Saw a Stoning On The Internet, And Oh Boy!

[lasher]

good explanation and solid framework for understanding progressive relevation.

but i think the problem people have ITT is with this idea of cherry picking this and that from the hebrew bible.

for example, since christians where never given the mosiac law, yet understand Christ's message as the fulfillment of that law, what reason is there for believing in divorce, yet condmening homosexuality.

christ clearly prohibits divorce and remarrying in Matthew 19:7-9, but it was allowed under mosiac law.

i am not saying here that there is not ground in the new testament bibile for condemning homosexuality, just that to condemn homosexuality and not condemn remarrying seems to be an example of cherry picking.

i mean if we are strictly rational and logical in this, the christian pizza shop in Indiana should also not be serving couples that are remarried, but they choose to cherry pick and make a fuss about gays.

The two largest Christian churches in the world, catholic and orthodox, both do condemn divorce. With the catholic church completely forbidding it in the case of a valid marriage, and the orthodox requiring long periods of penance and withdrawal from communion. I rather suspect that in more conservative denominations of protestantism, such as the sbc, divorce is considered a grave sin as well.

IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE DIGNITY OF MARRIAGE


Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179

[WarrNation]

The two largest Christian churches in the world, catholic and orthodox, both do condemn divorce. With the catholic church completely forbidding it in the case of a valid marriage, and the orthodox requiring long periods of penance and withdrawal from communion. I rather suspect that in more conservative denominations of protestantism, such as the sbc, divorce is considered a grave sin as well.

So, the Roman Catholic church completely prohibits divorce? That seems way too extreme, especially considering the certain passages in the Scriptures that permit divorce in special circumstances.

[sotrktiv]

Holy fuark, just look at the bold, you're contradicting yourself even in the same post, now. I don't think you even know what you're saying, you're just trying to keep posting so as not to lose face or something.

1) It's not a contradiction because it's speaking about two different things
&
2) "(though the process was meant to instill fear in the ways already explained)" that is, (1) participating in someone dying in-front of or because of you (which instills fear of being killed for breaking law), and, (2) this participation didn't make people afraid of the process of being stoned because they still broke law.

/thread

[TheJimmyRustler]

1) It's not a contradiction because it's speaking about two different things
&
2) "(though the process was meant to instill fear in the ways already explained)" that is, (1) participating in someone dying in-front of or because of you (which instills fear of being killed for breaking law), and, (2) this participation didn't make people afraid of the process of being stoned because they still broke law.

/thread

Right, I'm gonna get right down to your potato level and try sort this out.

Are you saying that people who committed crimes weren't afraid to die? They didn't mind getting stoned to death?

[sotrktiv]

Right, I'm gonna get right down to your potato level and try sort this out.

Are you saying that people who committed crimes weren't afraid to die? They didn't mind getting stoned to death?

I'm saying that they were well aware of the consequences of their actions before participating in them, and because the went ahead and broke the law, they obviously didn't fear dying in that manner... and if they did fear dying in that manner the desire to break the law was greater than their fear. And this just shows that stoning in and of itself was not some ghastly thing that made people cower (however unpleasant). The stones were usually huge aiding in the speed of death.

edit: don't misread the stones being huge and say, wow that just proves how barbaric it was. Why don't you research the process before commenting.

[Vukov]

top trolling

You want to harangue someone about the brutal Old Testament, take it up with the Jews who wrote it

[kennyr87]

The two largest Christian churches in the world, catholic and orthodox, both do condemn divorce. With the catholic church completely forbidding it in the case of a valid marriage, and the orthodox requiring long periods of penance and withdrawal from communion. I rather suspect that in more conservative denominations of protestantism, such as the sbc, divorce is considered a grave sin as well.

i actually like what the pope is trying to with making a distinction b/t theology and how people act.

first, i am making a distinction here b/t christians (i.e. people professing to be chrisitians) and christianity (i.e. christian institutions, catholicism, orthodoxy, etc.).

