If God is real ...

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Are the Knights of Columbus as concerned with banning pre-marital sex too then?

Or are the same sins OK when straight people commit them?

Of course, premarital sex is not allowed, and there is a lot of concern about the prevalence of it in society.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Did Jesus talk about original sin?

It was already a teaching from the Old Testament.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 (NAB)

[24]*But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.

Genesis 2:17 (NAB)

[17]*except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”

Genesis 3:3 (NAB)

[3]*it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’”

Genesis 3:19 (NAB)

[19]*By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.”

It was also taught by the apostles.

Romans 5:12-14 (NAB)

[12]*Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned—
[13]*for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
[14]*But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

Romans 5:19 (NAB)

[19]*For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:21 (NAB)

[21]*For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I understand what you are saying in theory. But giving up loving human interactions like that, especially giving up something as life affirming and beneficial as a marriage and sex, seems like a net loss, not a gain. I have to wonder how lonely most priests become, or how skewed their lines of reasoning get with no one there to bounce perspectives or ideas off of.

No one said that life dedicated to God would be easy.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Did Jesus talk about sex and marriage?

You seem to think that all Christian teachings must have come from Jesus. There is tradition from the Old Testament, most of which was not abolished by Jesus, as well as what the apostles, and the early Church fathers taught.

Genesis 2:24 (NAB)

[24]*That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

Matthew 15:19 (NAB)

[19]*For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NAB)

[9]*Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
[10]*nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (NAB)

[8]*Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
[9]*but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NAB)

[9]*with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
[10]*the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

Hebrews 13:4 (NAB)

[4]*Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.

Revelation 21:8 (NAB)

[8]*But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Revelation 22:15 (NAB)

[15]*Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mlc82

(
don't know how to multi-quote so numbering by paragraph)

1.I'm not disagreeing that they were real people. The way the saints were set up as such was put in place of lesser Roman gods. I don't read "anti catholic propaganda", unless you consider a near obsession with general ancient Roman history to be such.

Set up? You are being intentionally vague.

Originally Posted by mlc82

(
2. All was written beforehand, but much of those were thrown out because they didn't fit the status quo of the new Christianity. They put in the ones which fit with their agenda, and declared as "heretical" all that didn't. The apostles, as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, cannot be proven to have actually written the books with their names on them in the Bible. If this were all that was needed, then why weren't some of the other Apostles books (such as Thomas) included?

Incorrect. They do know who wrote most of the books, except Hebrews, I believe. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas, but was written a century or two after he lived.

Originally Posted by mlc82

(
This is the same Church that a thousand years later brutally killed anyone who dared to try and translate the bible from Latin to English, so common folks could actually read it instead of having to be told by clergy what it said.

They discouraged faulty translations, and also private interpretation, separate from the magisterium of the Church. You are levelin ga lot of accusations without being specific.

Originally Posted by mlc82

(
3. Once again, this is not learned from "anti catholic propoganda", it's what I've (and many others) have learned from reading about pre-Christian Roman religion and how it was set up/functioned.

This would all be very mild as anti catholic propaganda- there are 1500+ yrs worth of violent incidents that would much better serve as such than simple parallels with the previous religion.

More vague accusations. Unless you desire to have a fair discussion without you attacking the Church and Christianity, as you have done in previous posts, I think I'm done with this conversation. I simply want to clarify people's misconceived notions about the Church, often spread by those who hate the Catholic Church and twist history and its teachings to put it in a bad light.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by torilink

actually, no that is not correct. Jesus didn't start 'The Church'. I believe what Jesus led (he was a rabbi) was a sect of Judaism. His ideas weren't necessarily new or unique to only himself - but he was no doubt an effective rabbi & leader of his sect. Jesus left no instructions to start a new religion based upon HIM. He seemed to want to teach by example of how one should live.

Paul started a religion - based upon his interpretation of stories about Jesus. Even if you believe he was inspired by God - he wasn't the Christ nor God, just a man.

Jesus started the Church.

Matthew 16:18-19 (NAB)

[18]*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
[19]*I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Paul did not start the Church. The first parish was started under Peter.

Acts 2:14 (NAB)

[14]*Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, “You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

Acts 2:37-41 (NAB)

[37]*Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
[38]*Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
[39]*For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
[40]*He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
[41]*Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

[pianoperformer]

Dali, the woman was repentant, though. If she wouldn't have thought she had done wrong, do you think He would have been so forgiving? Of course not.

I'm not trying to accuse anyone, nor do I think it's good to do so. I'm just showing what the Bible says on the subject, and what the Church teaches. yes, God is merciful, as you point out, but you have to do some work on your end, too; you must be repentant, and ask for God's mercy.

We all have access to God's mercy and grace. But we have to resolve to change, to become holy before God, with the help of His grace, as we don't have the power to do it by ourselves.

Just as it's bad to accuse people of evil and tell them they are going to hell, it is also bad to lead people to think that God will accept them, no matter what they do, as it just isn't true. God is merciful, yes, but He is also just. I think the Bible is pretty clear on this point. I think Sacred Tradition is pretty clear on this point.

