Why is the nationalist right hallucinating a ‘communist enemy’?

[seer]

I know that but you said Jesus came to fulfill the law including marriage - how else does one fulfill marriage other than getting married? What specific law are you talking about?

No, you have to show where the law said a man had to marry, it doesn't, so Christ was not violating the law.

However it is not simply that Jesus did not sin (self-centeredness) but that he was the very embodiment of the law, he was the 2 great commandments of Love lived perfectly, i.e. fulfilled. How did he then fulfill marriage?

Did Jesus believe that the Torah (every jot and tittle) was the law of God - yes or no?

How do you know that homosexuality wasn't a glaring problem in the time of Jesus? Was it glaring when Lev. was written? How and why did things change? What is your source for this conclusion?

And how do you know that bestiality wasn't glaring problem in Jesus' time? Or rape? The point is just because Jesus did not mention a specific sin doesn't mean that it was acceptable.

[seer]

As to Jesus' marital status it would certainly have been unusual for a man of his years not to be married, in Judaism then as now, marriage and children are a blessing. So the possibility remains that either his wife and family life was airbrushed out of those later gospel texts or that he was going through a temporary period of celibacy which was not unknown among certain Jewish sects at the time [see the Essenes].

It would have been perfectly acceptable for Jesus not to be married, or to be married, and perhaps he was, nothing to air brush.

[thormas]

Over at the "other" Christian forum, I posted an informal poll, asking how one would fulfill a law like a speed limit. Most of the Christians who answered said that obeying it would constitute fulfillment

Other forum?

Again how does one obey a marriage law if he is single? In the Catholic faith some received the sacrament of marriage while celibate priest could not and did not. For most it was one of the other - unless one's wife died and he then became a priest.

If one obeys the speed limit then they are abiding by the law and fulfilling it. Yet a single man or woman has no law to obey or fulfill because they have no need - it does not pertain to them.

[thormas]

No, you have to show where the law said a man had to marry, it doesn't, so Christ was not violating the law.



Did Jesus believe that the Torah (every jot and tittle) was the law of God - yes or no?



And how do you know that bestiality wasn't glaring problem in Jesus' time? Or rape? The point is just because Jesus did not mention a specific sin doesn't mean that it was acceptable.

Didn't say he was violating it, simply that he was not fulfilling that particular law.

As a Jew, he did believe the Torah was the law of God but again, any laws about marriage did not need to be fulfilled by a single man. If I don't drive a car, I have no need to concern myself with the speed limit.

i have no idea about rape or beastility in the time of Jesus...........you are the one who mentioned it. So how do you know what was and was not glaring in his day?


Concerning homosexuality or sexuality in general it did not seem to be big on Jesus' short (or long list). He had bigger issues: the Kingdom and the 2 great commandments.
So as so many turn to the Bible to justify being against homosexuality or need to say it is a sin and defend that position, it is interesting to note that it wasn't important enough for Jesus to mention it ........at all. Many we have bigger concerns and it is not the big issue so many, for some odd reasons, make it to be.

[seer]

Didn't say he was violating it, simply that he was not fulfilling that particular law.

As a Jew, he did believe the Torah was the law of God but again, any laws about marriage did not need to be fulfilled by a single man. If I don't drive a car, I have no need to concern myself with the speed limit.

So you agree that the Torah condemned homosexuality.

Concerning homosexuality or sexuality in general it did not seem to be big on Jesus' short (or long list). He had bigger issues: the Kingdom and the 2 great commandments.
So as so many turn to the Bible to justify being against homosexuality or need to say it is a sin and defend that position, it is interesting to note that it wasn't important enough for Jesus to mention it ........at all. Many we have bigger concerns and it is not the big issue so many, for some odd reasons, make it to be.

And again, Jesus says nothing about rape or bestiality. That doesn't mean Christ didn't believe they were sin. Christ knew both these were sin by the very law of God. There is no evidence that He changed His mind.

[thormas]

So you agree that the Torah condemned homosexuality.



And again, Jesus says nothing about rape or bestiality. That doesn't mean Christ didn't believe they were sin. Christ knew both these were sin by the very law of God. There is no evidence that He changed His mind.

Still, he said nothing and that should be a bit humbling for those who look to quote the Bible, the 'word' of God when the one worshipped as the Word Incarnate never bothered to mention it. Sexuality was simply not a big deal in the mind of Jesus and not even something he focused on at all for the coming Kingdom.

I recognize Lev. on homosexuality but am still saying there is more here than meets the eye and Hypatia and another have begun to flesh that out.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would have been perfectly acceptable for Jesus not to be married, or to be married, and perhaps he was, nothing to air brush.

I have mentioned the temporary celibacy practised by certain Jewish sects but I would be interested for you to provide attested extraneous historical evidence that supports your contention that the permanent unmarried state was "acceptable" within first century Judaism.

[seer]

Still, he said nothing and that should be a bit humbling for those who look to quote the Bible, the 'word' of God when the one worshipped as the Word Incarnate never bothered to mention it. Sexuality was simply not a big deal in the mind of Jesus and not even something he focused on at all for the coming Kingdom.

I recognize Lev. on homosexuality but am still saying there is more here than meets the eye and Hypatia and another have begun to flesh that out.

You are arguing from silence, do you believe that Christ would violate the Torah by supporting homosexual behavior - yes or no?

[seer]

I have mentioned the temporary celibacy practised by certain Jewish sects but I would be interested for you to provide attested extraneous historical evidence that supports your contention that the permanent unmarried state was "acceptable" within first century Judaism.

It makes no difference to me if Christ was married or not, but if you are claiming that remaining unmarried violated the Torah it is on you to show it.

