If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am completely able to answer these questions. The Pharisees always claimed that “an eye for an eye” was allegorical and actually meant a fine. When the Romans destroyed the Temple and the Sadducees collapsed, the Talmud, written by the Pharisees, became the accepted law.

Regarding sacrifices. After the construction of the Second Temple, both the Sadducees and the Pharisees agreed that sacrifices could only be made on the Temple altar. In 70 A.D. Titus destroyed the Temple. Since that time, Jews have believed that there could be no more burnt offerings until the Messiah rebuilds the Temple. The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.

?

So basically, you’re saying Christians and Reform Jews are on the same page wrt not following Levitical rules about eye for eye, etc. Both Christians and Jews got there hundreds of years after Leviticus. For Reform Jews the Pharisees did away with some of Leviticus. For Christians, Jesus did away with eye-for-eye and Levitical dietary and cleanliness rules.

What makes your post strange is that you continue to deny that Jesus got rid of Levitical dietary and cleanliness rules—because you can’t. Jesus said it doesn’t matter what you put in your mouth, it’s not what comes out of your mouth (see quote from Matthew in posts above). Jesus hung out with unclean people like prostitutes and tax collectors, and he let a woman wash his feet with her unbound hair, which was revolutionary in those days. In fact, one of the most revolutuonary things about Jesus was that he fought with the Pharisees over their zealous enforcement of Leviticus, which is why they disliked him.

I’ve heard it said that Leviticus is the first book (some) Jews turn to, and the last book Christians turn to. Except for Christians who are bible literalists, who are a very small part of Christians. Most Christians view books like Genesis and Leviticus as origin stories (some archeologists even find parallels for, eg, the bulrush story in Egyptian myth) and they go to the gospels and acts for how to live.

Are you the poster who spent a semester studying Christianity at rabbinical school in Brooklyn and thinks you know more than Christians? You have a very selective and distorted knowledge of Christianity.

No. The Pharisees interpreted Leviticus differently than the Sadducees. The Pharisees saw certain paragraphs as allegorical, but they still considered themselves to be obeying it. The Reform Jews simply don’t obey it.

And no, Jesus never changed the kosher laws. So what if Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes? Nothing in Leviticus forbids this. Priests hung out with prostitutes. They ministered to prostitutes. They did not have sex with the prostitutes. Genesis is an origin story. Leviticus is not.

How do you interpret this, then?

Matthew 16“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

[Anonymous]

There are numerous similarities between Leviticus and Hammurabi’s Code.

[Anonymous]

Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

[Anonymous]

Christians see Jesus and his moral strictures as the “fulfillment” (Jesus’ word) of the Old Testament.

This means, Christians see Leviticus (and other books) as laying the foundation of sacrifice (of animals) that led to the Last Supper (Jesus’s own sacrifice which replaced animal sacrifice). He said dietary and cleanliness laws weren’t what was important. Like the Pharisees, he did away with Levitical “eye for eye” justice. It’s impossible to argue the gospels say otherwise.

For these reasons and others, Christians see Leviticus as inspired by God, but not as governing their lives. They see Leviticus as showing the importance of praise, and as a record of God’s word to Moses.

Back to OP’s topic, this means it’s strange to take injunctions against homosexuality, and absolutely nothing else, from Leviticus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

Jesus, as he explains, when saying beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wasn’t talking about the kosher laws at all. He, as he explains himself, meant beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

Jesus, as he explains, when saying beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wasn’t talking about the kosher laws at all. He, as he explains himself, meant beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12.

Time to stop playing around.

You still haven’t addressed the verses in Matthew 15. Here is verse 11, right before verse 16 which is cited above: “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean.”

Also, Paul’s second letter to the Colossians, 2:16-17: “Don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink….These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah.”

You need to address these directly if you’re going to keep insisting that Jesus didn’t get rid of dietary laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

Jesus, as he explains, when saying beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wasn’t talking about the kosher laws at all. He, as he explains himself, meant beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12.

What did they teach you in rabbinical school about what Jesus meant by the word “doctrine”?

This is ridiculous and you’re not serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

Jesus, as he explains, when saying beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wasn’t talking about the kosher laws at all. He, as he explains himself, meant beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12.

Time to stop playing around.

You still haven’t addressed the verses in Matthew 15. Here is verse 11, right before verse 16 which is cited above: “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean.”

Also, Paul’s second letter to the Colossians, 2:16-17: “Don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink….These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah.”

You need to address these directly if you’re going to keep insisting that Jesus didn’t get rid of dietary laws.

Jesus was not referring to the kosher laws. Saying that we should go out and eat pork chops would have been monumental. Jesus was referring to the criticism of the Jewish elders that his followers had mot properly washed their hands before eating. According to Chapter 15 of Leviticus, if a man has a nocturnal emission of semen he is unclean until he washes himself. According to Leviticus 15:11, if a man has a nocturnal emission, anything he touches is unclean until he washes his hands. Judaism developed prophylactic rules to avoid breaking the laws of Leviticus. Many of them are silly. One of the rules is that a man cannot eat before washing his hands on the chance that he might have had a nocturnal emission which would make the food unclean. Jesus was saying this rule was silly and not even in Leviticus.

Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was pretty much against both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Trying to hold Christians to ancient temple teachings is a pointless exercise.

Matthew 16 verse 5. When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”(F)

7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith,(G) why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(H) 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?(I) 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.(J)

Jesus, as he explains, when saying beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wasn’t talking about the kosher laws at all. He, as he explains himself, meant beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12.

Time to stop playing around.

You still haven’t addressed the verses in Matthew 15. Here is verse 11, right before verse 16 which is cited above: “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean.”

Also, Paul’s second letter to the Colossians, 2:16-17: “Don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink….These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah.”

You need to address these directly if you’re going to keep insisting that Jesus didn’t get rid of dietary laws.

Jesus was not referring to the kosher laws. Saying that we should go out and eat pork chops would have been monumental. Jesus was referring to the criticism of the Jewish elders that his followers had mot properly washed their hands before eating. According to Chapter 15 of Leviticus, if a man has a nocturnal emission of semen he is unclean until he washes himself. According to Leviticus 15:11, if a man has a nocturnal emission, anything he touches is unclean until he washes his hands. Judaism developed prophylactic rules to avoid breaking the laws of Leviticus. Many of them are silly. One of the rules is that a man cannot eat before washing his hands on the chance that he might have had a nocturnal emission which would make the food unclean. Jesus was saying this rule was silly and not even in Leviticus.

Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

How is this not referring to the Kosher laws? Matthew 15 verse 11: “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean.” “Into a man’s mouth” pretty clearly refers to food, not to particles of uncleanliness that might have remained on his hands.

If you’re right, Jesus would have said instead, “Your cleanliness does not make you unclean, rather what you do with your hands makes you unclean.” But he didn’t say that. You’re cherry picking a word about cleanliness at the end of the whole passage to twist the passage in a way that defies the words’ own logic, not to mention common sense.

Also, Jews lived alongside their Roman conquerors and would have been familiar with eating pork even if they kept kosher themselves. And Peter and James had no divine directive either, so why would you cite them to counter Paul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you stay or do you go? Did you choose between your church and your DC? If you stayed in the church, how did that affect your relationship with your DC?

There are other "sins" correct? Do you excise people who commit any sin or just homosexuality? Does your church turn away people who cheat or lie? Who are greedy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If its a more progressive congregation grappling with the issue then you get involved on making the church accepting. If there's no hope of that then you leave.

-Methodist whose church is in the Reconciling Ministries Network.

Nonsense. More conservative churches in liberal areas are atrophying and dying. A family leaving and no longer donating helps accelerate the process.

We're talking about a church that views being gay as a sin?and won't accept gay congregants? If so, then good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:seriously? You would consider picking the church over your child?

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. People’s beliefs don’t magic things into existence. If people who practice homosexuality and are unrepentant about it cannot go to Heaven, it doesn’t really matter whether or not you, I, or anyone else believes it. It is what it is.

Someone proporting to speak with certainty about who can and can't go to Heaven criticizing others for magical thinking. Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Darn spellcheck. “almost entirely”.