Christopher Carrion Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 If you point out to most modern Christians that the general Christian attitude to a variety of the aspects of human existance has changed and evolved over time to accomodate transforming socio-cultural perspectives, they will immediately go on "Fundamentalist Defensive Mode" and deny it with every breath in their bodies. A cursory study of the attitudes and claims of early Christians quite clearly demonstrates that the fundamental attitudes and applications of the faith have changed so dramatically since its earliest incarnations, that what modern Christians practice today is unrecognisable from what was once promoted as "The inerrant word of truth." Of course the biggest bug bear in this regard is sex and sexuality. To early Christians, sex was fundamentally wrong, whether committed within wedlock or otherwise. The reason for this is quite plain; the bible states that Jesus was going to return within one generation and the "rapture" (or apoclaypse, or whatever you want to call it) would occur, therefore sex was utterly meaningless as it was unnecessary to procreate. This of course all changed when athat prophesied generation came and went, and Jesus did not return, and the world did not fall into catastrophe. In the interests of the continuation of the species (or at least those members of it of a Christian persuasion) the attitudes of the faith were adapted to allow marriage within Wedlock. Homosexuality is currently a nice old bone for modern Christians to gnaw on. Barely a day goes by without some fundamentalist nut-case spewing venom at the statistically passive, socially conformist, law-abiding gay communities of the modern Western world. However, how many have you heard recently condemning those who sell, farm and eat shellfish? Leviticus, the book of the bible in which it is stated "Man Shall Not Lie With Man" also quite clearly states "Eatest thou not those things of the sea that have neither fin nor scale for they shall be an abomination unto ye." So why is it that Christians are quite ready to spew vitiriol against gays who in their eyes are flying in the face of biblical law and therefore the inerrant word of god, yet are willing to let the fishing, selling and eating of shellfish pass? Presumably if it is written then it is the law; the book does not distinguish between either sin, proclaiming one higher or lesser than the other, therefore the eating of shellfish is as great a sin as homosexual sex. How many of you Christians out there have found yourself tucking into a nice bit of lobster thermadore, or a crab salad? Well done! In the eyes of God you are "no better" than a practising homosexual. The inerrant word of God proclaimeth it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I love shrimp so much that when we go to Red Lobster, I feel gay. Perhaps there is a connection? Gay - Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Don't forget polyester cotton fabrics, or synthetic/wool blends. (Lev 19:19)... Oh no! The tracky pants I'm currently wearing are polyester cotton! Away from me Evil Fabric of Satan! There, that's better... and much more natural. Just feel that fresh air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Forget shellfish. I prefer to jab Christians where they live. Let's talk about ADULTERY! THAT is a specific sin listed right in the Ten Commandments AND echoed by Jesus himself. He says that ANYONE who marries a divorced person is GUILTY OF COMMITTING adultery. (Present, not past tense.) How many divorced and re-married people do we all know who are Christians? That's ADULTERY folks. A current and on-going sin. And you can't escape the adultery sin, because you can't get divorced! Divorce is a sin, too! God HATES divorce. Catch-22. So if Christians can overlook the sins of DIVORCE and ADULTERY amongst yourselves, why can't you overlook HOMOSEXUALITY? You Christians are SUCH hypocrites and liars. Why not rather do as Jesus commands you and drop your stones? "Let he who is WITHOUT sin throw the first stone." Also, take that beam out of YOUR eye before you attempt to remove the speck from someone else's eye. Once you Christians can get YOUR house in order, THEN you can come back and tell us "heathens" how to live. I won't be holding my breath, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Forget shellfish. I prefer to jab Christians where they live. Let's talk about ADULTERY! THAT is a specific sin listed right in the Ten Commandments AND echoed by Jesus himself. He says that ANYONE who marries a divorced person is GUILTY OF COMMITTING adultery. (Present, not past tense.) How many divorced and re-married people do we all know who are Christians? That's ADULTERY folks. A current and on-going sin. And you can't escape the adultery sin, because you can't get divorced! Divorce is a sin, too! God HATES divorce. Catch-22. So if Christians can overlook the sins of DIVORCE and ADULTERY amongst yourselves, why can't you overlook HOMOSEXUALITY? You Christians are SUCH hypocrites and liars. Why not rather do as Jesus commands you and drop your stones? "Let he who is WITHOUT sin throw the first stone." Also, take that beam out of YOUR eye before you attempt to remove the speck from someone else's eye. Once you Christians can get YOUR house in order, THEN you can come back and tell us "heathens" how to live. I won't be holding my breath, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not too sure about this. There can be no doubt of the scripture and your interpretation, but what makes me wonder is that there are many nutcase fundies who agree with you - and are using it as an argument to remove the 'sinful' institution of divorce So persuing this line of reasoning can easily backfire IMO. The core point, however, is still valid - modern Christianity is a mix of old 'ideas' and freethought advancements/progressions... this is often highlighted by apologists to explain away the barbarity in the Bible(or, appropriately enough, the inquisition) - 'It's not really wrong, torture is just politically incorrect now... if we valued faith more, we could see the necessity of such actions. On and on and on. It's ironic that they claim credit for founding civilization when the rebirth of thought and learning was despite the church banning every book it felt threatened by... and that's a long list. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I'm not too sure about this. There can be no doubt of the scripture and your interpretation, but what makes me wonder is that there are many nutcase fundies who agree with you - and are using it as an argument to remove the 'sinful' institution of divorce So persuing this line of reasoning can easily backfire IMO. .......... Merlin Backfire, how? I'm not sure I follow you. Christians have demonstrated a marked propensity for changing with the times and NEVER agreeing with scripture. By bringing these issues to a head we will only be increasing the friction and fractures within the church. People are leaving the fundy circles in DROVES because they despise the strict and inerrant interpretation angle. I LOVE the Fundies! The whackier the better. The more vocal they become, the more people will abandon Christianity. To me, encouraging Christians to BE Christians is a win-win. Those who DON'T want to do it will quit the faith. The few remaining will die out, or vanish into obscurity because they are so few and their doctrine is unpleasant. (Are you at all familiar with the serious-minded, but virtually invisible Anabaptist presence in the world? THAT is what I have in mind for Christianity as a whole.) Frankly, I don't see a down side here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 How many divorced and re-married people do we all know who are Christians™? That's ADULTERY folks. A current and on-going sin. That's a good point. Moreover, it's a sin that most would be unwilling to repent of; much like homosexuality. The level that christians are willing to paint with broad brush strokes in some areas and ignore completely other areas of their own word is sickening. I regard those unwilling to face the truth as sleepwalkers. They sleepwalk through life carefully protecting their somber state. I also regard it as stupidity. Pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 So persuing this line of reasoning can easily backfire IMO Not gonna happen Merlin. This line of reasoning is in fact very biblical and pursuing it will force the majority to face the truth they don't wish to face. There's a repulsion factor if you get down to the nitty gritty of the bible. This factor is whitewashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Pedophilia was okay in the Bible. Getting married when they were kids. Today pedophilia is not only against the law, but also a sin (except in the Catholic Church). Smoking was okay 50-100 years ago, today it's a sin. Drinking was okay 100-150 year ago, today it's a son, and not only that, but "Jesus never drank wine!" attitude is popping up Lord of the Rings was considered satanic and bad when I grew up, now Christians claim it's a story about Jesus. (Huh? How?) Driving SUVs are okay today but will be a sin in 20 years. (already a preacher claim this, so I'm not joking) How come the Catholics hate homosexuality, but they're okay with priests having sex with underage boys? A boy that is rebellious against his parents are supposed to be put to death, according to the Bible. Buy no parents do that??? Some consider watching TV, listening to secular music, reading non religious books etc are sin. But where does it say that in the Bible??? In NT it was wrong for women to talk in church, and it was wrong to cut their hair short or to use makeup. (I think the Christian women in USA are the biggest sinners when it comes to makeup!) It's so frustrating, that they buy into one idea, without support from the Bible, then reject those things the Bible is very clear on. The religion is extremely screwed up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Christians have demonstrated a marked propensity for changing with the times and NEVER agreeing with scripture Hmmm... So you're saying that christians unwittingly put to practice relative truths while they claim ultimate truth exists. CS Lewis is stirring in his grave at the mere idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Driving SUVs are okay today but will be a sin in 20 years. (already a preacher claim this, so I'm not joking) Heck, I remember Tony Campollo preaching that driving a BMW was conspicuous consumption way back when I was still a believer. I even wrote a small rebuke of this thought in my journal defending Adam Smithian capitalism and Tony's short-sightedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 It's so frustrating, that they buy into one idea, without support from the Bible, then reject those things the Bible is very clear on. Good post Hans. This right here is clear proof that either christianity or the bible is flawed. It is in plain view for any who wish to see it. Serenity, did you ask your pastor about god's supposed unchanging nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Here's another verse in the Bible that bugs me. The interpretation is skewed. Isa 53:3 KJVA But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. What bugs me is that most Christians interpret the parts where Jesus is bruised and wounded as LITERAL prophesies about Jesus being punished etc and killed, while the part where it says "we are healed" is refered to "our spirits" or "souls". So in the same verse half the of it is a literal interpretation and the second is metaphysical or allegorical interpretation. Heck, if one is one kind, then the other should be the same! So either both are literal, and we can get healed (which we don't), or both are allegories and Jesus was never punished or hurt in the physical realm!