If you remove man's convoluted religion and religious procedure and just focused on Jesus' message

[LuciousBDragon]

Jesus is love and Christianity exists to spread love and fellowship.

What kind of love is that? Phileo? Agape? The latter is the type of love Christ talks about. It is a sacrificial love. The type of love that had Christ died for you and your sins. Nowhere does Jesus state you are entitled to a loving relationship with another human. If anything, one should deny themself the love they seek if it is causing sin. Why live in sin for 50-100 years when you have eternity with a loving Father to look forward to? 50-100 years of restraint is worth it compared to eternity.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

what are your thoughts?

Scripturally His platform was:

Love God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Love your enemies.
Ask God for forgiveness of your sins.

Socially His platform was:

Take care of the poor
He elevated the position of women
He challenged religious law at every turn
He challenged social status (What self-respecting leader would go to parties with prostitutes and swindlers)


Most of the discussion I see here are either does a god exist or not or a challenge of Christian belief systems and their consistent hypocrisy. But what about Jesus himself...he was controversial for His time, but in many ways He most certainly was not this white conservative as many want to see him as. He was very progressive for His time. Thoughts?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I know it, You know it, and the American People know it.
Homosexual marriages are really civil unions for income
tax purposes. Everyone born into this world will still
need a mother and a father.

You're saying not everyone can be gay??? ..............................nttawwt.

 

[strummingram]

Why did you ask this question if you weren’t prepared to imagine a position where we simply follow the teachings without the dogma?

I don’t need to believe in the trinity or prophecy or even a god at all to value the platform you proposed in your OP. Jesus is irrelevant to the philosophy.

God has been around waaaaay before the Hebrews showed up.

Around my town, a LOT of the local Baptists have a yard sign that says "#Godsgotthis", regarding the Covid situation. Whenever I see one, I think to myself, "God ALWAYS had it!" But, we are accountable and responsible.

I will always owe you props for turning me on to that Alan Watts video. I've listened to dozens and dozens more. It was a game-changer.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

God has been around waaaaay before the Hebrews showed up.

There's evidence of Hebrews.

There's no evidence of God.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

The world would be a far better place if all people followed Jesus examples and teaching, whether he was real or not. No doubt in my mind.

 

[strummingram]

There's evidence of Hebrews.

There's no evidence of God.

When I say "God", I don't mean it the way you do.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

When I say "God", I don't mean it the way you do.

Then don't use it in ways that sound like you do. You do that a lot, and then get to "correct" people whom you have misled. That's just dishonest.

 

[strummingram]

Then don't use it in ways that sound like you do. You do that a lot, and then get to "correct" people whom you have misled. That's just dishonest.

I'm not responsible for how you interpret my choice of words. They don't "sound" like anything, in written words.

 

[HawkRugged17]

 

[alaskanseminole]

Why did you ask this question if you weren’t prepared to imagine a position where we simply follow the teachings without the dogma?

I don’t need to believe in the trinity or prophecy or even a god at all to value the platform you proposed in your OP. Jesus is irrelevant to the philosophy.

So, I'm not allowed to disagree with you? I think a relationship with Jesus is absolutely possible without being part of the organized church (which is assumed in the OP). I equally believe there's a lot of wrong...harm done, if you will, by the organized church under man's constant abuse (in many cases, certainly not all). I also believe that not believing in the Divinity of Christ is kinda missing the point if you're to follow His teachings. I mean, sex is great, but if you don't climax, then why bother.

 

[alaskanseminole]

There's evidence of Hebrews.

There's no evidence of God.

You'd be more accurate to say no "proof" of God, there's certainly evidence.

 

[naturalmwa]

So, I'm not allowed to disagree with you? I think a relationship with Jesus is absolutely possible without being part of the organized church (which is assumed in the OP). I equally believe there's a lot of wrong...harm done, if you will, by the organized church under man's constant abuse (in many cases, certainly not all). I also believe that not believing in the Divinity of Christ is kinda missing the point if you're to follow His teachings. I mean, sex is great, but if you don't climax, then why bother.

No I don’t think it’s acceptable to advance a proposal only to then shut down your own proposal. I’d say that’s disingenuous which is a form of dishonesty and a sin according to your faith.

Ask any woman what the point of sex without climax is.

 

[naturalmwa]

You'd be more accurate to say no "proof" of God, there's certainly evidence.

Nope. It’s a matter for faith alone.

 

[HawkRugged17]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You'd be more accurate to say no "proof" of God, there's certainly evidence.

Nothing that doesn't have or could have a natural explanation. Ergo, no evidence.

 

[hahkize]

Where that conflicts for me though, is that Jesus spoke with everyone - he didn't make any exceptions. I don't recall where in the New Testament where homosexuality gets called out. Most of that seems to get mentioned in the Old Testament.

Paul calls out same sex religious practices in Romans. But in keeping with the point of the thread, Jesus is never quoted on the topic.

The Bible defines marriage in Genesis 2:24 as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus Christ upholds this definition of marriage in Matthew 19:5, as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. Any and all sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is treated as sinful, what Jesus calls ‘sexual immorality’ in Mark 7:21.

Further to this, same-sex practice is specifically highlighted as sinful a number of times in Scripture. In God’s Law, for example, condemnations of same-sex practice are given in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Further references are made in the New Testament. For example, in Romans 1:24-32, amid echoes to the Genesis creation account, both male and female same-sex practice are treated as sinful. Further references to the sinfulness of same-sex practice can be seen in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The Scriptures are, therefore, consistent in their prohibition of same-sex sexual activity, across different periods of salvation history and within different cultural settings. Although the Scriptures are clear on sexual ethics, they also tell us that the prospect of forgiveness and eternal life is held out for anyone who turns from sin and puts their faith in Christ (Mark 1:15), no matter how they may have fallen short of his good design for sex and marriage.

 

[naturalmwa]

The Bible defines marriage in Genesis 2:24 as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus Christ upholds this definition of marriage in Matthew 19:5, as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. Any and all sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is treated as sinful, what Jesus calls ‘sexual immorality’ in Mark 7:21.

Further to this, same-sex practice is specifically highlighted as sinful a number of times in Scripture. In God’s Law, for example, condemnations of same-sex practice are given in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Further references are made in the New Testament. For example, in Romans 1:24-32, amid echoes to the Genesis creation account, both male and female same-sex practice are treated as sinful. Further references to the sinfulness of same-sex practice can be seen in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

The Scriptures are, therefore, consistent in their prohibition of same-sex sexual activity, across different periods of salvation history and within different cultural settings. Although the Scriptures are clear on sexual ethics, they also tell us that the prospect of forgiveness and eternal life is held out for anyone who turns from sin and puts their faith in Christ (Mark 1:15), no matter how they may have fallen short of his good design for sex and marriage.

No where does the Bible speak about homosexuality. Same sex pagan rituals are what it describes. Sorry, you’ve been lied to by a religion that needs to demonize others to keep its followers interested and feeling righteous.

 

[alaskanseminole]

No I don’t think it’s acceptable to advance a proposal only to then shut down your own proposal.

First, you'll need to point to where I posted anything about reconsidering the divinity of Christ; inferred or clearly stated. My assertion was separating Christ's teachings from religion. What you're proposing is a completely different topic, not even in the same zip code. Feel free to start a new thread on that, though, and I'll happily participate.

I’d say that’s disingenuous which is a form of dishonesty and a sin according to your faith.

That sounds very Southern Baptist of you...and I don't subscribe to legalism, so you'll have to carry that cross somewhere else.

 

[LuteHawk]

God has revealed Himself as the Creator of the Universe.
We see evidence all around us; The Sun, Moon, and Stars,
the harmony of Day and Night, the four seasons of Spring,
Summer, Fall, and Winter. We observe the Oceans, the Lakes,
the Rivers, the Mountains, the Forests, the Fields, as well
as the birds of the air, the fish in the water and land animals.

Of course we see the Rain, the Thunder, the Sunshine, the
Snow and the Sleet. However, the crowning point of God's
creation was the miracle of human life. Each time a baby is
born we marvel at the working of the human body, sight,
smell, hearing, talking, walking, and the human brain itself.

 

[HawkRugged17]

God has revealed Himself as the Creator of the Universe.
We see evidence all around us; The Sun, Moon, and Stars,
the harmony of Day and Night, the four seasons of Spring,
Summer, Fall, and Winter. We observe the Oceans, the Lakes,
the Rivers, the Mountains, the Forests, the Fields, as well
as the birds of the air, the fish in the water and land animals.

Of course we see the Rain, the Thunder, the Sunshine, the
Snow and the Sleet. However, the crowning point of God's
creation was the miracle of human life. Each time a baby is
born we marvel at the working of the human body, sight,
smell, hearing, talking, walking, and the human brain itself.

 

[hahkize]

No where does the Bible speak about homosexuality. Same sex pagan rituals are what it describes. Sorry, you’ve been lied to by a religion that needs to demonize others to keep its followers interested and feeling righteous.

