't want to pick and choose which rules to follow and be a massive hypocrite, right?

 

[Crazyhole]

lmfao you are incredibly obsessed with me. I'm still living rent free in your head.



Interesting, so you have homosexual desires but know they are a sin so you are able to resist them?

Also since you still believe the Old Testament commandants are valid since you reference them as a reason why homosexuality is a sin, I assume you of course do not eat shrimp, never wear any clothes made of polyester or nylon, and haven't shaved your beard. Don't want to pick and choose which rules to follow and be a massive hypocrite, right?

You're picking low hanging fruit as a strawman. The examples that you give are laws that hebrews still follow based on it being the old law. Even at that time, cultural norms or science didnt dictate that shellfish is something we shouldn't consume. The old law was to delineate the hebrews from other people and give a set of rules to follow to show obedience to God. At that time, the eternal salvation of christ hadnt happened yet. Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, nor was eating shrimp and neither are today. The difference is that the church changed based on Christ, not on cultural norms but that isnt necessarily the same as changing it because of science. If a compelling argument based on divine inspiration is given then the churches will change. If its based on science or human desires then they won't.

 

[UCFWayne]

this is by far the most civil discussion weve had in the wc in years. im actually amazed its gone this well.

 

[NinjaKnight]

You're picking low hanging fruit as a strawman. The examples that you give are laws that hebrews still follow based on it being the old law. Even at that time, cultural norms or science didnt dictate that shellfish is something we shouldn't consume. The old law was to delineate the hebrews from other people and give a set of rules to follow to show obedience to God. At that time, the eternal salvation of christ hadnt happened yet. Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, nor was eating shrimp and neither are today. The difference is that the church changed based on Christ, not on cultural norms but that isnt necessarily the same as changing it because of science. If a compelling argument based on divine inspiration is given then the churches will change. If its based on science or human desires then they won't.

how am I the one who is cherry picking arguments? Leviticus talks about homosexuality being a sin and in the very next sentence talks about eating shrimp being a sin. Sounds to me like you are a cherry picking which laws you want to follow.

 

[Crazyhole]

how am I the one who is cherry picking arguments? Leviticus talks about homosexuality being a sin and in the very next sentence talks about eating shrimp being a sin. Sounds to me like you are a cherry picking which laws you want to follow.

Its not the very next sentence, but I get your point. I suppose that the difference in the 2 is that jesus said that it isn't what goes into your mouth that defiles you, its what comes out. Thats a pretty clear answer to what we can and cannot eat. He also adressed homosexuality, though not explicitly, in his comments about sexual immorality as did Paul. Nothing that was said by him is contradictory to the torah so it doesn't really fall under the same standard. He also directly addressed the practice of observing the sabbath, so thats another example of an old law being done away with. It just seems like something at the level of sexual immorality from both a Christian and a societal position would be addressed if it should change.

 

[jt_knight]

Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-13). Christians must love without discrimination, but loving thy neighbor does not mean endorsing every decision thy neighbor makes. Nor does it mean a church must redefine sin to accommodate unrepentant sinners. Since the desire to view pornography is naturally occurring and prevalent among men within the church does that mean the church needs to rethink its position on pornography?

As for the dietary laws of the Old Testament, Christ specifically abrogated the kosher laws (Act 10:9-16) with only three exceptions: food sacrificed to idols, blood, and the meat of strangled animals (Acts 15:29). Coincidentally, along with those three prohibitions the apostles again warned against sexual immorality.

We discussed the civil/moral/ceremonial distinction in the Old Testament law in another thread a few months ago. I would simply reiterate my position in that thread to explain why Christians are correct in affirming the historic, orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality. If you disagree, I would challenge your hermeneutical approach to biblical theology.

Obligatory disclaimer: As for things like slavery, the crusades, the inquisition, and every other wrong thing done by a Christian or in the name of Christ in the last 2,000 years, I’ll readily stipulate that human-beings (including Christians) are sinners who are prone to error. That’s why we are not justified before a holy God based on our good works (Romans 3:28), but only by the finished work of Christ imputed to us by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians should not base theological arguments on past practices but rather, on the Word of God.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-13). Christians must love without discrimination, but loving thy neighbor does not mean endorsing every decision thy neighbor makes. Nor does it mean a church must redefine sin to accommodate unrepentant sinners. Since the desire to view pornography is naturally occurring and prevalent among men within the church does that mean the church needs to rethink its position on pornography?

As for the dietary laws of the Old Testament, Christ specifically abrogated the kosher laws (Act 10:9-16) with only three exceptions: food sacrificed to idols, blood, and the meat of strangled animals (Acts 15:29). Coincidentally, along with those three prohibitions the apostles again warned against sexual immorality.

