Homosexuality

It is the definition and explanation of the law from the bible dictionary. It has several referenced scriptures at the bottom

Exactly where in the OT does it mention Jesus? I don't remember any mention of him- there's a few prophets talk of a future Messiah but Messiah jut means Annointed One, not Son of God (which they would have considered blasphmous anyway). And besides they were Jewish prophets and as the Jews are still waiting on the Messiah they can't have been talking about Jesus.
So where do you get the idea Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses?- Jesus himself as Eldo quoted says the opposite- he says Moses Law will stand till the end of days when all is fulfilled- as the NT includes Revelations which is the End of Days that would mean Moses Law stands until then, according to Jesus' own words that is.

The "God" repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament is usually Christ. They hardly ever refer to him as Christ because they had not been told that name yet.

As Eldo's quote says, if you read it, Christ says he has not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law.

Here is this quote from Hebrews which is referencing the Law in regards to sacrifices. It pretty much States that they are no longer needed because Christ died for our sins

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (New Testament, Hebrews, Chapter 9)

But Christ is just Greek, from Christo, which just means Messiah which in turn means Annointed One- referring to any of the line of David who were annointed as Kings. Jesus was of the Line of David as the NT lays out in its opening page and was annointed by Mary (the other one not his mother) thereby gaining the title King of the Jews, under which he was tried by Rome. Him being called thre Messiah is Jewish tradition, nothing to do with Christianity and most certainly nothing to do with being the SOn of God, or God himself.
When the OT refers to God it is clearly not talking about Jesus, it is talking of Yaweh, himself a development of an earlier Summerian God El, by which name in the OT God sometimes still gets referrered by, even though it is often translated just as God or Lord.

Actually it is referring to Christ. For example when "God" creates the earth, it is actually Christ using God'a direction.

Where does it say THAT?!
Ive read the OT many times and studied it and it does not say that- the amount of refrences to Christ, Jesus is minimum in the OT (and I'm being generous here and including the few references to a future messiah- even though that can't be Jesus as the Jews are still waiting and its their prophets making the predictions so they should know!).
The development of the Jewish God from the Summerian via Babylon (the Captivity period when the OT was set down) and then th einfluences of the Caanite religion is well researched and accepted. The OT God is NOT Jesus.

Your problem is is that you take everything literally in the Bible, you really can't do that with relgious texts.

And you look at it with an Atheist view, this God Was "thought up" or "developed". When you look at things that way, of course you won't be able understand.

I would say Lorient the problem is you are retropectively reading the OT. Your church says Jesus is God and he fulfills the Law, therefore if he is God every reference inthe OT to God must mean Jesus- buts that a mad way to look at it- you are injecting a meaning into an older text its authors could not possibly have had.

Our church does NOT say heis God. We do not have our own version Bible, so we use the KJV. The number of times the bible has been translated and redone, there is no way to tell what is correct and what isn't. We use the KJV because we believe it MOST accurate, not entirely. We do not believe in the Trinity, but the
godhead. We believe Christ, Heveanly Father (more commonly referred to as God), and the Holy ghost are each seperate beings. When something says Go we believ it could be referring to all 3, or any one. We commonly associate differwnt parts of the scriptures as referring to different beings.

Petty, to understand Mormonism, you really can't look at them the way you look at "regular" Christians. I don't mean to offend anyone (i.e., Lorient) but Mormons reject the traditional notion of the Trinity and many other centuries-old cornerstones of Christian faith found in documents like the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. (For the record, I think of Unitarians and some branches of Quakers as being similarly "Christian-based" rather than simply Christian.)

I'm sure Lorient will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Mormon Church says that the Trinity is actually three different beings. They believe that the God of the Old Testament was Christ before he came to Earth, and that the Father is an entirely separate being with very little direct involvement with Earth. I agree it's not something that has any basis in the Bible, but then again, neither does Lorient's notion that Christ replaced the Law of Moses, but that hasn't stopped him. (Meant in good fun. )

Wikipedia goes into more detail about Mormon theology, though I can't vouch for its absolute accuracy.

Lorient, please don't take any of this personally because it's not meant as such. When I say that I don't think of Mormons as Christians in the usual sense that's not a criticism, either; I grew up in a religious community that, while an outgrowth of English Protestantism, was (to me) pretty clearly not wholly Christian either. I don't think that's a bad thing, just a statement based on some pretty sweeping doctrinal differences.

Lorient Avandi wrote:And you look at it with an Atheist view, this God Was "thought up" or "developed". When you look at things that way, of course you won't be able understand.

That's not really a productive way to deal with criticism. While I understand that religious issues can be prickly and sensitive, it's better to just say so if you're feeling that way. Otherwise, well, Petty has raised valid points regarding retroactive readings of the Old Testament, and I would be interested to see a thoughtful response to them. I'm not telling you what to do, though, just sharing my personal opinion.

I think discussions about the complexities of organized religion are interesting, but I think what is important is the spiritual nature of humans, why we need religion in the first place. its easy to get bogged down with the technicalities and forget its all just about being nice to each other and having a good set of moral compasses to life. whether you are atheist or an orthodox Jew, when the shit hits the fan we all need meaning and comfort, and that is what religion gives us, all the rest is just an excuse to batter each other over the head with theology.

