Thanks historian, excellent examples.historian said:
Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Open Marriage
37,268 Views |
404 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by historian
Calling them out is not the same as shunning. Loving one another is not unique to Christianity, although most Christians as evidenced on this board don't follow that practice. They're good at lip service though.historian said:TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
I gave examples above. Here's a repeat:
Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Which version of Christianity is Christ's version? I seem to recall Christianity came after the crucifixion. That's why there are so many genuine versions. The rest of what you wrote is simply attempting to interpret and conform history to your religious beliefs. I do think it interesting that so many "Christians" excuse Trump's base behavior as acceptable for Christianity.historian said:TexasScientist said:It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.
Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.
You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.
It's a perversion if it doesn't conform to Christ's version of Christianity. That's the only one that matters because that's the only that's genuine.
When organized start creating their own morality based upon what some find convenient, they start to break down and become more chaotic, violent, and disorganized. It happened to Rome before the fall, ancien regime France before the Revolution (the big one), tsarist Russia before WWI, Weimar Germany before Hitler, and it's happening now in parts of Europe, Canada, & the U.S. all under the leadership of radical Leftists who don't even know what a woman is.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Those are all your religious impressions. How come so many "icky "Christian's, preachers included, who "seek" Christ have issues with what you term "sexual perversion"? What happened to judge not lest you be judged? Why would you condemn swingers for their activities when, if I remember correctly, you as a Trumper excuse his behavior and his wife's behavior by supporting him?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.
Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.
You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.
Wow, pretty sure out of the two of us, I understand the definitions and arguments here. So everything you just tried to add to your weak argument isn't proving anything or adding any meat to the conversation.
But thank you for reinforcing that swingers are a perversion. Clearly they are a perversion by Christian standards, and are still a perversion by societal standards. If teen kids were describing them, they'd say that they are gross and creepy. Adults on the other hand just laugh and look the other way, but they are gross and creepy.
In conclusion, swingers are "icky". They will always hunger for new conquests and new meat. As they age, the will be sad and pathetic paying dollars to fill the void when youthful attractiveness can no longer pay the sex bills. I pray they repent and lead a more faithful lifestyle through Christ.
To those here under the weight of the brutal task master named "sexual perversion", know that there is hope for you, first step is to seek Christ.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Dude, by def 'shunning' means Christ ignored such people. There's a reason the Priests showed up asking Christ this and that, not Christ going to their place for worship.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
He didn't ignore the Pharisees and Sadducees.Oldbear83 said:Dude, by def 'shunning' means Christ ignored such people. There's a reason the Priests showed up asking Christ this and that, not Christ going to their place for worship.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Christ certainly shunned the hypocrites. That they followed Him around trying to make Him change, does not mean Christ played along.TexasScientist said:He didn't ignore the Pharisees and Sadducees.Oldbear83 said:Dude, by def 'shunning' means Christ ignored such people. There's a reason the Priests showed up asking Christ this and that, not Christ going to their place for worship.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
The Gospels are very clear on that point.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
In a former job, my company cooperated with a number of charities and churches. I am speaking from direct experience.TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Most churches do try to help the poor and needy The rich ones tend to lose sight of the mission.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
But it IS a Gospel reference to Jesus shunning, isn't it? So obviously "shunning" doesn't contradict the Gospel teachings as you claimed.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
I didn't say he shunned anyone. He presented His word, He gave them a choice, and He moved on.TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
The rich young ruler He didn't chase after. When He sent the disciples out in pairs, He told them, where they are not welcomed to shake the dust from their feet and move on.
They didn't shun anyone but they planted a seed and moved on. They didn't wait to see if it would grow.
It is not the disciples that pursue like a hound.
Here's more:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." - Matthew 18:15-17
The Jews didn't associate at all with Gentiles, and tax collectors were reviled. Gentiles and tax collectors were shunned.
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." - Matthew 18:15-17
The Jews didn't associate at all with Gentiles, and tax collectors were reviled. Gentiles and tax collectors were shunned.
and that is why we are called to follow Christ and not Christians.TexasScientist said:Calling them out is not the same as shunning. Loving one another is not unique to Christianity, although most Christians as evidenced on this board don't follow that practice. They're good at lip service though.historian said:TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
I gave examples above. Here's a repeat:
Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
King David, a man after God's own heart was quite a leader. He was also an adulterous man and responsible for a man's death.TexasScientist said:Which version of Christianity is Christ's version? I seem to recall Christianity came after the crucifixion. That's why there are so many genuine versions. The rest of what you wrote is simply attempting to interpret and conform history to your religious beliefs. I do think it interesting that so many "Christians" excuse Trump's base behavior as acceptable for Christianity.historian said:TexasScientist said:It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.
Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.
You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.