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 LOL...Hans, when I asked my pastor about those scriptures, do you know what he said? It was ONLY for that culture, not today.LOL I was like, but it says that we need to wear a covering! It says for women to be quite in church! It says that women are NOT to have authority over a man and they are not to be teachers (in the church)! Why is it that homosexuality isn't excused away as a "cultural" thing? Isn't it weird. I accepted that explanation as Christian, but I can see now how utterly inconsistent and wrong such explanations are! If the Bible is the ultimate truth, written by an unchanging God, then all or nothing should be accepted from it. Not a mishmash of cultural spandex dogma. (I just came up with the last description, I kind'a like it. Cultural Spandex Dogma - One size fits all!! Hehe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 If the Bible is the ultimate truth, written by an unchanging God, then all or nothing should be accepted from it. Not a mishmash of cultural spandex dogma. (I just came up with the last description, I kind'a like it. Cultural Spandex Dogma - One size fits all!! Hehe) My personal favorite is still "Buffet Style Christianity". Eat what you like, ignore everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 My personal favorite is still "Buffet Style Christianity". Eat what you like, ignore everything else. That too. And Sallad Bar or Cherry Picking Style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 My personal favorite is still "Buffet Style Christianity". Eat what you like, ignore everything else. What other type is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 What other type is there? You're absolutely right. That IS the only type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I regard those unwilling to face the truth as sleepwalkers. They sleepwalk through life carefully protecting their somber state. I also regard it as stupidity. Pure and simple. I am of the opinion that this group often suffers from something I have come to define as metaphysical catatonia, an abnormal condition variously characterized by stupor, stereotypy, mania, and either rigidity or extreme flexibility of the limbs, frequently associated with schizophrenia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Hello Christopher! Glad we meet again! It looks like all of you are having a good time on this post, and I hate to interject some points that may be off this comfortable beaten path... yet, I hope that since it is a spot to debate with Christians, I can make a few humble comments. Much of what you ALL say here, I agree, FWIW. Of course the biggest bug bear in this regard is sex and sexuality. To early Christians, sex was fundamentally wrong, whether committed within wedlock or otherwise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Weren't early Christians still predominantly in the OT, still making the transition? The OT says to be fruitful and multiply... so it seems sex as almost an order. Perhaps Paul did start advocating not to get married, although he had done so, and he did say it is better to marry than to burn in passion. Perhaps he could begin to fore-see the population problems (no birth control)... and these demands of a family that took priority over the ministerial aspects of serving Jesus's message. If one could be single, fine... yet if not, go ahead and marry! Homosexuality is currently a nice old bone for modern Christians to gnaw on. Barely a day goes by without some fundamentalist nut-case spewing venom at the statistically passive, socially conformist, law-abiding gay communities of the modern Western world. However, how many have you heard recently condemning those who sell, farm and eat shellfish? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't this about an individual's opinion of interpretation and perhaps NOT what the NT actually says? Thank goodness for the NT, IMHO! One can no more blame Christianity for these behaviors/actions of those claiming Christianity than one can judge all Atheist based on Hitler's/communism opinions/actions as an Atheist, as I see it. It is so nice to be recognized individually. I hope, we as Christians are changing. As I see it, it is not the Bible that is changing... it is our understanding of it that hopefully is becoming more and more accurate. The Bible IS a complex book, written in a manner to be unfolded with these times... and done so in a sort of subconscious way by these actual authors, IMO. It may take work to get into it and understand it, yet that is part of the inner transformational process, as I have experienced it. All these posts seem to have the same desired outcome... let's just respect each other, no matter what 'label' is applied to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Backfire, how? I'm not sure I follow you. People are leaving the fundy circles in DROVES because they despise the strict and inerrant interpretation angle. I LOVE the Fundies! The whackier the better. The more vocal they become, the more people will abandon Christianity. Frankly, I don't see a down side here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Grinch, has it exactly right. Fundy churches have strict policies that there will be no practicing homosexuals allowed to attend (like they'd want to anyway..) Only repentent, reformed homosexuals who either are abstinent or have switched (meaning that they fantasize about dudes while making love to their wife).. Meanwhile, these churches don't even ASK if you're divorced. And they have church-sponsored crab-feeds to raise money. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 What if we ate gay shellfish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 What if we ate gay shellfish? Talk about "queering the deal"! Maybe they cancel each other out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Technically there is no NT yet, not until both Israel and Judah agree to YHWH's terms. Besides, god's laws were meant to last forever. I'm sorry Amanda, but how does your evolution and change of times work as far as god's laws? Do you completely void the messianic prophecies of the law still being in place? The OT says those laws, terrible as they are, are to last forever. Jesus says that law is not to be void, and the OT messianic reign has these laws in place. I'm wondering how you can possibly see evolution away from these laws, when the bible clearly says that they will still be around during messianic reign? Wouldn't that be de-evolution? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Serenity Now! These laws have not been done away with, just considered in a different light. Instead of the literal interpretation (letter) of the law, we are to find more important the meaning and purpose of the law! Instead of obedience to the law, there is now a desire to fulfill the law. These OT laws were written on tablets of stone, and Jesus came to write them on our hearts and in our minds. IMHO. Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: You all can run... but you can't hide. MUA-HAHAHAHA.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 You all can run... but you can't hide. MUA-HAHAHAHA.... But we run pretty fast! Can you keep up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts