What is NOT being talked about in regards to the Duck Dynasty controversy

[Tgace]

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” -Rick Warren

....or that you are a bigot......

 

[punisher73]

I think the point is that SOME Christians use parts of the bible to support their prejudices while ignoring parts they don't like. Such as the sections endorsing slavery. If you endorse the Old Testament injunction against homosexuality, then you must also, logically, endorse the Old Testament passages I quoted above.
Since you obviously have not killed yourself for working on Sunday (as is required by the Old Testament) then you're practicing cafeteria religion. Picking and choosing which parts are "right" based in your own preconceived notions of right and wrong, instead of following the Word of God as you are required to do.

Some Christians did help abolish the atrocity of slavery. Similarly, today, many Christians are helping to abolish the atrocity of bigotry towards homosexuals.

I see this argument raised ALL the time by people who don't understand the difference between the Old Testament (Torah) and the New Testament and between the covenant between God and the Jews during the OT period and the new covenant between God and us through Jesus.

Simply put: The Torah was law established for the Jewish people as a nation that had societal prohibitions, legal prohibitions and spiritual prohibitions. There were 612 laws extrapolated from the original 10 commandments and their interpretations of those 10 laws. Jesus gave us TWO commandments: 1) Love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. If you actually read the New Testament, it says time and time again that as Christians were are NOT under the old law (Torah), but under the law of Christ.

So Christians are not "cherry picking" or having a "cafeteria religion", we (as Christians) are not under that law.

 

[Rumy73]

So Christians didn't fight to end slavery? I'm a Methodist and John Welsly was trying to end slavery back in the mid 1700s other religious leaders were trying before and long after that. But again don't let the truth get in your way.

You are ridiculous and have no sense of proportion. The abolitionist movement was a small minority with a divided agenda. The overwhelming Christian majority either supported slavery or some form of institutionalized racism. Nevertheless, after the Civil War ended the nation of Christian values showed no real commitment to the equality of blacks or respect for Indian land.

Yes, there were some ppl against this trend but very few in context. Ppl point to William Lloyd Garrison as if he was typical; he was exceptional. They do this to feel good about themselves and to avoid the ugly history of Christianity.

 

[Rumy73]

I see this argument raised ALL the time by people who don't understand the difference between the Old Testament (Torah) and the New Testament and between the covenant between God and the Jews during the OT period and the new covenant between God and us through Jesus.

Simply put: The Torah was law established for the Jewish people as a nation that had societal prohibitions, legal prohibitions and spiritual prohibitions. There were 612 laws extrapolated from the original 10 commandments and their interpretations of those 10 laws. Jesus gave us TWO commandments: 1) Love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. If you actually read the New Testament, it says time and time again that as Christians were are NOT under the old law (Torah), but under the law of Christ.

So Christians are not "cherry picking" or having a "cafeteria religion", we (as Christians) are not under that law.

Well put.

 

[ballen0351]

You are ridiculous and have no sense of proportion. The abolitionist movement was a small minority with a divided agenda. The overwhelming Christian majority either supported slavery or some form of institutionalized racism. Nevertheless, after the Civil War ended the nation of Christian values showed no real commitment to the equality of blacks or respect for Indian land.

Yes, there were some ppl against this trend but very few in context. Ppl point to William Lloyd Garrison as if he was typical; he was exceptional. They do this to feel good about themselves and to avoid the ugly history of Christianity.

So again nothing I said was not correct.

 

[Rumy73]

So again nothing I said was not correct.

My assessment stands. You are ignorant and cannot comprehend nuanced, analytical topics. Just like an untrained person cannot run a marathon, an uneducated person typically cannot grasp complexities. You lack the training. Sadly, you think that somehow you are clever, but it comes off as pathetic.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I see this argument raised ALL the time by people who don't understand the difference between the Old Testament (Torah) and the New Testament and between the covenant between God and the Jews during the OT period and the new covenant between God and us through Jesus.

Simply put: The Torah was law established for the Jewish people as a nation that had societal prohibitions, legal prohibitions and spiritual prohibitions. There were 612 laws extrapolated from the original 10 commandments and their interpretations of those 10 laws. Jesus gave us TWO commandments: 1) Love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. If you actually read the New Testament, it says time and time again that as Christians were are NOT under the old law (Torah), but under the law of Christ.

So Christians are not "cherry picking" or having a "cafeteria religion", we (as Christians) are not under that law.

There is significant debate about that point. We beat it around a bit back in 2011. A few times. lol.
Getting back into it here would drift the thread, short version is some say Christians aren't under OT law, some say they still are. I'm in the 2nd camp based on my research. BUT!
If the OT with it's 10 Commandments and patchwork of other laws are no longer in effect for Christians, then I'd say there's nothing in the NT attributed to Jesus or the 2 Commandments he gave that apply to homosexuality.

BUT! That's also part of the other debates.

So, rather than rehash those here (though kicking old threads back up is fine), I have 1 question.