It's a perversion if it doesn't conform to Christ's version of Christianity. That's the only one that matters because that's the only that's genuine.
When organized start creating their own morality based upon what some find convenient, they start to break down and become more chaotic, violent, and disorganized. It happened to Rome before the fall, ancien regime France before the Revolution (the big one), tsarist Russia before WWI, Weimar Germany before Hitler, and it's happening now in parts of Europe, Canada, & the U.S. all under the leadership of radical Leftists who don't even know what a woman is.
I don't think any Christians are excusing his behavior but can recognize that he is a sinner just as they are. Also, his policies are better than the dims
source?TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.
Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .
What do you atheists do ?
KaiBear said:TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.
Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .
What do you atheists do ?
TX Scientist isn't a serious poster, he's a kid trying hard to discuss topics with adults.
Christians and their Christian organizations are the most charitable people in the country. Anyone who has been involved with Christian churches know this. Catholics and Evangelicals care for their communities, they build hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, clothing giveaways, and more, the list is endless.
Atheists are self proclaimed meat bags. They are the least charitable, most selfish, and most miserable people in our country.
TX sci guy is constantly embarrassing his Baylor education, well that's if he ever graduated from BU.
TexasScientist said:Which version of Christianity is Christ's version? I seem to recall Christianity came after the crucifixion. That's why there are so many genuine versions. The rest of what you wrote is simply attempting to interpret and conform history to your religious beliefs. I do think it interesting that so many "Christians" excuse Trump's base behavior as acceptable for Christianity.historian said:TexasScientist said:It's a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your particular version of Christianity that you have been reinforced to believe. For example, having more than one wife has been acceptable over time in Judaism, and in Christianity. It depends upon the flavor of the times, and who is advocating it, or condemning it. Organized societies determine what is right or wrong based upon whatever beliefs they collectively determine to be of value.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
My argument stands firm, you're playing make believe with definitions. You argued exactly how I said you would. Perverts don't think that they're perverts. But guess what they're still perverts.
Swingers by definition always try to bring others into their circles. Sexual perversions will always try to bring in new conquests.
Absolutely, Christians are to shun sexual perversions. It's a cancer for believers. Outside of telling them about the truth of Christ, they should stay far away from their practices. One can both love people while condemning practices.
Also, it affects others, Society is lessened by perversions. Don't care what Swingers think, they're living a depraved lifestyle. They know this. You know this. You just don't care. Pretend all you want, doesn't change reality.
You're not a serious poster. Weak arguments.
It's a perversion if it doesn't conform to Christ's version of Christianity. That's the only one that matters because that's the only that's genuine.
When organized start creating their own morality based upon what some find convenient, they start to break down and become more chaotic, violent, and disorganized. It happened to Rome before the fall, ancien regime France before the Revolution (the big one), tsarist Russia before WWI, Weimar Germany before Hitler, and it's happening now in parts of Europe, Canada, & the U.S. all under the leadership of radical Leftists who don't even know what a woman is.
Christ's version is that recorded in scriptures when he called on everyone to repent of their sins. It is evident when he called out the religious leaders of his day for their crimes & hypocrisy. He spent time with taxpayers, prostitutes, & other sinners because they had repented. He forgave them because they humbly sought it. He never condoned or supported perversion or any other sun in any way.
The Christian's supporting Trump that I know are not overlooking his many faults. They are looking at the big picture and seeing him as a flawed man who is capable of doing great things. When he was president, the border was mostly secure, the economy was doing reasonably well despite the pandemic, and the U.S. was strong and respected. He had genuine foreign policy accomplishments such as the Abraham Accords and staying out of wars. In contrast, Biden-Harris did the very opposite across the board and the results have been disaster. No one can honestly describe their accomplishments as positive. Those who vote for Trump are choosing the lesser of two evils and it's not difficult at all.
TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
No doubt, if Jesus were here today (not the Second Coming), he would shun many modern churches since they don't preach the gospel. Rather, the promote perversion, false doctrines, and many other sins. Christ would treat them the way He treated the false teachers of His day.
"Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD." Jeremiah 23:32
TexasScientist said:He didn't ignore the Pharisees and Sadducees.Oldbear83 said:Dude, by def 'shunning' means Christ ignored such people. There's a reason the Priests showed up asking Christ this and that, not Christ going to their place for worship.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No, He called out their lies, hypocrisy, and other sins. He condemned them for doing the opposite of what their jobs.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Matthew 23:27-28
I know plenty of churches, even in smaller cities, with a variety of programs to help the needy: food banks, clothing drives, counseling, etc. I have seen some of that myself. Maybe you are not looking very hard or paying enough attention.
LIB,MR BEARS said:I didn't say he shunned anyone. He presented His word, He gave them a choice, and He moved on.TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
The rich young ruler He didn't chase after. When He sent the disciples out in pairs, He told them, where they are not welcomed to shake the dust from their feet and move on.