Lorient Avandi wrote:It means that Christ, as the scripture says, came to fulfill the law of Moses.

You've said that like three or four times now, and I'm wondering what you mean by that. The Scripture says that Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses and therefore it was not done away with. At this point it feels like you're just ignoring everything you can't rebut and it can be quite frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone like that.

Interesting points, Mrs. Figg, though I wouldn't say that humans need religion, per se. I certainly agree that there is a human need for comfort and solace during troubled times, but I don't think that has to take the form of religion. Certainly there are some spiritual practices that are not particularly religious (or at least not theistic), but I think that human beings can find that comfort from any number of sources, be it friends, family, a community, God, what-have-you.

Thanks for the clarification of the Trinity bit Eldo- it still lookslike retreoinjecting to me but at least I can see the context now from which they have come to that view.

Mrs Figgs my problem with all the theology is that it is used as the excuse for a lot worse than hitting each other over the heads with in discussions. Its used to persecute, bully, intimidate, harass and murder.
It's the theology which is often the dangerous bit.

For me science is born of the exact same urge as religion- to understand and exert control over the universe we find ourselves in. This idea probably statred by the comparison of the Heavens- where all the stars seem to be regular, predictable and steady- whereas down here you might catch a sabre tooth tiger for dinner or it might catch you, or a big rock might land on your head or it might or might not rain, a place of seemingly unpredictable chaos.
The idea you could have the predictabilty in life the Heavens seem to have must have been an appealing one. And naturally if its perfect up there thats where the Gods must be.
The earliest religions seem very concerned with the movement of stars, eclipses etc and science still is, the urge is the same, science is just religion under close scrutiny.

I think we all have a deep need to find order in the chaos, whether religion or science, we need answers, science is not exactly an innocent bystander either, it has like religion, also been used for control purposes, like the use doctors made of valium for women in the 50s and 60s.
Whether you worship a tree or Jesus, its all a cry in the wilderness for some kind of peace of mind, I am not very religious and I quite envy those who have had a spiritual experience or calling, my personal religion if you will is that I like to see our planet like a living entity, an entity of mystery, she gives me the answers, she is all I need.

Sounds like you have a touch of the Gia's Mrs Figgs!

Only I dont knit my own yogurt and say a prayer to my vulva every new moon.

"I dont knit my own yogurt and say a prayer to my vulva every new moon"- Mrs Figgs

Then hows it suppose to be fruitful Mrs Figgs?!

"Here is this quote from Hebrews which is referencing the Law in regards to sacrifices."- Lorient

The change in sacrifice is an intresting point for looking at two view points, religous and secular- first some questions- why did God need live animlas murdered to appease Him/pleae Him in the first place, bit cruel and twisted for a loving God in my view. And secondly why did He change His mind? I don't know the answers to either so some enlightenment would be appreciated.

Bu I do have a secular view of it. By the time of Jesus most Jews, like now, lived outside of Jerusalem, mainly in the Greek cities where there were large Jewish groups. Judiasm was becoming more popular amongst Gentile Greeks but there were parts of it which they didn't want at all- namely circumcision and animal sacrifice and this was proving both a bar to Gentiles and an area of dissension between groups- the average Gentile didn't want some Jewish neighbour actinglike a barbarian and hacking lambs up of a morning in the backyard. And the modern city living Jew felt like a yokel doing it.
The process of finding a replacement for sacrifice and circumcison was already under way, John the Baptist was advocating and practicing baptism as a replacement of the Covenenant, putting him at odds with other Jews.
Jesus view on it seems to have been even more relaxed than Johns as he was a big advocate of Gentile membership and more equality in the religion. So by Jesus' time its possible to follow the social developments which led up to the popular idea of doing away with sacrifices. It would most certainly have happened anyway with or without Jesus having been involved.


ps I really fo think this has strayed far enough away from the thread to be moved to the religious debates one. No?

Very interesting points on the historical context, Petty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:ps I really fo think this has strayed far enough away from the thread to be moved to the religious debates one. No?

Agreed. I'd just as soon move it; that thread seems to have been at outgrowth of this one, and at any rate it's discussing biology more than anything else now.

I think when Jesus (recognized by a large chunk of the Jewish population as an Heir of David) accepted John's Baptism it was a pretty powerful political and religous message. The scene as recored in the Bible clearly shows the significiance of it, even if it does rewrite things to make it look like the skies open up and prove Jesus is the Choosen One ( a rather obvious inclusion as later in the same text when John is in prison he is still unsure of Jesus and questions whether he really is the man for the job- not very likely if when he did the baptism the heavens opened and God spoke! I mean how much proof did John need?!)

Eldorion wrote:

Lorient Avandi wrote:It means that Christ, as the scripture says, came to fulfill the law of Moses.

You've said that like three or four times now, and I'm wondering what you mean by that. The Scripture says that Christ came to fulfill the Law of Moses and therefore it was not done away with. At this point it feels like you're just ignoring everything you can't rebut and it can be quite frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone like that.

What I mean by fulfill is that he came to do what it needed to be finished, so that it was no longer needed.

What part of the Scripture suggests that the word "fulfill" was meant in such a way? Jesus could just as easily have meant that he came to fulfill the promise of the Law and ensure that it was followed (that would make more sense considering the rest of the passage in Matthew 5).