We discussed the civil/moral/ceremonial distinction in the Old Testament law in another thread a few months ago. I would simply reiterate my position in that thread to explain why Christians are correct in affirming the historic, orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality. If you disagree, I would challenge your hermeneutical approach to biblical theology.

Obligatory disclaimer: As for things like slavery, the crusades, the inquisition, and every other wrong thing done by a Christian or in the name of Christ in the last 2,000 years, I’ll readily stipulate that human-beings (including Christians) are sinners who are prone to error. That’s why we are not justified before a holy God based on our good works (Romans 3:28), but only by the finished work of Christ imputed to us by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christians should not base theological arguments on past practices but rather, on the Word of God.

Glad you brought up slavery. Fun fact it was 100% endorsed by your god, with the only stipulations being that you treat slaves well. Pretty cool god you have there, owning people is great!

Also good job dodging my questions, it's obvious you have no logical capabilities, you just twist the bible to mean reinforce your hate.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Its not the very next sentence, but I get your point. I suppose that the difference in the 2 is that jesus said that it isn't what goes into your mouth that defiles you, its what comes out. Thats a pretty clear answer to what we can and cannot eat. He also adressed homosexuality, though not explicitly, in his comments about sexual immorality as did Paul. Nothing that was said by him is contradictory to the torah so it doesn't really fall under the same standard. He also directly addressed the practice of observing the sabbath, so thats another example of an old law being done away with. It just seems like something at the level of sexual immorality from both a Christian and a societal position would be addressed if it should change.

So as long as homosexuals stick to oral sex, they are living sin free in the eyes of the bible?

lol I really wish you could see how obvious it is you guys can twist the bible to say whatever you want it to say. Its painfully obvious to some of us.

 

[jt_knight]

Glad you brought up slavery. Fun fact it was 100% endorsed by your god, with the only stipulations being that you treat slaves well. Pretty cool god you have there, owning people is great!

Also good job dodging my questions, it's obvious you have no logical capabilities, you just twist the bible to mean reinforce your hate.

I didn't mean to dodge your question. Please repeat which question I dodged and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. I enjoy the dialogue and I hope others are enjoying it as well.

 

[fabknight]

I didn't mean to dodge your question. Please repeat which question I dodged and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. I enjoy the dialogue and I hope others are enjoying it as well.

You're conversing with Satan, Jr. Seriously.

 

[Crazyhole]

Glad you brought up slavery. Fun fact it was 100% endorsed by your god, with the only stipulations being that you treat slaves well. Pretty cool god you have there, owning people is great!

Also good job dodging my questions, it's obvious you have no logical capabilities, you just twist the bible to mean reinforce your hate.

It was not 100% endorsed by God. This is a really good example of how the bible is misinterpreted and in particular the new testament. God was not advocating for slavery at all, but because it was a societal norm at the time and even still today, he was giving guidance on how best to still have a spiritual relationship with him regardless of the circumstance that a person finds themselves in. Furthermore, slavery was not exclusively a situation where both parties were not in agreement about it back then. The modern depiction of slavery is where a person is abducted and tortured but that wasnt necessarily always the case. People who owed debts to others would repay them by becoming a slave until they debt was repayed. Its a concept that we are unfamilar with today but was common practice at the time. Yes, there were people who were enslaved for other reasons, but they were to be treated with respect. Nowhere in the bible say that a slave should be tortured, which is what you are equating it to.

 

[Crazyhole]

So as long as homosexuals stick to oral sex, they are living sin free in the eyes of the bible?

lol I really wish you could see how obvious it is you guys can twist the bible to say whatever you want it to say. Its painfully obvious to some of us.

This is a disingenuous argument. Nowhere in this thread did anyone suggest that.

 

[NinjaKnight]

It was not 100% endorsed by God. This is a really good example of how the bible is misinterpreted and in particular the new testament. God was not advocating for slavery at all, but because it was a societal norm at the time and even still today, he was giving guidance on how best to still have a spiritual relationship with him regardless of the circumstance that a person finds themselves in. Furthermore, slavery was not exclusively a situation where both parties were not in agreement about it back then. The modern depiction of slavery is where a person is abducted and tortured but that wasnt necessarily always the case. People who owed debts to others would repay them by becoming a slave until they debt was repayed. Its a concept that we are unfamilar with today but was common practice at the time. Yes, there were people who were enslaved for other reasons, but they were to be treated with respect. Nowhere in the bible say that a slave should be tortured, which is what you are equating it to.

Sorry, not buying it. god should have condemned it, instead of allowing it.

This is a disingenuous argument. Nowhere in this thread did anyone suggest that.