there are so many different christian institutions, i can't even began to pretend to be knowledgeable about them all.

i think the pope's point, and my point, is while the bible condemns particular behaviors as sinful (e.g. divorce and remarrying, homosexuality, backbiting) christians (i.e. people professing to be chrisitians) pick and choose which ones to condemn.

here in america (again can't say what's happening with russian orthodox christians, for example) christians choose to condemn homosexuality as immoral but put up less of a fuss about other things the bible and christian institutions condemn.

this is the problem people have ITT, christians (again strictly america here, not trying to compare case by case christian practices across the world on different issues) cherry pick what and what not to condemn.

again, if we are strictly rational and logical in this, the christian pizza shop in Indiana should not be serving remarried people, backbiters (i.e. any sinner at all).

they should not be serving anyone!

in this instance imho, we could all use a bit of Romans 3:23 and John 8:7.

[confuoco]

The two largest Christian churches in the world, catholic and orthodox, both do condemn divorce. With the catholic church completely forbidding it in the case of a valid marriage, and the orthodox requiring long periods of penance and withdrawal from communion. I rather suspect that in more conservative denominations of protestantism, such as the sbc, divorce is considered a grave sin as well.

The orthodox church is one of the smallest Christian churches in the world. I mean, no offense, but where do you get these stats from? The major Protestant churches also clearly condemn divorce. Here's the Reformed church for a representative position:

Marriage is an institution created by God. It is a covenant relationship established by mutual vows between a man and a woman united by God. Permanent unity in marriage is possible in Christ and is demanded of Christ’s disciples who are married. Marriages should not be dissolved; divorce is contrary to God’s will. However, by persistent and unrepented sin, people can separate what God has joined together. Scripture acknowledges that certain actions and attitudes that occur in a sinful world and conflict with God’s will can destroy a marriage relationship.

Since failure to keep the marriage covenant is sin, the church must exercise a ministry of reconciliation and call marriage partners to confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and renewed obedience. The church must minister with special concern to those involved in the traumatic experience of divorce, speaking with clarity where sinful conduct is overt and apparent and exercising formal discipline when there is disdain for biblical teaching and when repentance is beyond hope. The church must be a place of acceptance and support for those who have been divorced and for their children.

The church should neither issue a clear prohibition against remarriage nor attempt to list with legal precision the circumstances under which remarriage does not conflict with biblical teaching. The church must apply biblical principles to concrete situations in the light of its best understanding of what happened in a particular divorce and what is being planned for a particular remarriage.

[lasher]

The orthodox church is one of the smallest Christian churches in the world. I mean, no offense, but where do you get these stats from? The major Protestant churches also clearly condemn divorce. Here's the Reformed church for a representative position:

The EOC has over 250 million members.

And I said I suspect conservative protestant denominations consider divorce a grave sin.

[WarrNation]

again, if we are strictly rational and logical in this, the christian pizza shop in Indiana should not be serving remarried people, backbiters (i.e. any sinner at all).

they should not be serving anyone!

in this instance imho, we could all use a bit of Romans 3:23 and John 8:7.

*sigh* not this strawman argument again.

“I don’t have a problem with gay people. I do not condone gay marriage and that’s what I said,” he said. “I don’t turn anybody away from the store, I don’t have a problem with gay people. I just don’t condone the marriage.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-weddings.html

[magog704]

Uh....no.

-Christians did not exist in the OT, were never given the old law, and were never required to follow the Mosaic law. Followers of Christ were first called Christian in the book of Acts (11:26) at Antioch.

nice try you are trying to trick me.

[confuoco]

The EOC has over 250 million members.

And I said I suspect conservative protestant denominations consider divorce a grave sin.

Okay, cumulatively-speaking the stats go RCC (1.2b), Reformed (800m), EOC (250m) with differing governance styles accounted for a more accurate measurement.

[lasher]

Okay, cumulatively-speaking the stats go RCC (1.2b), Reformed (800m), EOC (250m) with differing governance styles accounted for a more accurate measurement.

If you conglomerate all protestant denominations together sure. Since we are talking about stances towards divorce I didn't think it would be very fair to lump the ECLA with the SBC.

And my point was there is a wide overarching consensus on disapproval of divorce, in response to an accusation of cherry picking.





You can take your cape off, I wasn't attacking protestantism.

[confuoco]

If you conglomerate all protestant denominations together sure. Since we are talking about stances towards divorce I didn't think it would be very fair to lump the ECLA with the SBC.

And my point was there is a wide overarching consensus on disapproval of divorce, in response to an accusation of cherry picking.

Sure, just like you're conglomerating the Greek, Russian & other orthodox churches for your purposes. When speaking on matters of consensus, I use massive churches like the SBC for the representative position, rather than pointing to the negligible ECLA to discount everyone else. That's my primary point.

[lasher]

Sure thing. When speaking on matters of consensus, though, I use massive churches like the SBC for the representative position, rather than pointing to the negligible ECLA to discount everyone else. That's my primary point.

Except I *did* use the SBC.


Edit: Well fine I said conservative. Close enough.

[WarrNation]

nice try you are trying to trick me.

[youtubepsGLXqW1kUs[/youtube]

Strictly speaking, Judaism and Christianity are one and the same.

Old Testament believers looked forward to the coming of the Messiah who would save Israel and the world from their sins.
New Testament believers believe the Messiah has come in the flesh and will come again.

The Jewish believers took the name "Christian" as a way to differentiate themselves from those who they thought had hijacked Judaism.

[lasher]

I'm just discussing stats with you dude, no need to get miffed.

No need to project. I'm not miffed.

[GreatOldOne]

Quakers would never stone anybody.

[lasher]

Every interaction with you always feels like this...

[img]http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/05/Nerds-fighting-gif.gif[/ig]

Yeah with you it sure does.

[magog704]

Strictly speaking, Judaism and Christianity are one and the same.

Old Testament believers looked forward to the coming of the Messiah who would save Israel and the world from their sins.
New Testament believers believe the Messiah has come in the flesh and will come again.

The Jewish believers took the name "Christian" as a way to differentiate themselves from those who they thought had hijacked Judaism.

that's what i'm saying. strictly speaking, nothing came before jesus. you're preaching to the choir, amen brother ben. we are speaking strictly here, which means speaking literally which means speaking figuratively.

[TheJimmyRustler]

I'm saying that they were well aware of the consequences of their actions before participating in them, and because the went ahead and broke the law, they obviously didn't fear dying in that manner... and if they did fear dying in that manner the desire to break the law was greater than their fear. And this just shows that stoning in and of itself was not some ghastly thing that made people cower (however unpleasant). The stones were usually huge aiding in the speed of death.

Bloody hell. This is utterly ridiculous, I can't believe you're actually saying this. You are aware that people generally don't want to die, right? People commit, and have been committing, crimes that carry sentences they don't want since time immemorial. That's why you see videos of people breaking down and crying when they're given a harsh sentence. Nobody has had their head on the chopping block or been strapped into an electric chair and thought "ah well, fair's fair."

Nobody doesn't fear being executed.

[kennyr87]

*sigh* not this strawman argument again.

“I don’t have a problem with gay people. I do not condone gay marriage and that’s what I said,” he said. “I don’t turn anybody away from the store, I don’t have a problem with gay people. I just don’t condone the marriage.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-weddings.html

dude, what are u talking about?

the article clear says:

If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Memories Pizza’s Crystal O’Connor told a local news station.

the whole point is not give them pizza b/c it's a gay wedding.

my point is, again if u want to be technical and if we are strictly rational and logical in this, the christian pizza shop in Indiana should not be serving pizza at any wedding at all!

that means no pizza for weddings of people getting remarried, backbiters etc, (i.e. the wedding of any sinner at all).

i am not setting up any strawman here. u misunderstand the argument. the issue is not how christians or the pizza shop feels about gays. i am not arguing about feelings towards an issue. the issue is not about whether or not the pizza shop serves pizza to gays or serves pizza at a gay wedding.

the issue is about cherry picking what to and what not to condemn.

in this instance the pizza shop is cherry picking to condemn gays by choosing to not serve pizza at a gay wedding. what matters here is the condemnation.

there are many actions that bible and chrisitianity condemns that the pizza shop is choosing not to condemn, divorce and remarriage for instance.

again, the argument here is not about whether or not the pizza shop serves gays. the argument here is about cherry picking what to and what not to condemn.

that's the issue ITT.