They didn't shun anyone but they planted a seed and moved on. They didn't wait to see if it would grow.
It is not the disciples that pursue like a hound.
I guess it depends on how one defines "shunning." If need not be something formal or overly dramatic and it probably does not match very well the popular image presented by Hollywood or Leftist culture in general. We shouldn't expect the Left to understand because they are generally agents of the enemy, whether they realize it or not.
KaiBear said:TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.
Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .
What do you atheists do ?
Socialists steal money from the productive people in the economy, using the government as a proxy, then give it out to inefficient and wasteful Leftist groups or government bureaucracies who then pass it on to the needy in a way to keep them impoverished and in need. They then brag about how generous and compassionate they are (with other people's money). Oh yes, the Leftist "charities" and bureaucracies also take a huge cut of the proceeds so they can live lavishly. It's all a huge scam.
This is one reason socialism is evil.
TS would be hard pressed to find a food bank that isn't church supported in some way.historian said:
I know plenty of churches, even in smaller cities, with a variety of programs to help the needy: food banks, clothing drives, counseling, etc. I have seen some of that myself. Maybe you are not looking very hard or paying enough attention.
Caritas in Waco has several churches working with them.
KaiBear said:TexasScientist said:I don't think most churches have a serious and effective programs for the homeless, impoverished, abused, or unemployed. They may give token amounts to some causes.Oldbear83 said:Actually, about 70-75% of churches in a nominal denomination will meet that standard.TexasScientist said:I would guess most churches don't meet that standard.Oldbear83 said:Some of them, yes.TexasScientist said:If that is your definition of shunning, I guess Jesus wouldn't spend much time in the churches today for the same reasons.Oldbear83 said:Shunning is used for those who claim to be part of the Church but refused to renounce their sin. It's hardly a 'contradiction' that the Christ who came to heal and reconcile, would reference the 'good neighbor' because he helped his neighbor, and the man who was robbed and beaten was not ever blamed for some sin in being attacked. That's really a big swing and a miss there, TS, and a hint that you don't understand Scripture at all.TexasScientist said:He called them out, but he didn't shun them. He even pointed out that the Good Samaritan didn't shun the Jewish traveler who had been beaten and robbed. I don't see how shunning is loving. That would be more of a contradiction. Jesus supposedly ate with sinners.historian said:TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No it doesn't. Jesus Himself often called out the Pharisees and others who violated God's commandments because they were hypocrites and evil. He also forgave those who repented such as tax collectors, some Pharisees, & the adulteress. It depends on who is being shunned & why.
Christ primarily commanded us to love one another. That's what differentiates Christianity from all other religions & philosophies. Shunning done as a form of discipleship & correction can be loving.
But as for Christ's opinion of people who did not turn from sin, consider the temple merchants, Caiaphas, Herod, the Scribes and Pharisees in general. Listen, it's a touch more serious than 'calling out' someone to specifically say they will fare worse than the people from Sodom and Gomorrah.
Jesus made a point of not spending much time in the temples, preferring to preach and teach among the people. And while Jesus did sometimes go to the temples and synagogues, there is no record of Him ever attending a service officiated by Caiaphas or any of the hypocritical priests.
That's actually part of why they hated Jesus so much. A famous rabbi willing to visit with ordinary people, even eat with tax collectors for example, did so because they showed a desire to change, Jesus would not waste His time with hypocrites who had fine titles but no mercy or humility in their hearts.
Yes, that is an example of shunning by Christ, and it's all through the Gospel accounts if you pay attention. And Jesus did this in hopes that some of them would turn from their hypocrisy, which did happen in a few places.
Here's a test I use to check churches:
1. Does the church help their congregation find jobs?
2. Does the church help homeless or people in poverty?
3. Does the church offer resources for people facing abuse?
Any genuine church should be able to answer 'yes' to two of the three.
If a church does not meet any of those criteria, they do not know Christ as He taught us to act.
It's the ones that have their own TV shows and 'pastors' who couldn't name most of their members that fail the test.
Catholic Charities provides tens of millions in aid to US homeless every year.
Food banks, homeless shelters, job placement, and help in acquiring medical services .
What do you atheists do ?