[Akashic_Librarian]

let me get this straight Piano, I can have God's love, but I have to give myself up to him completely without question?!

Well I never saw it LIKE THAT!

If only someone could use that idea as a system of government...I bet it would be really effective...

Oh wait...what happened to Stalin?

[fellowtraveler]

...on anyone who continues to revive this awful thread. Honestly, I feel as though it's 1958 and Father Kaminski keeps popping out of his grave to tell me I'm going straight to hell for having a hot dog on a Friday. (And holy sh*t did they actually bring that old chestnut back, or could our little non/neo-catholic be reading an outdated instruction manual? Ah, the magic of adjustable infallibility.)

You have been warned. Toe fungus is not pretty.

(just feelin' a little silly this morning...don't worry, I realize this is an essentially humorless forum - I'm just such a rebel...)

[torilink]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Jesus started the Church.



Paul did not start the Church. The first parish was started under Peter.

that is debatable and totally dependent upon personal belief. I personally do not think the church as it has come down to us was the one begun by Peter. Peter & Paul were not on the same page in their teachings.

Regardless, it wasn't Jesus.

[dali]

Pianoperformer.

There is absolutely nothing in that scripture to say that the woman was repentant.Not one word!Read it and show me where. Again this is an instance of someone interpreting according to their own system what is there in black and white.In this case though, as in many others it is in fact there in glorious technicolor. Jesus took pity on the woman He did not ask her to make an act of contrition before he could absolve her. He was God for goodness sake not simply a priest!!On MANY occasions He said to people the authorities thought had been born in sin or diseased BECAUSE of their sin "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN YOU>" HE did not require formal repentance from them in any instance before He said it. Neither had they come looking for forgiveness. They show no sign of repentance...And each time they get up and walk or have their sight restored, ears opened and skin diseases cleansed and cured. He didnt ever ask them to beg for Gods mercy. Not once, sorry. Its all there in the Book unless you read yours through a different kind of lense than mine? This, my dear fellow Catholic was the whole point of Christs mission to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL. Of course EVERY time He did this , flying in the face of official teaching ,the authorities-that glorious magesterium- wanted Him out of the way because like you they believed God required justice before mercy.Jesus doesnt seem to have believed that Himself and I think He perhaps knew the mind of God a bit better than any creature no matter how educated in matters of the faith or religous doctrine. Church teaching never stopped Him. He healed the unclean, the diseased and the marginalised- those poor people cast out because the scriptures said they should be-lepers ,prostitutes (homos?),and forgave them their sins right up until the end.Apparently they followed him ever after that.They had been "found" by the Good Shepherd. They were His "little flock ",whom He loved. Finally the Magesterium who couldnt stomach all of this had him executed as a common criminal .How could the son of God hang about with OUTCASTS??? They just never got the point and neither do you so I dont know why I am even bothering except it matters to me and that was the invitation you sent out when you started this whole thread. You said you would not judge, you would not place your beliefs over anothers. That you were genuinely interested to see how we all approached the idea of God... but I digress

...There IS everything to suggest that the poor woman taken in adultery was terrified and who wouldnt be given the circumstances?Jesus in fact is displaying Gods mercy which is not dependant on human action -especially, surely ,in cases of abuse or bullying? The woman was being abused. Theres no way out of that.. God does not require abused persons to apologise for their part in the abuse.It is clear to me from reading it that Jesus might have been encouraging her accusers to take responsibility for their own actions and "Turn back to God"which is the true meaning of repentance. Jesus was in fact showing "the church" ,those men in authority HOW to repent aka DROP YOUR STONES.

I know full well how hard it is for people who believe in their churches and their books but whenever we put any teaching above the EXAMPLE of our Lord we are very much in danger of sin ourselves and that is the case EVEN if your name is Benedict16 or Martin Luther or Pianoperformer or Dali.

God established Israel did he not and Jesus dared to show Israel mercy over Justice. Jesus established the Church and since he is the same yesterday today and forever I suggest it is reasonable to assume that He has not changed His tune?

You see an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind and I think Jesus knew that.As one catholic to another,PP, have you never read Therese of Lisieux? She is a great authority on this subject . To her justice was deplorable when put above the idea of Gods mercy and she loved both the Church and our Lord with her whole being.So does Christ but He doesnt demand repentance BEFORE mercy. Theres plenty time to turn back to Him and every reason to when the hole in your soul has been touched by the hand of someone who loves you for who you are. Straight men cant get this in the main because they know nothing of internalized oppression and generally dont know what it is to be marginalised/outcast. Thankfully and by the way he was treated himself Jesus had a handle on it.

I saw a young priest on the telly once who had been working a long time among people who were dying of AIDS, and their families. He had come to realise that at the end the only part or their bodies these young men could feel any sensation in was their feet so he used to stroke their feet and encouraged their partners and their parents to do so too if they were around. Once he even kissed a young guy on the mouth because the boy had told him that the lack of a kiss, the fact that nobody WANTED to ever kiss him again BROKE HIS HEART.So the young priest kissed him mouth to mouth, man to man. The Church authorities on hearing about the "radical "nature of this priests approach had him removed from his post and placed a hard liner there in place of him.