[WarrNation]

dude, what are u talking about?

the article clear says:



the whole point is not give them pizza b/c it's a gay wedding.

my point is, again if u want to be technical and if we are strictly rational and logical in this, the christian pizza shop in Indiana should not be serving pizza at any wedding at all!

that means no pizza for weddings of people getting remarried, backbiters etc, (i.e. the wedding of any sinner at all).

i am not setting up any strawman here. u misunderstand the argument. the issue is not how christians or the pizza shop feels about gays. i am not arguing about feelings towards an issue. the issue is not about whether or not the pizza shop serves pizza to gays or serves pizza at a gay wedding.

the issue is about cherry picking what to and what not to condemn.

in this instance the pizza shop is cherry picking to condemn gays by choosing to not serve pizza at a gay wedding. what matters here is the condemnation.

there are many actions that bible and chrisitianity condemns that the pizza shop is choosing not to condemn, divorce and remarriage for instance.

again, the argument here is not about whether or not the pizza shop serves gays. the argument here is about cherry picking what to and what not to condemn.

that's the issue ITT.

newsflash: that Indiana pizza place don't cater at any kind of wedding at all!

[kennyr87]

Bloody hell. This is utterly ridiculous, I can't believe you're actually saying this. You are aware that people generally don't want to die, right? People commit, and have been committing, crimes that carry sentences they don't want since time immemorial. That's why you see videos of people breaking down and crying when they're given a harsh sentence. Nobody has had their head on the chopping block or been strapped into an electric chair and thought "ah well, fair's fair."

Nobody doesn't fear being executed.

i think, simply put, people sometimes think they can get away with a crime.

that's why sotrktiv's theory does not hold.

it's not like hernandez commits murder and wants to get life in prison. no, he's trying to cover up the murder and not get caught.

i imagine people 5,000 years ago did the same thing when the committed a crime which carried the penalty of being stoned to death.

they tried to get away with the crime.

[Messier_Object]

nice try you are trying to trick me.

[youtube]psGLXqW1kUs[/ytube]

Are you implying Christians existed before Christ and were hanging out with the ancient Israelites?

[WarrNation]

Are you implying Christians existed before Christ and were hanging out with the ancient Israelites?

Abraham was a Christian.

[Stizzel]

There is no point in the OP to address.

Someone getting stoned today has absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened a million years ago.

Morality is timeless brah

[Messier_Object]

Abraham was a Christian.

Not sure if I'm getting trolled...

[sotrktiv]

Bloody hell. This is utterly ridiculous, I can't believe you're actually saying this. You are aware that people generally don't want to die, right? People commit, and have been committing, crimes that carry sentences they don't want since time immemorial. That's why you see videos of people breaking down and crying when they're given a harsh sentence. Nobody has had their head on the chopping block or been strapped into an electric chair and thought "ah well, fair's fair."

Nobody doesn't fear being executed.

You're acting like you have the mind of a goldfish. What I mean is you read and respond to single statements as if they are separate and distinct, or not part of a prior series. I suggest you reread the other statements in that series or be quite, because now you're looking incapable (no ad hominem).

[TheJimmyRustler]

You're acting like you have the mind of a goldfish. What I mean is you read and respond to single statements as if they are separate and distinct, or not part of a prior series. I suggest you reread the other statements in that series or be quite, because now you're looking incapable (no ad hominem).

Actually you're the one whose looking "incapable" since I've been reading and re-reading your posts and they just ooze potato-ness.