Christianity topics that should not be discussed in Political Threads.

This is a continuation of conversations about Christianity, including Catholicism, that does not belong where it began in a Political Forum thread.

I'll post later. Just want to be able to link to this in that other thread.

 

Here is a response I wrote in another thread to a comment about what the "Catholic God" says about abortion and homosexuality."

Fangbeer and Hoosier seem to disagree.

We can discuss the topic here...rather than continue it in a thread dealing with Nancy Pelosi.

 

So does the Pope.

end thread.

 

Oh, don't run away.

The Pope DOES NOT disagree. He cannot.

If you disagree...post any citation where Jesus condemns (or even discusses) homosexuality or abortion.

Give it a try...unless you realize Jesus NEVER said a single word about either.

 

From the other thread:

Reading a book or anything else to refute it...is what people do. Scientists do it; philosophers do it; photographers do it; artists do it; cooks do it.

Frankly, lots of the teachings attributed to Jesus were great stuff...WAY ahead of its time.

Many of today's fundamentalists seem to ignore most of what is attributed to Jesus...and focus on crap they invented.

That is their right, just as it is my right to consider it stupid.

 

Oh I agree. That is the basis of teachings, God gives Man "Free will" to believe or not, live however they like and do whatever they like. It's choice and interpretation, and that's all its ever been..

 

Jesus is the founder of Christianity and the head of the church, but he is not the only Christian whose words hold sway upon the flock. And as Jesus omitted some subjects of the human condition (as far as we know) that does not equate to support.

 

I never said Jesus supported anything.

I am merely pointing out that there are no citations of Jesus saying even a single word about abortion or homosexuality.

There is zilch...nada...none.

 

So the Christians should ignore you as being totally unauthoritative as to their beliefs and church discipline.

 

I am not saying anything about anyone's "beliefs" or "church discipline."

I am saying that there is NOT ONE recorded word of Jesus ever saying ANYTHING about either abortion or homosexuality.

Why not deal with that rather than diverting?

 

We have a very modern world and this is a very dated set of documents and narrative on which to base the foundations of their moral and religious guidance. You are dealing with a faithful who's Messiah died nearly 2000 years ago and who's last holy scriptures written 1900 years ago and which have been translated from four languages Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, to two languages and then again into middle English. For any of this to have much value with todays complex world and issues, they must infer meaning from contextual clues or less literal language use, or they are obliged to speculate and interpret based on less direct references, or await inspired direction for guidance from God as answers to prayer.

As long as they are communicating with each other within this framework of inference, interpretation, and speculation and internalized 'God-talk', its all good because the rules of the conversation are fully understood , but once they try to communicate with people who are not of the faith, it can break down because of an inherent expectation-of-evidence disparity. If they want to base their political and moral views on in part on religious guidance they get from these books, they are inevitably going to be faced with a more skeptical audience that does not.

 

It has no meaning.

 

Christianity has always been primarily intramural, for the most part occurring only within the confines of the community and not welcoming all outsiders into the community, and making demands upon those who wish to join the community.

 

Oh, yes it does.

If the most important part of the current "Christian" philosophy has to do with opposition to homosexuality and abortion...and Jesus never said a word about either of those topics...it has lots of meaning.

 

What about Matt 5:17, that Christ has come not to abolish the law but to fulfil it, doesn't that imply that Jesus condones previous law (abortion and homosexuality included), even if he doesn't utter it in person?

 

No...actually it doesn't. We cannot tell for certain what is meant in that passage, because the bottom line is that Jesus changed all sorts of things contained in the old law in the supposed "New Covenant."

Under any circumstances, as I write originally, Jesus NEVER is reported to say a word about abortion or homosexuality.

 

If we cannot tell what is meant by the passage, how are we justified in saying that it didn't apply to homosexuality or abortion? Wouldn't we say that it is up to interpretation (which apparently is considered a valid reason to derive all kinds of things from the Bible)?

And maybe I'm stepping outside of the point of the question, but if Jesus says he won't change the law, and then he changes it, doesn't that just mean that Jesus isn't a reliable source of information (or that your interpretation of what constitutes changing the law does not match Jesus' interpretation)?

 

First of all...you can make this topic as broad as you like...and I sincerely thank you for wanting to discuss it, Swensson.

I suspect there are lots of things written in the Bible where the meaning is potentially ambiguous. We do the best to interpret it...and I suspect that each of us interprets it in light of the result we want.

My point was not about what Jesus THOUGHT about abortion or homosexuality...my point was that there is not a single word from Jesus on the subject of abortion or homosexuality.

It just seems strange that those two items are such a huge part of modern Christianity when he said nothing about it.

Yet on things Jesus DID mention...very little attention is paid.

For instance, Jesus admonished everyone to hide their piety.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:6

Why isn't that given as much priority as something Jesus NEVER mentioned?

 

Jesus never intended there to be a Pope.

Peter was not the "Rock" the confession that Jesus is the Christ. Is the Rock on which Jesus built His church.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"

Relationship with God is direct. There is no go between Just Jesus who is God.

 

Thank you for that interesting guess.

 

It's not a guess. It's what fits the context of the new testament.

Even the apostle Paul didn't submit to Peter. Paul went to visit Peter and called him out publicly to his face when he saw that Peter was acting wrongly.

 

Because its obvious that abortion is murder and homosexuality is not natural

 

Obvious perhaps to you....YOU are not God. Not that it would even matter if you were.

 

So one thinks I am God? How flattering

 

Because they were exceptionally rare in that place and time. He addressed things that were issues that were present in that day and place.