Who was being Jesus here? What do you really think. IN YOUR HEART NOT YOUR HEAD.

dali

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Set up? You are being intentionally vague.



Incorrect. They do know who wrote most of the books, except Hebrews, I believe. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas, but was written a century or two after he lived.



They discouraged faulty translations, and also private interpretation, separate from the magisterium of the Church. You are levelin ga lot of accusations without being specific.



More vague accusations. Unless you desire to have a fair discussion without you attacking the Church and Christianity, as you have done in previous posts, I think I'm done with this conversation. I simply want to clarify people's misconceived notions about the Church, often spread by those who hate the Catholic Church and twist history and its teachings to put it in a bad light.

This is a pretty interesting and non-biased (neither christian nor "militantly against such") or incendiary read:
from jesus to christ: why did christianity succeed?: legimitization under constantine (there are other interesting looking links at the bottom of the page as well, haven't read them yet though)


Doesn't go into the saints part though, and I'd have to look that up again to explain much of it coherently.

Again, if I were trying to "baselessly attack Catholicism", what I've said here would be the tamest, most sedated excuse for an attack imaginable that anyone could make.


Edit: Out of curiosity, when did you become Catholic? I could have sworn you'd previously posted about having similar beliefs to mine, more in the "Deistic" (if that's such a word, probably isn't) vein of their possibly being some sort of creative energy/force/whatever out there that everything stems from, but not believing at all in an anthromorphic, seperate concious being as a God... Maybe I've got you mixed up with someone else though.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Of course, premarital sex is not allowed, and there is a lot of concern about the prevalence of it in society.

That's not what I asked. I asked if the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Church support banning pre-marital sex.

Divorce would be another valid example.

Do the Knights of Columbus raise money towards legally banning divorce? Or is it OK for the sins of straight people to be legal, in their eyes?

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

It was already a teaching from the Old Testament.

So Jesus didn't mention sex or marriage at all then? Yet you still believe that pre-marital sex is wrong, that it is a sin, because of the Old Testament. How interesting..


You know, the Old Testament also advocated stoning:

For touching Mount Sinai
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13


For taking "accursed things"
Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26


For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16


For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24


For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28


For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21


For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10


For disobeying parents
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21


For witches and wizards
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27


For giving your children to Molech
Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2


For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56


For cursing the king
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10

Not to mention the Old Testament is fully supportive towards slavery, I'm sure you know the passages.


So, do you also encourage stoning to handle these problems because the Old Testament advised it? And how about slavery? Do you just sort of pick and choose?

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by dali

Pianoperformer.

There is absolutely nothing in that scripture to say that the woman was repentant.Not one word!Read it and show me where. Again this is an instance of someone interpreting according to their own system what is there in black and white.In this case though, as in many others it is in fact there in glorious technicolor. Jesus took pity on the woman He did not ask her to make an act of contrition before he could absolve her. He was God for goodness sake not simply a priest!!On MANY occasions He said to people the authorities thought had been born in sin or diseased BECAUSE of their sin "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN YOU>" HE did not require formal repentance from them in any instance before He said it. Neither had they come looking for forgiveness. They show no sign of repentance...And each time they get up and walk or have their sight restored, ears opened and skin diseases cleansed and cured. He didnt ever ask them to beg for Gods mercy. Not once, sorry. Its all there in the Book unless you read yours through a different kind of lense than mine? This, my dear fellow Catholic was the whole point of Christs mission to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL. Of course EVERY time He did this , flying in the face of official teaching ,the authorities-that glorious magesterium- wanted Him out of the way because like you they believed God required justice before mercy.Jesus doesnt seem to have believed that Himself and I think He perhaps knew the mind of God a bit better than any creature no matter how educated in matters of the faith or religous doctrine. Church teaching never stopped Him. He healed the unclean, the diseased and the marginalised- those poor people cast out because the scriptures said they should be-lepers ,prostitutes (homos?),and forgave them their sins right up until the end.Apparently they followed him ever after that.They had been "found" by the Good Shepherd. They were His "little flock ",whom He loved. Finally the Magesterium who couldnt stomach all of this had him executed as a common criminal .How could the son of God hang about with OUTCASTS??? They just never got the point and neither do you so I dont know why I am even bothering except it matters to me and that was the invitation you sent out when you started this whole thread. You said you would not judge, you would not place your beliefs over anothers. That you were genuinely interested to see how we all approached the idea of God... but I digress

...There IS everything to suggest that the poor woman taken in adultery was terrified and who wouldnt be given the circumstances?Jesus in fact is displaying Gods mercy which is not dependant on human action -especially, surely ,in cases of abuse or bullying? The woman was being abused. Theres no way out of that.. God does not require abused persons to apologise for their part in the abuse.It is clear to me from reading it that Jesus might have been encouraging her accusers to take responsibility for their own actions and "Turn back to God"which is the true meaning of repentance. Jesus was in fact showing "the church" ,those men in authority HOW to repent aka DROP YOUR STONES.

I know full well how hard it is for people who believe in their churches and their books but whenever we put any teaching above the EXAMPLE of our Lord we are very much in danger of sin ourselves and that is the case EVEN if your name is Benedict16 or Martin Luther or Pianoperformer or Dali.

God established Israel did he not and Jesus dared to show Israel mercy over Justice. Jesus established the Church and since he is the same yesterday today and forever I suggest it is reasonable to assume that He has not changed His tune?

You see an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind and I think Jesus knew that.As one catholic to another,PP, have you never read Therese of Lisieux? She is a great authority on this subject . To her justice was deplorable when put above the idea of Gods mercy and she loved both the Church and our Lord with her whole being.So does Christ but He doesnt demand repentance BEFORE mercy. Theres plenty time to turn back to Him and every reason to when the hole in your soul has been touched by the hand of someone who loves you for who you are. Straight men cant get this in the main because they know nothing of internalized oppression and generally dont know what it is to be marginalised/outcast. Thankfully and by the way he was treated himself Jesus had a handle on it.

I saw a young priest on the telly once who had been working a long time among people who were dying of AIDS, and their families. He had come to realise that at the end the only part or their bodies these young men could feel any sensation in was their feet so he used to stroke their feet and encouraged their partners and their parents to do so too if they were around. Once he even kissed a young guy on the mouth because the boy had told him that the lack of a kiss, the fact that nobody WANTED to ever kiss him again BROKE HIS HEART.So the young priest kissed him mouth to mouth, man to man. The Church authorities on hearing about the "radical "nature of this priests approach had him removed from his post and placed a hard liner there in place of him.

Who was being Jesus here? What do you really think. IN YOUR HEART NOT YOUR HEAD.

dali

I am confused about what you are trying to say here. I understand the mercy part but are you saying God cares nothing about what we do, only what we feel and think?

What does the concept of sin then mean to you and of repentance, both which are themes woven into the New Testament along side of the mercy?

Much of what went on here is left a mystery, especailly what Jesus wrote on the ground while they were dropping their stones. But Jesus did say to her in
John 8:11 - "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." So we know from this, 1. There is something such as sin and 2. Jesus expects us not to do it.

What do you think her sin was, that he was asking her to stop?

[NightSpirit]

Dan,

There is some background to this story of the woman brought to Jesus for stoning that might make it easier to understand why there was a law to stone adulterers in the first place.

It's true that those men who brought that woman to Jesus were acting on what was written in those verses in the OT you quoted and I know the verses seem unmerciful. But in order for someone to actually be sentenced to be stoned, there were a specific set of steps that had to be followed first like this one.

Deuteronomy 17:6 - At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death

The Jews also have a companion set of teachings based on the Oral Torah, which was also received by Moses from God at the same time as those written parts we have in our Bibles. In the beginning, these more detailed instructions from God, which were only passed down orally from a master to a student and had to be memorized until they could be recited four times, further elaborated on how to carry out these laws of those OT books. Jewish people were required to know both Torahs so these accusing men also knew everything that had to happen before this woman could be stoned but they had rushed past all the steps and just sentenced her to die.

From the Oral law, the first thing that needed to be done is that there had to be a trial. It had to be established at that trial, by at least two witnesses, that the witnesses had seen all the sin from beginning. And it also had to be a fact that the witnesses warned the person that they were about to sin and of the death penalty for their sin. And the witnesses also had to testify that after the warning, the sinner acknowledged they understood the warning but was still going to sin. The accusers had to be willing to be the ones to carry out the punishment if they were the ones making the accusations. If any of these elements were missing, there could be no death penalty or stoning

Knowing these men knew all this, Jesus said, "You who are without sin cast the first stone." and bent down and started writing. By Oral law, even though he was without sin, He wasn't the one that was supposed to stone her because He wasn't her accuser. Some think while He was waiting, He was writing out all their own individual sins that were worthy of death. If that is what He wrote, these men would have known He had somehow been a witness to their sins, that maybe He really was from God. But we can't tell if they dropped their rocks just from remembering their own sins; somehow I think it had to be more to it and involved what He was writing. To be granted mercy, realizing He knew and still hadn't accused them, while in the process of seeking someone else's death certainly seems to be enough to cause someone to drop their rocks and leave.

When Jesus looked up and said, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" her trial was over because there were not the required accusers to proceed.

There are even more requirements to stoning a rebellious child, so many, that at the end of listing them, they say of that particular sin and stoning, '"It never happened and it never will happen."

We don't study these other set of detailed instructions God gave Moses because we are not required to follow the Torah laws to the letter like the Jews. The OT books that are in our Bibles are there mainly to help us better understand those New Testament verses that refer to OT verses or principles.

The New Covenant Jesus made with us is one of faith and following His Spirit. He told us that all of those Oral and Written teachings, the Law, were based on loving God and loving our neighbor. That's pretty clear and simple to understand. But if a person wants to go deeper and understand more about the God of the Bible, studying these other teachings can help. The more I learn, the more I see that God made provisions for mercy all along.

I hope others can see the this same picture of God in those teachings that I see, that God is not the one seeking to punish or accuse, that accusers have to know ALL about what happened, that the sinner has to have been told he is doing wrong and also know what the punishment for it is. And the sinner then has to let the accuser know he understands but still rejects the warning. If we take this as a model of how God handles sin, it seems clear to me that no one could ever be our accuser but God Himself.

And this is what happens to false accusers from Deuteronomy 19:18-19

And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

I know we have been discussing gay rights on another thread and because most Christians think homosexuality is a sin, it may seem like we are judging or condemning a person but we are not. Believing what the Bible says about sex is not the same as bringing a person before God to be stoned. The disagreement in beliefs shouldn't cause a person to feel judged.

My friends laugh at me when I say, "We all could be gay" And they say "Maybe you could but not me." But I really believe that. We all could be gay or commit adultery or molest a child or kill someone or lie, steal or cheat but for the grace of God, like Paul said. I think whatever power we have over doing something wrong either came to us as a gift or comes from submitting to God and following Him.

That's one reason I asked the questions of how you know you were born gay, to understand God better and if that is really what He allows. The conclusions I have reached from talking to other gay friends about their sexuality, is that it's a choice. A choice or preference based on complicated influences but still a choice.

I have found that there really is more to God than just drawing lines in the sand and then threatening us with death if we cross them. I have been a slight sex addict in the past myself and have worked through my own issues of desire, and condemning myself and of failing to find a way to live in the sin and still have spirituality and peace. The acts may be different but people are not that different because we all struggle with those questions of reconciling what God says about sex with our desires and our freedom to do something else.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

It's true that those men who brought that woman to Jesus were acting on what was written in those verses in the OT you quoted and I know the verses seem unmerciful. But in order for someone to actually be sentenced to be stoned, there were a specific set of steps that had to be followed first like this one.

Please, that's no comfort.

These are merely procedural safeguards. It's no different from what might go on in a court of law, eg a person can't be convicted of shoplifting unless the prosecution provides enough evidence to the judge and jury to rebut the presumption of innocence etc etc.

It is also a different issue from whether people should be stoned to death for shoplifting.

Salem also had its procedural safeguards, before killing people who were found to be witches.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

The Jews also have a companion set of teachings based on the Oral Torah, which was also received by Moses from God at the same time as those written parts we have in our Bibles. In the beginning, these more detailed instructions from God, which were only passed down orally from a master to a student and had to be memorized until they could be recited four times, further elaborated on how to carry out these laws of those OT books.

From the Oral law, the first thing that needed to be done is that there had to be a trial. It had to be established at that trial, by at least two witnesses, that the witnesses had seen all the sin from beginning. And it also had to be a fact that the witnesses warned the person that they were about to sin and of the death penalty for their sin. And the witnesses also had to testify that after the warning, the sinner acknowledged they understood the warning but was still going to sin. The accusers had to be willing to be the ones to carry out the punishment if they were the ones making the accusations. If any of these elements were missing, there could be no death penalty or stoning.

Knowing these men knew all this, Jesus said, "You who are without sin cast the first stone." and bent down and started writing. By Oral law, even though he was without sin, He wasn't the one that was supposed to stone her because He wasn't her accuser. Some think while He was waiting, that maybe He really was from God. But we can't tell if they dropped their rocks just from remembering their own sins; somehow I think it had to be more to it and involved what He was writing. To be granted mercy, realizing He knew and still hadn't accused them, while in the process of seeking someone else's death certainly seems to be enough to cause someone to drop their rocks and leave.

When Jesus looked up and said, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" her trial was over because there were not the required accusers to proceed.

It would seem that religions today are completely minunderstanding the stoning process then. Maybe you should have a nice, academic talk with them about it. Tell them how to do it right. Not to mention all the gun violence going on, which is really just throwing lead stones at high speeds..

Thank God these ancient texts are still so popular so these things can keep happening. How wonderful that, as a race, we cannot move on from killing in God's name.

We couldn't just have people follow simple social precepts like "Do no harm" or "leave things better than you found them" could we? We have to look to the Bible! The book that recommends stoning, but doesn't apparently come with the proper legal process documents. That's where we need to get our morals from. Sharp thinking.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

We don't study these other set of detailed instructions God gave Moses because we are not required to follow the Torah laws to the letter like the Jews. The OT books that are in our Bibles are there mainly to help us better understand those New Testament verses that refer to OT verses or principles.

The New Covenant Jesus made with us is one of faith and following His Spirit. He told us that all of those Oral and Written teachings, the Law, were based on loving God and loving our neighbor. That's pretty clear and simple to understand.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Sure.

So how does that make pre-marital sex a sin?

Christians seem to completely miss the nuance of that statement. Love your neighbor as yourself. Simply put, that means to do no harm.

Meanwhile, a classic example of doing harm would be to legally make a subset of the citizenry second class under the law, would it not?

Would you want marriage to be made illegal for you? Of course you wouldn't. Would you want to be fired from work for your sexual orientation? Of course not. So how should you treat others?

You would think the answer would be obvious.. but it won't be. Not to Christians. Not to you guys. You don't believe what you preach, simple as that. Not the vast majority anyway.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

But if a person wants to go deeper and understand more about the God of the Bible, studying these other teachings can help. The more I learn, the more I see that God made provisions for mercy all along.

Why would you need God to "make provisions for mercy"?

The implication is that you can't be a good person on your own.

This is the opposite of accountability.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I hope others can see the this same picture of God in those teachings that I see, that God is not the one seeking to punish or accuse,

The ones seeking to punish and accuse are ones who use God's name in vain. They use God's name to preach hatred, bigotry, discrimination and fear.

These people use God's name to tell the young and impressionable that even if something they are doing causes no harm, like masterbation or premarital sex, it's a sin.

These are people who try to scare others with the idea of an eternal Hell. Then they place the blame for creating the situation somewhere outside of themselves. Blame God.

That, is using God's name in vain. Those are the people who want to punish and accuse. It's remarkably easy to spot people who want to do this.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I know we have been discussing gay rights on another thread and because most Christians think homosexuality is a sin, it may seem like we are judging or condemning a person but we are not. Believing what the Bible says about sex is not the same as bringing a person before God to be stoned. The disagreement in beliefs shouldn't cause a person to feel judged.

No, it's pretty much the fact that I don't have the same legal rights as other people that makes me feel judged.

It's also the fact that when I have sex with the person I love, which doesn't do any harm, but which does bring us closer, and which does add a lot of joy and intimacy to both our lives, you so-called "Christians" tell us it's a sin.

Because, you think, Bible said so.

What a mess.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

My friends laugh at me when I say, "We all could be gay" And they say "Maybe you could but not me." But I really believe that. We all could be gay or commit adultery or molest a child or kill someone or lie, steal or cheat but for the grace of God, like Paul said. I think whatever power we have over doing something wrong either came to us as a gift or comes from submitting to God and following Him.

There but by the grace of God go I. Sure.

The meta-message is the same as "Do onto others or you would have them do onto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Guess what? Singling our minorities and taking away their equal rights, while calling them sinners, does not follow the message.

That's much closer to beating your wife while telling her you only hit her because you love her.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

That's one reason I asked the questions of how you know you were born gay, to understand God better and if that is really what He allows.

"What He allows."

*sigh.*

This is exactly why it's such a mess trying to have any rational conversation with religious people. For just this reason. What He allows. Well let's see.. He allows torture, genocide, Bush's war that killed a million Iraqis, six million more dead in the Congo, that's all just this decade..

He allows babies to get Lyme disease perinatally. It eats their bones and spine.


This is just opting fully out of any responsibility and believing that anything that does or doesn't happen is because God allowed it.

Try replacing God with "magical fairies" or "colorful unicorns" to see just how ridiculous this sounds..


I don't believe or disbelieve in a God / higher power per se. But, assuming God does exist, he sure as hell wouldn't think that the best way to communicate to me is via an incredibly violent, ignorant, racist, contradictory and obsolete book like the Bible.


Belief in the Bible basically requires a complete lack of faith.

When you say you believe everything in the Bible, you are saying you believe:

1) That it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
2) In committing genocide based on race (Samuel 15:2-3)
3) That God wants war (Exodus 15:3)
4) In committing genocide based on ethnicity as long as you spare the virgins.(Numbers 31)
5) In killing anyone who worships a different god or who worships differently. (Deuteronomy 13:6-16)
6) In killing disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law. (Mark 7:9)
7) In killing anyone who refuses to be ruled by Jesus. (Luke 19:22-27)

Saying you believe all those things is a straight up lie. If you really held all those beliefs you would be in jail right now for murdering just about everyone you met.


Also, believing in a God that would bane people to Hell is just crazy. You have to believe that good equals evil for that to make sense. And I don't believe that.

I'm all for spirituality, peacefulness, ethical behavior, etc. Unfortunately organized religion does everything but move people towards that.

Do you want to continue to test what atrocities God will allow? Well here's a newsflash. You're committing the atrocities, not God. You're committing the prejudice and the violence, the hatred and the bigotry. Not God.

You.


Is your faith in God so weak that you genuinely believe that nothing written today is just as inspired, if not drastically more so than the Bible?

Are your morals so weak that you have to look to a 2,000 year old book to figure out what is harmful and what is not?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Who are the ones committing these crimes then?

Those who do not truly love God - you and me.

Originally Posted by Maguru

How does being free of ego equate with loving a god?

I never said they do equate. However, if a person is continuously motivated by ego attachments and desires (power, prestige, lust, anger, envy, greed, etc), how then could it be said that they love God?

Yes, a person could be free from ego attachments and still not believe in God (as many enlightened Buddhists and some atheists are), but I believe that one day they will come to that realization. It is the culmination of the spiritual journey for them. They are but one small step away from encountering the reality of God's presence.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Those who do not truly love God - you and me.
I never said they do equate. However, if a person is continuously motivated by ego attachments and desires (power, prestige, lust, anger, envy, greed, etc), how then could it be said that they love God?

Yes, a person could be free from ego attachments and still not believe in God (as many enlightened Buddhists and some atheists are), but I believe that one day they will come to that realization. It is the culmination of the spiritual journey for them. They are but one small step away from encountering the reality of God's presence.

We have no need to love a god. We only need to love each other.

[Plato]

...then I'll eat my favourite pair of shoes.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Maguru

We have no need to love a god. We only need to love each other.

Oh don't go and talk about my father
God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
He made this world for us to live in, and gave us everything
And all he asks of us is we give each other love.
Oh ya
Don't go and talk about my father
Cause God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
He loves us whether or not we know it
Just loves us, oh ya
And He'll forgive all our sins
Forgive all our sins
And all He asks of us, is we give each other love.
Oh ya
Love your mother, she bore you
Love your father, he works for you
Love your sister, she's good to you
Love your brother, your brother
Don't go and talk about my father, He's good to us,
God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
For when we call in Him for mercy, Mercy Father
He'll be merciful, my friend
Oh, yes He will
All he asks of us, I know, is we give each other love,
Oh ya

Marvin Gaye - God is Love

[Plato]

Why ask for mercy? Why submit? I want it to be the other way around...

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

(just feelin' a little silly this morning...don't worry, I realize this is an essentially humorless forum - I'm just such a rebel...)

It's the curse of the undying thread!

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Yes, a person could be free from ego attachments and still not believe in God (as many enlightened Buddhists and some atheists are), but I believe that one day they will come to that realization. It is the culmination of the spiritual journey for them. They are but one small step away from encountering the reality of God's presence.

Why is it monotheists (such as Christians) cannot accept the idea that a person can be spiritually complete without the inclusion of their concept of a single Christian-type God?

Perhaps a person can achieve a more pure enlightenment if they have to find the answers to the universe themself, rather than just leave everything unanswered as "God's will". I notice a tendency in some Christian thinking to discourage people from asking questions, since as mere mortals it's wrong for us to think we can possibly understand God's plans.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

It's the curse of the undying thread!

I expect George Romero to show up any minute.


Usually it takes a shotgun to the head to stop a zombie, but this son-of-a- gun will keep twitching 'til the last circular and fruitless argument dies...

[dali]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

I am confused about what you are trying to say here. I understand the mercy part but are you saying God cares nothing about what we do, only what we feel and think?

What does the concept of sin then mean to you and of repentance, both which are themes woven into the New Testament along side of the mercy?

Much of what went on here is left a mystery, especailly what Jesus wrote on the ground while they were dropping their stones. But Jesus did say to her in
John 8:11 - "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." So we know from this, 1. There is something such as sin and 2. Jesus expects us not to do it.

What do you think her sin was, that he was asking her to stop?

Do YOU understand the mercy part because I think that is the only part that is your buisness and I think thats what Jesus was trying to point out to these people. He succeeded. They dropped their stones. The judgement part is Gods buisness not ours. If you truly believe that Jesus was God you get an idea of Gods take on judgement from the words he spoke and if you will excuse the application of my faculty of imagination, the manner in which he spoke them, tenderly, utterly convincingly.

There are three kinds of buisness in this world. Gods buisness. your buisness and my buisness. When you get out of your buisness and into mine you defend your self and attack me, likewise if I get into yours I defend myself and attack you. This is when we see the splinter in our brothers eye and neglect to notice the beam (PLANK) in our own.

Jesus came to show us the way to the Father. I think we can agree on that at least. He is God incarnate. His buisness is Gods buisness then. He clearly shows us in this instance what Gods buisness is. MERCIFUL FORGIVENESS. He gives Gods response to people who fall short of the Law, sinners "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU" We would do well to notice this. God is talking here. God is taking care of His buisness.

Everyone involved in this scene is shown, by Gods response to it ,where their responsibility lies ie what is their OWN buisness. The point in the scriptures is that we as readers are as much involved in them as the people actually IN the scenes themselves ,by our participation . This is why it is called the Living Word.

Our buisness is to "Go and sin no more". Live a life that doesnt fall short of the Law. Dont point the finger. Let God be the judge. Let God deal with each of our lives and let God deal with us when we fall short ie when we fail to live up to the mark, when we sin.

Jesus tried throughout his life to get this message accross but failed miserably. When he was at the point of death, himself a victim finally of men who accused HIM of sin, of breaking the law of moses just like this woman in the story we have been talking about he forgave them all. He was a man of his word and was faithful to Gods buisness right up until his death

"NEITHER DO I CONDEMN THEE."

...My repentance is not your buisness. Yours is. God will take care of me. You must be careful not to bandy about the words of the scriptures to point out the splinter in my eye. However , taking the lead from the Master himself I can echo "FORGIVE THEM FATHER BECAUSE THEY HAVENT GOT THE FOGGIEST NOTION WHAT THEY ARE DOING" When we are in someone elses buisness we are as far from true repentance as is humanly possible and we really function at the level of the madmen who threw this woman down at Jesus feet or those that had him hammered onto a cross.

My repentance is my buisness. It is something between God and me. Thankfully God is merciful , because I really have a tough time living up to the law and fall short of it daily. The fact that I am gay means that a lot of my "FALLS" are gay falls. I think like a gay man. I approach God as a gay man and I approach the world as a gay man and I get told all the time by men who are not gay that my sin makes me - a word they like to use - an anathema unto the Lord.Whatever that means .Ive never cared to look it up. Did you KNOW that I am an abomination unto the Lord? I get that one pretty much! Do you have ANY idea what this does to a person and do you think it helps gay people in any way to feel good about God ? Does your getting into my buisness help me? Does your getting into Godsbuisness help God? Does it help YOU? What does it do for you to point out my failings and to back them up with quotes from the bible? Is that what God wants you to do? Are you sure?

Anyone can, like this womans accusers, quote scriptures . It was scripture quoting that got Jesus in the end. According to the law of Moses he was a blasphemer. The great thing is gays are in good company ,from the woman taken in adultery to Jesus himself. Quotes from the bible by people too busy minding everyone elses buisness can do a lot of damage.

Repentance? What do I think about it? Its like a tax collector at the back of the church quietly communicating from his heart. It is not like the know it all at the front spiritually jerking himself off with words like "I AM SAVED HALLELUJAH BUT LOOK AT ALL THOSE SINNERS OUT THERE. ABOMINATIONS UNTO THINE EYES". Repentance is the daily recognition of where you fall short of living the best life you can and seeking in your heart to be better able to LOVE. It has nothing to do with being of this religion or that, of making claims that because you know what the bible says you are in favour with God.

God seeing the damage the churches are doing understands completely why people cannot accept their teachings. How can people regarded as ABOMINATIONS approach God via religions that talk like this?

Thankfully Jesus can still be found. The churches are for churchfolk, the bible is whatever you want to make of it. God is contained in NOTHING.

We sinners can still find ourselves lying in the sand at his feet and search out HIS eyes. In the end thats all sinners ever could do. And its marvellous!! He doesnt quote the bible and instead of stones shows us holes in his hands,

Thats what I think of God and repentance , of the bible and the teachings of the church, of churchpeople and of sinners and of the Christ who has come into the world not for the saved but for the lost sheep of the house.

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Usually it takes a shotgun to the head to stop a zombie, but this son-of-a- gun will keep twitching 'til the last circular and fruitless argument dies...

"If you like merry-go-rounds, Tilt-A-Whirl's and other amusement park rides that go round and round, then you'll *love* arguing over God!!! Just when you think the fun is over... it's not." That line is supposed to said in a deep and resonant radio voice.



GGGRRR!!!! AAARRRGGHHH!!!! UGGHHH!!! Sorry, that was my best zombie impression.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

GGGRRR!!!! AAARRRGGHHH!!!! UGGHHH!!! Sorry, that was my best zombie impression.

Heheh...sounds like me when I get up in the morning...

I think people should worry more about whether god thinks they are real, meself...

[PerDev]

Lot of nonsense is created on the name of God then any other name.


I Like below mentioned story

There was devil and his deciplines.

one day
deciplines frightened and came to devil master and ask him
that master our existance are in danger
as one man has find the truth
and now our survival has been under danger.

master says dont you worry our people are there in the society who will not let the truth spread in the people.

deciplined ask how and who are our people?

devil master says our people are with different names and professions they are working as scholars, professiors, religious guru, politicians, bussinessman etc.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

If God is real, how do you know what God is? How do you know if there is a true religion, or maybe there is none? Maybe it doesn't matter what you believe, in the end. But what if it does? What if, for example, the true God is the Christian God? How do you know, or how can you tell?

I'm taking a theology class (because it's required), and it has shown me that pure reason can't take you all the way, when it comes to theology. If there is a God, there's probably nothing anyone can do to prove it. It kind of reminds me of characters within a game learning about the properties of the game itself, but coming to the conclusion that there is no creator because they can't find him/her within the game.

I'm still undecided, but I'm faced with the question, "what if".

There are many religions out there. Even though people don't like to admit it, even the beliefs often discussed here are a sort of religion, even if it doesn't have a name, and isn't organized. One can't just select a religion and be satisfied; one has to be reasonably sure that it is true.

I'm really nervous about this thread, because I am really looking for all perspectives, and don't want people of different beliefs attacking one another, as often happens in such threads. If you're Christian, tell me why. If you're Jewish, tell me why. If you're Buddhist, tell me why. If you just are spiritual and kind of chose your own beliefs, tell me why you hold such beliefs. Tell me why you don't think you are wrong, too. Similarly, I'm going to try to remain unbiased and hear everyone's views, but at the same time I'll probably question them.