It was mostly a joke, but it does highlight how you can twist the words of the bible to mean literally anything.

 

[NinjaKnight]

You're conversing with Satan, Jr. Seriously.

Such a good Christian fab, always spouting hatred to others. You really set an amazing example. I'd love you to point out what I have done to you.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is a really good example of how the bible is misinterpreted and in particular the new testament. God was not advocating for slavery at all, but because it was a societal norm at the time and even still today, he was giving guidance on how best to still have a spiritual relationship with him regardless of the circumstance that a person finds themselves in.

Funny how this 'societal norms' business works.

When it comes to explaining away God's "acceptance of slavery," theologians are quick to point out the times that the inspired writers of the Bible lived in. But fast-forward to today, and we're supposed to believe God still views homosexuality as a sin despite all the research that exists in the world today that makes it clear it has ZERO to do with Satan and temptation and everything to do with one's DNA.

 

[fried-chicken]

Funny how this 'societal norms' business works.

When it comes to explaining away God's "acceptance of slavery," theologians are quick to point out the times that the inspired writers of the Bible lived in. But fast-forward to today, and we're supposed to believe God still views homosexuality as a sin despite all the research that exists in the world today that makes it clear it has ZERO to do with Satan and temptation and everything to do with one's DNA.

@Crazyhole got murdered here

 

[jt_knight]

Just curious, what is your opinion on the idea of duality?

Could you be more specific? I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "duality" before responding.

 

[Crazyhole]

Could you be more specific? I want to make sure I understand what you mean by "duality" before responding.

The idea that the flesh is inherently evil and the soul is inherently good.

 

[Crazyhole]

Funny how this 'societal norms' business works.

When it comes to explaining away God's "acceptance of slavery," theologians are quick to point out the times that the inspired writers of the Bible lived in. But fast-forward to today, and we're supposed to believe God still views homosexuality as a sin despite all the research that exists in the world today that makes it clear it has ZERO to do with Satan and temptation and everything to do with one's DNA.

And thats fine. The point is that God gives us direction regardless of our position in society or how others may view us. Its all for the purpose of continuing to seek him and know that this life is temporal. A slave can get to heaven. A slave owner can get to heaven. A homosexual can get to heaven. A liar, a murderer, a thief can get to heaven. Its all about accepting grace and understanding that we are just on a bridge right now. If we worship the world, we never get off the bridge and eventually that bridge will collapse. We have to be passersby.

 

[Crazyhole]

Sorry, not buying it. god should have condemned it, instead of allowing it.



It was mostly a joke, but it does highlight how you can twist the words of the bible to mean literally anything.

Why should God have condemned slavery? Does a slave not have the same path to salvation that a slave owner does? God could care less what our economic or societal circumstance is in regard to his love. God is not the the purveyor of social justice, he is the purveyor of eternal justice.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Why should God have condemned slavery? Does a slave not have the same path to salvation that a slave owner does? God could care less what our economic or societal circumstance is in regard to his love. God is not the the purveyor of social justice, he is the purveyor of eternal justice.

Umm.....because slavery is a sin? How does this need to be explained to you? He has condemned plenty of other sins, yet embraced slavery

 

[Crazyhole]

Umm.....because slavery is a sin? How does this need to be explained to you? He has condemned plenty of other sins, yet embraced slavery

Slavery is not a sin. Its an abhorrent act at the very worst and a simple agreement between 2 parties at the very best. A slave can just as easily treat a slave owner in a way that is inconsistent with judeo-christian values as a slave owner can to his slave.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Slavery is not a sin. Its an abhorrent act at the very worst and a simple agreement between 2 parties at the very best. A slave can just as easily treat a slave owner in a way that is inconsistent with judeo-christian values as a slave owner can to his slave.

lmfao

Unbelievable.

Literally owning another human being is not a sin, but two adults who love each other is? What a completely fuked up moral system you christians have. I wish I could have you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just trolling, but sadly you are probably serious.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Slavery is not a sin. Its an abhorrent act at the very worst and a simple agreement between 2 parties at the very best. A slave can just as easily treat a slave owner in a way that is inconsistent with judeo-christian values as a slave owner can to his slave.

You can see where problems arise then right? While you may be technically right, Christianity loses a lot of credibility with people here. Slavery (in the commonly understood sense of the word) SHOULD most definitely be considered a sin. I would find it hard to argue that enslaving another individual is less an impediment to seeking a relationship with God than homosexuality. What am I missing?

Edit: And for the record I have no desire to change the rules when it comes to Christianity. I'm completely fine with just disagreeing with it a moving on. If it means I'm not called a Christian there's ZFG on my part. Much more interested in the big picture.