[seer]

I am not asking "more questions" I put that question to you in my first reply at post #124, which elicited your comment at post #126 that the west is superior and where would I rather live.

That is nonsense, you keep asking questions and avoiding answering them yourself. So again which culture would you rather live in today? Besides those with Western Values? Name one... The reason you won't answer is because you can't name one, you know that western culture and values are superior.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is nonsense, you keep asking questions and avoiding answering them yourself. So again which culture would you rather live in today? Besides those with Western Values? Name one... The reason you won't answer is because you can't name one, you know that western culture and values are superior.

With reference to that specific question I posed it to you prior to you making your comment re China.

Anyway I now have it from the "horses mouth" as it were as to how at least one Proud Boy sees himself [and I doubt he is alone] He "describes himself as a “33rd Degree Proud Boy,” as well as a “right-wing death squad general,” an “ANTIFA Butcher,” a “Commie Killer” and a “BLM Skull Stomper".

No doubt you will contend that there is nothing remotely neofascist in such remarks.

Should individuals with that mindset ever gain any political power it is very easy to see how they would deal with anyone who dissented or disagreed with them.

This is how it starts.



street-fighting-between-the-kpd-and-nsdap-from-horst-wessel-1933-CPM1TP.jpg

[seer]

With reference to that specific question I posed it to you prior to you making your comment re China.

What? Repeat your specific question, then answer mine.

Anyway I now have it from the "horses mouth" as it were as to how at least one Proud Boy sees himself [and I doubt he is alone] He "describes himself as a “33rd Degree Proud Boy,” as well as a “right-wing death squad general,” an “ANTIFA Butcher,” a “Commie Killer” and a “BLM Skull Stomper".

So you take one quote from one person as representative? So I guess we can assume that all BLM members want to murder cops.

No doubt you will contend that there is nothing remotely neofascist in such remarks.

Not really fascist, but insane...But which side Hypatia is actually burning cities and looting? Which side is doing the bulk of violence?

[thormas]

You are arguing from silence, do you believe that Christ would violate the Torah by supporting homosexual behavior - yes or no?

I believe that Jesus would not judge a man or woman based on their sexual orientation as sinners and historically he never did, he seemingly never thought it important enough to even give a single mention. You continually bring up rape and beastiality but you miss the difference between them and homosexuality: rape is a violent act that does not see the other person as a person, as a child of the Father - of course it's wrong, who would ay it's right? It literatly violates love of neighbor. And beastiality is wrong because it inflicts a similar abuse on an animal. Again, who would say it's right? It violates the command to love God and his creation. Both heterosexual and homosexual use of another human being for one's own purposes, using another as a thing, as an object by which to 'get off' is obviously wrong. Who would say such actions are right? Why would Jesus need to address any of these if he has already told us to simply love others as we love ourselves?

However, if one is born with a homosexual orientation, does not use another as an object but enters into a truly loving relationship with that person - where is the violation of love of God and neighbor? There is none.........there is love, the only love that such a person is 'oriented' to by their very nature. Perhaps it is a good lesson for Christians who search the scriptures to support their positions against homosexuality: be silent like he who is the very Word of God.

You bring up an interesting point about Jesus violating the Torah since a goodly number of his contemporaries thought he did just that: working on the Sabbath and gathering with the unclean and sinners. And there is that pesky little saying for the legal eagles among us: the law is made for man, not man for the law. And that other pesky saying about Love (of God and neighbor). There is no violation of the command to love in one's natural (thus unchosen) sexual orientation and there is no violation of love if one is actually in a love relationship. To say otherwise is simply absurd.

The Council of Jerusalem (49CE) settled the issue that the pagans or gentiles (virtually all present day and past days Christians are gentiles) do not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians. - Salvation is found not in the Law but in accepting the death and resurrection of Jesus for the Christian. Simply we are not Jews - how many Jewish laws do Christian not follow? We are not Jews, we are Christians; the old covenant has been (for Christians) superseded by the new covenant/relationship. Most legal eagles nitpick the laws that they support and totally ignore other laws and regulations found in the Torah that they consider 'Jewish' or irrelevant for them.

The Word that is God is a living word that echoes in each generation and is understood anew within that generation. Who - except the legal eagles and those that demand a pound of flesh - would look upon a gay or lesbian individual, realizing that sexual orientation is not a choice, and condemn that sexual orientation? And if the only person that s/he can be fulfilled with, the only person that s/he can 'fall in love' with, the only person s/he can build a life with, is a person of the same sex - who, in the name of the God of Love, would deny love for such a child of the Father?

[Whateverman]

Again how does one obey a marriage law if he is single? In the Catholic faith some received the sacrament of marriage while celibate priest could not and did not. For most it was one of the other - unless one's wife died and he then became a priest.

You don't know me well enough to have assumed that my answer to your question was obvious, so I apologize for assuming otherwise: a single man cannot fulfill / obey a marriage law. On some level, marriage laws do involve single people (ie. only single people can get married, etc), but I know what you were asking, and I agree. I just wanted to add the results of my informal poll to the discussion, because it seemed vaguely relevant.

If one obeys the speed limit then they are abiding by the law and fulfilling it. Yet a single man or woman has no law to obey or fulfill because they have no need - it does not pertain to them.

I agree.

[thormas]

You don't know me well enough to have assumed that my answer to your question was obvious, so I apologize for assuming otherwise: a single man cannot fulfill / obey a marriage law. On some level, marriage laws do involve single people (ie. only single people can get married, etc), but I know what you were asking, and I agree. I just wanted to add the results of my informal poll to the discussion, because it seemed vaguely relevant.


I agree.

Sounds good, thanks.