IF! the Old Testament is not in effect for Christians as you say, and the 2 laws that are in effect are "1) Love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself." why would homosexual actions be considered a sin?

quoting Wikipedia

In the New Testament (NT) there are at least three passages that may refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. None of the four gospels mentions the subject directly, and there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John.
The New Testament refers to "sexual immorality" on multiple occasions including Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, Acts 15:20 and 29, and many more. The definition of "sexual immorality" is disputed among scholars, but it is often included in lists along with adultery (e.g. Matthew 15:19) indicating it is much more than just adultery. Many scholars[SUP][weasel words][/SUP] believe that everything in Leviticus referring to immoral "sexual relations" would be included in the New Testament's "sexual immorality". As such, homosexuality would be included in all of these passages which condemn sexual immorality[SUP][original research?][/SUP].
The presumed references to 'homosexuality' itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτη&#962, malakos (μαλακό&#962, and porneia.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] While it is not disputed that the two Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

Seems based on this there's a question of translations, intents and who even said what. Even if there were 4 passages, it's a minor talking point, given no attribution directly to Jesus, just his followers. Now, being a martial arts board, I know none of us would ever cite some late grandmasters 1st generation blackbelts and hold that something they said but he didn't was the rule in the art.

Regardless though, I look at it this way: I don't see anything wrong with it, it's not for me though, and 2 gays doing whatever they do be it marry or line dance, doesn't effect me so why worry?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I see this argument raised ALL the time by people who don't understand the difference between the Old Testament (Torah) and the New Testament and between the covenant between God and the Jews during the OT period and the new covenant between God and us through Jesus.

Simply put: The Torah was law established for the Jewish people as a nation that had societal prohibitions, legal prohibitions and spiritual prohibitions. There were 612 laws extrapolated from the original 10 commandments and their interpretations of those 10 laws. Jesus gave us TWO commandments: 1) Love the Lord, God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. If you actually read the New Testament, it says time and time again that as Christians were are NOT under the old law (Torah), but under the law of Christ.

So Christians are not "cherry picking" or having a "cafeteria religion", we (as Christians) are not under that law.

That's just it. I do understand this. But not all Christian theologians agree on it. So, you have one of two options.
1 - You are bound by the Old Testament, in which case you can claim biblical support for opposition to homosexuality, but must also accept the biblical support for slavery and such.
or
2 - You are not bound by the Old Testament, in which case you have no biblical basis for your opposition to homosexuality and need to deal with the fact that it is a personal opinion, not a religious conviction.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You are ridiculous and have no sense of proportion. The abolitionist movement was a small minority with a divided agenda. The overwhelming Christian majority either supported slavery or some form of institutionalized racism. Nevertheless, after the Civil War ended the nation of Christian values showed no real commitment to the equality of blacks or respect for Indian land.

Yes, there were some ppl against this trend but very few in context. Ppl point to William Lloyd Garrison as if he was typical; he was exceptional. They do this to feel good about themselves and to avoid the ugly history of Christianity.

In the end, that little movement started a civil war. It was big enough.

 

[Dirty Dog]

In the end, that little movement started a civil war. It was big enough.

Perhaps we can stop persecuting homosexuals without the need for another civil war. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Touch Of Death]

That's just it. I do understand this. But not all Christian theologians agree on it. So, you have one of two options.
1 - You are bound by the Old Testament, in which case you can claim biblical support for opposition to homosexuality, but must also accept the biblical support for slavery and such.
or
2 - You are not bound by the Old Testament, in which case you have no biblical basis for your opposition to homosexuality and need to deal with the fact that it is a personal opinion, not a religious conviction.

As my Apartment managers constantly remind me, "Love thy neighbor" does not mean, have sex with all your neighbors.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Perhaps we can stop persecuting homosexuals without the need for another civil war. Wouldn't that be nice?

Saying, "Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned" was just another way of saying he was a dancing fairy that couldn't run the Empire. So this all boils down to Priorities. This is been with us, and will be with us until we have gone extinct.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As my Apartment managers constantly remind me, "Love thy neighbor" does not mean, have sex with all your neighbors.

Of course not. That would be inappropriate. You should only have sex with the ones that are nice. :rofl:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Of course not. That would be inappropriate. You should only have sex with the ones that are nice. :rofl:

That's what I told 'em!

 

[ballen0351]

My assessment stands. You are ignorant and cannot comprehend nuanced, analytical topics. Just like an untrained person cannot run a marathon, an uneducated person typically cannot grasp complexities. You lack the training. Sadly, you think that somehow you are clever, but it comes off as pathetic.

You need a hug.
But everything I said was correct. You can't defeat the point so you resort to name calling.
The point being religious leaders of the time started the movement to end slavery. Of course it started small all change starts small and grows from there.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You need a hug.
But everything I said was correct. You can't defeat the point so you resort to name calling.
The point being religious leaders of the time started the movement to end slavery. Of course it started small all change starts small and grows from there.

I am sorry but, for you, this subject is inconthiebable.

 

[ballen0351]

I am sorry but, for you, this subject is inconthiebable.

Huh?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Huh?

Never mind.

 

[Carol]

I am sorry but, for you, this subject is inconthiebable.

That word.......

 

[ballen0351]

Ok