I worked for Reliant Energy for nine years, and part of my job was coordinating charity payments for utilities. The two biggest contributors were Catholic Charities (religious) and Sheltering Arms (secular), so it was not all churches. That said, churches provided most of the help, about 70 percent by money and 85 percent by number of people helped.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sounds like you -- hypocrisy comes to mind.historian said:TexasScientist said:He didn't ignore the Pharisees and Sadducees.Oldbear83 said:Dude, by def 'shunning' means Christ ignored such people. There's a reason the Priests showed up asking Christ this and that, not Christ going to their place for worship.TexasScientist said:I think that was in reference to the "judgement." I don't think the gospels have him saying that to the people he was teaching.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:"Depart from me. I never knew you".TexasScientist said:Jesus of the Gospels reached out to people (love thy neighbor), was inclusive, including prostitutes. He didn't shun anyone. You show me where he shunned anyone in the Gospels. I don't think you can.LIB,MR BEARS said:show me the contradiction. I don't think you can.TexasScientist said:Revelation. Isn't that one of the books that barely made it into the NT? Shunning contradicts the gospel teachings.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus warned his churches to shun wicked people like Jezebel, who was promoting sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20)TexasScientist said:I think most swingers would say your particular views are a delusion in terms of your beliefs about relationships, and what constitutes a perversion. Your views have no more entitlement than theirs. Why shun someone for what works in the 'sanctity' of their relationship? It's only a perversion to you because it doesn't conform to your view. I haven't noticed any swingers trying to bring others into their world, but I've noticed a lot of religious people trying to bring others into their world, sometimes their sexual world. Should we shun them too. I don't remember seeing any alleged teachings of Jesus that recommended shunning people. Some might say, shunning is a perversion of Jesus' teachings. Religious piety is what's inane.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:TexasScientist said:It doesn't necessarily devalue the sanctity between a man and wife. How do you define perversion and how do you define sanctity?TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
From a Christian perspective, open marriages are unions based on adultery. They are sinful.
From a secular perspective, it's your right to live how you want. Truth is though, open marriages are unhealthy because it devalues intimate relationships and that sanctity between a man and a wife. It instead prioritizes hedonism over partner intimacy. I'd equate an open marriage with two "friends with benefits" living together, both seeking sexual perversion to spice their life up.
Last from a societal perspective, acceptance of this and pretending it doesn't or won't hurt anyone is wishful thinking. Sexual perversions always seek out others and the grooming of others. They will try to draw others into their perversions. Always happens.
I agree with the first three sentences, but after that it's really more about your religious viewpoint.
Of course it devalues the sanctity between a man and a wife.
Of course it's a perversion. I mean if you asked most any type of pervert if their "love" is a perversion, they'd say no as well. Swingers are no different in terms of deluding themselves.
As for a definition, please use a dictionary and actual societal norms.
Hedonistic and perverted people always want to play make believe and word games with definitions and norms. I don't play the make believe definition game. Really just reads like you're not a serious poster.
Last, perverts will always try to bring others in to their "sexual" world. They absolutely are bad news and should be treated as pariahs. The fact that they have not been shunned is the main reason why we have so many sick-in-the-head people in our society. Sure that shaming can go too far, but clearly the lack of shaming is worse, our society is a moral, inane, sexualized mess.
Since you're an atheist, you probably shouldn't rely on what you "remember" about the teachings of Jesus.
No, He called out their lies, hypocrisy, and other sins. He condemned them for doing the opposite of what their jobs.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." Matthew 23:27-28
Waco1947 ,la
Historical Criticismhistorian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself.
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.
Waco1947 ,la
Your reasoning is so laughably bad.Waco1947 said:Historical Criticismhistorian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself.
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.
This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay.
Historical criticism is a weak method for people to try to reinterpret scripture for their own personal reasons. It fails because it's irrelevant. Some people might be fooled by such nonsense. Not those who have faith in God.
God's rules are never dependent on human behaviors anywhere or anytime. He is God and He makes the rules by which the universe is ultimately governed. At some point, we all will be held to account for our sins.
You're just looking for an excuse to replace scripture with your own ideas. It's a lame attempt and a complete failure. There is no higher authority than God and His word.
God's rules are never dependent on human behaviors anywhere or anytime. He is God and He makes the rules by which the universe is ultimately governed. At some point, we all will be held to account for our sins.
You're just looking for an excuse to replace scripture with your own ideas. It's a lame attempt and a complete failure. There is no higher authority than God and His word.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Waco1947 said:Historical Criticismhistorian said:
Or just read the writings of Paul himself.
Historical criticism, sometimes called the historical critical method, is concerned with establishing historical realities that might affect our understanding of what a text means. It grew out of the development of interest in classical history and archaeology in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and as part of a quest for more 'objectivity' in biblical interpretation. So, for example, we might be interested in the social make-up of the population of Rome, and its reputation for homoerotism .
Here is the historical context. Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by
In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport.
This is like saying since bank robberies in the wild west were always associated with the use of guns, someone who wrote during that time that it's "wrong to rob banks" must have only meant that it's wrong to do with it guns; otherwise, robbing banks in of itself is completely okay. So, if I understand your analogy then you are backing up my understanding that our Bible was written within a a historical context and one must use that historical time to interpret a text of Scripture
Waco1947 ,la