There have been many translations over hundreds of years. Some may and some may not refer to that term specifically, but I believe it's pretty clear what the various interpretations mean. And that would also include idolatry, adultery, bestiality, incest, etc. (Other sins not related to sex as well).

The English Standard Version ESV is:
1 Timothy 1:8-10 (8 Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to tsound3 doctrine,)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. (9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do notbe deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men whopractice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, norswindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.)

I believe it is you who has been lied to by those who interpret the Bible to be what they want it to say. Most people I know don't demonize the behavior of anyone. It is not for me to judge another. That is left to Him on judgement day. It is wrong for me to judge and I struggle with this and other sins daily and I want to spend eternity with Him. We will all have to answer for our own decisions so what you do/believe is not really up to me. My duty is just to proclaim the Word.

Here is a different viewpoint: LivingOut.org

No ill-will intended.

 

[strummingram]

There have been many translations over hundreds of years. Some may and some may not refer to that term specifically, but I believe it's pretty clear what the various interpretations mean. And that would also include idolatry, adultery, bestiality, incest, etc. (Other sins not related to sex as well).

The English Standard Version ESV is:
1 Timothy 1:8-10 (8 Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to tsound3 doctrine,)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. (9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do notbe deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men whopractice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, norswindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.)

I believe it is you who has been lied to by those who interpret the Bible to be what they want it to say. Most people I know don't demonize the behavior of anyone. It is not for me to judge another. That is left to Him on judgement day. It is wrong for me to judge and I struggle with this and other sins daily and I want to spend eternity with Him. We will all have to answer for our own decisions so what you do/believe is not really up to me. My duty is just to proclaim the Word.

Here is a different viewpoint: LivingOut.org

No ill-will intended.

That must be an NIV version. The word "homosexual" wasn't in the Bible until after 1946, or 1952, I forget which. That's a new twist in the translation to suit a social preference based on... human males and their insecurities about being sexually attracted to other men. It's not clear at all. Sexual immorality is as subjective as anything else.

 

[MepoDawg#]

That position denies a loving relationship to others and promotes relationships of the flesh over relationships of the heart. That’s not consistent with the notion that Jesus is love and Christianity exists to spread love and fellowship.

No it doesn’t. Not supporting marriage between anyone/anything other than a man and a woman doesn’t mean you don’t love others. You can still love someone without agreeing on everything despite what many want you to believe.

 

[MepoDawg#]

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

 

[HawkRugged17]

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

 

[HawkRugged17]

Nothing that doesn't have or could have a natural explanation. Ergo, no evidence.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

3 minutes of this may crack you up. Or not. But give it a try.

 

[naturalmwa]

First, you'll need to point to where I posted anything about reconsidering the divinity of Christ; inferred or clearly stated. My assertion was separating Christ's teachings from religion. What you're proposing is a completely different topic, not even in the same zip code. Feel free to start a new thread on that, though, and I'll happily participate.




That sounds very Southern Baptist of you...and I don't subscribe to legalism, so you'll have to carry that cross somewhere else.

You asked that we consider the message of Jesus absent the religious teachings. The divinity of Jesus is part of the religious teachings. You aren’t will to consider your own proposal.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If you are watching Lucifer, we are about to have all these questions answered in the next (last?) half season.

[There's supposed to be a 6th season, but it's not clear whether they are considering the second half of season 5 as the 6th season.]

I assume we have plenty of Lucifer fans on this board.

Who are your favorite characters?

 

[naturalmwa]

There have been many translations over hundreds of years. Some may and some may not refer to that term specifically, but I believe it's pretty clear what the various interpretations mean. And that would also include idolatry, adultery, bestiality, incest, etc. (Other sins not related to sex as well).

The English Standard Version ESV is:
1 Timothy 1:8-10 (8 Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the slaw is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,2liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to tsound3 doctrine,)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. (9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do notbe deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men whopractice homosexuality,3 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, norswindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.)

I believe it is you who has been lied to by those who interpret the Bible to be what they want it to say. Most people I know don't demonize the behavior of anyone. It is not for me to judge another. That is left to Him on judgement day. It is wrong for me to judge and I struggle with this and other sins daily and I want to spend eternity with Him. We will all have to answer for our own decisions so what you do/believe is not really up to me. My duty is just to proclaim the Word.

Here is a different viewpoint: LivingOut.org

No ill-will intended.

Those translators are perpetuating a lie. There wasn’t a term that meant a loving committed same sex union used in the Bible. Contextually it’s descriptive of an act of lust and worship of another competing religion not love between two men. When the Bible does describe the love between two men it celebrates it in the story of David and Johnathan. The Bible transliteration failed.

 

[naturalmwa]

No it doesn’t. Not supporting marriage between anyone/anything other than a man and a woman doesn’t mean you don’t love others. You can still love someone without agreeing on everything despite what many want you to believe.

You’re not addressing the point. If we accept your argument then marriage of any kind is unnecessary or at least not about love. If you wish to maintain that marriage is a special sort of loving relationship and maintain that spreading love is an important goal, then denying marriage to some is antithetical to that goal. Your position is anti love.

 

[alaskanseminole]

You asked that we consider the message of Jesus absent the religious teachings. The divinity of Jesus is part of the religious teachings. You aren’t will to consider your own proposal.

I assure you, your interpretation of what I proposed won't trump (pun intended in case Chis peeks in), what I know of my proposal when I typed it.

 

[alaskanseminole]

No where does the Bible speak about homosexuality. Same sex pagan rituals are what it describes. Sorry, you’ve been lied to by a religion that needs to demonize others to keep its followers interested and feeling righteous.

Can you point to any of Paul's teachings on marriage where he deviates from the message being specific to a husband and wife? His writings on its success specifically point to that of a man and woman.

1 Corinthians: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Why is Paul specific? Why didn't he say man should have his own man and vice versa?

Now, me personally, I couldn't care less if John marries Bill. However, if I were to be asked what's the secret of my successful marriage, I would reference Paul's teachings and how my marriage is supposed to be modeled after Jesus' marriage to the church...it's bedroom's success [no pics], is modeled after Song of Solomon. Based on my belief's, John and Bill can have a wonderful marriage, raise children and enjoy and glorious relationship, but they can't base their marriage...mirror, if you will...on how I base mine.

 

[naturalmwa]

I assure you, your interpretation of what I proposed won't trump (pun intended in case Chis peeks in), what I know of my proposal when I typed it.

I’ve picked up that. You didn’t actually mean remove religion and just follow the teachings. You actually meant why can’t people follow your religion and leave theirs. Not nearly the interesting proposal I had imagined.

 

[naturalmwa]

Can you point to any of Paul's teachings on marriage where he deviates from the message being specific to a husband and wife? His writings on its success specifically point to that of a man and woman.

1 Corinthians: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Why is Paul specific? Why didn't he say man should have his own man and vice versa?

Now, me personally, I couldn't care less if John marries Bill. However, if I were to be asked what's the secret of my successful marriage, I would reference Paul's teachings and how my marriage is supposed to be modeled after Jesus' marriage to the church...it's bedroom's success [no pics], is modeled after Song of Solomon. Based on my belief's, John and Bill can have a wonderful marriage, raise children and enjoy and glorious relationship, but they can't base their marriage...mirror, if you will...on how I base mine.

Silence isn’t condemnation. And if your telling me people can marry institutions then you have once again advanced a dishonest argument. JC didn’t marry any church. He died a Jewish man, not a Christian. You should convert if you want to live like Jesus.

Solomon also Jewish.

 

[William Bonney]

Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman as recognized by YHWH. Anything other than that is definitionally inaccurate.

 

[naturalmwa]

Marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman as recognized by YHWH. Anything other than that is definitionally inaccurate.

Neither the Hebrews nor Yahweh invented or control the institution of marriage.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Silence isn’t condemnation. And if your telling me people can marry institutions then you have once again advanced a dishonest argument. JC didn’t marry any church. He died a Jewish man, not a Christian. You should convert if you want to live like Jesus.

Solomon also Jewish.

You do understand that man calling a building (aka: church structure) a Church is categorically incorrect, right? Please tell me you understand this.

The Bride of Christ is a prominent symbol and metaphor used in Scripture to describe God’s relationship with His beloved bride, the church. Portrayed as the bridegroom in this relationship, God reveals Himself to be faithful, loving, and committed to a covenant union with his church, comprised of all who believe in Jesus Christ and have accepted His atoning grace and gift of salvation.

I also didn't say "people can marry institutions". I said that a marriage between a husband and a wife is supposed to mirror that of Jesus' marriage to the Church (the body of believers). A marriage between a man and woman really isn't supposed to bring us happiness, it's supposed to make us more holy (bring us closer to God).

To know more, read Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas.

 

[William Bonney]

Neither the Hebrews nor Yahweh invented or control the institution of marriage.

Factually incorrect