The Immoral God


Why do Christians have the need to make God out to be this moral high ground? Is it our need to justify God to others that we are called to a higher life? Do we try to make God the moral standard in order to make ourselves feel better?

The Bible is full of things that fly in the front of society. It always has and always will until the return of Jesus. We hold that it has the answers to all of life’s questions, but there are several things that are not apparent.

There are verses in both the Old Testament and New Testament that talk about homosexuality. Homosexuality is more open today, but it has been around forever. It was common and acceptable in Sodom, so to say that we are more advanced today is not really accurate. When Paul wrote about it in Romans, he wasn’t writing it because he was not exposed to it. He was a roman citizen and it was practiced some what openly during that time. He was writing it to draw a line that something is wrong. Not morally wrong, but biblically wrong.

There are no verses that come out and directly attack pedophiles. There are verses that sex should not occur before marriage and homosexual acts are wrong, but what about marriage between an adult and a young girl. Biblically that is correct. Ancient Jewish customs were that a girl could become betrothed at 12 1/2 years of age. It would take another year before the marriage actually took place, but still the girl could be under the age of 14 when she was married. There is no getting around this biblically. This is morally wrong, to a point.

Less than 50 years ago, it wasn’t morally wrong. It was acceptable to modern society. It is still acceptable in several third world countries, so it is morally acceptable there. That is the problem with morals, they only reflect what is acceptable to the society at that time. Morals change with public opinion so what was acceptable before is not detestable and the other way around.

Christians can not really preach to people about morals as we are not called to hold on to morals as our guide. We are called to hold on to the Word Of God and let it be our guide. It has never been morally acceptable nor will it. We shouldn’t preach our moral superiority because we don’t have it. We have the Word of God which should be revealed through a relationship with Him. Often people will take the Bible and hold onto it as a legal guide and skip the relationship. That is when morality rears its head as we try to interrupt the parts we can not understand on our own.

Do I think it is right for an adult to have sex with a child? Certainly not. That is the morally correct answer. I also do not think it is right for a child to have sex with another child. It is not morally correct to tell someone what they can do with their body. I guess I am not morally correct all of the time.

Is God immoral? Of course He is immoral. He never changes despite the changes in society. Luckily we don’t follow the moral god. We would never know where we stood.

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Christianity

17 responses to “The Immoral God

  1. societyvs

    If we do not have the moral higher ground from a ‘Holy’ God – then I am not sure why we even bother following this God exactly? If this God is not concerned with the ethical behavior of humanity – what is this God’s concern axactly? That humans can learn to live at peace? That humans, as a species, thrive? That humans learn to make the best of an already bad situation?

    Why salvation exactly? What are we being saved from…if morality is not the issue at the heart of the matter?

    I guess I find it odd that someone would follow a God with morals that are bankrupt (immoral as you framed it) and is not concerned with human behavior? This is a God that has nothing to do with humanity as far as I can tell. Reminds me of the Zeus’s of the world (could be on your side/might not be).

    The bible is a morally based document – nothing more nothing less. One can pick it up and learn many techniques for living a very blessed and happy life. But to say it is about a God not concerned with morality seems abhorrent to me. Almost as if a law were never given, prophets never raged against idolatry, and Jesus did not come to teach ‘a way’ of living.

    “Is God immoral? Of course He is immoral. He never changes despite the changes in society. Luckily we don’t follow the moral god. We would never know where we stood.” (Xander)

    The problem is you want to defend a view of God that you think makes sense – concerning the gay issue (like it has never changed since time immemorial). So as society gets more ‘moral’ God becomes less relevant. I say this is exactly the case, if God is homophobic, and needs to occur. Maybe God is giving us the chance to grow up in this generation?

    • I am not saying it makes sense. I am saying He doens’t change. God’s stance is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Morals are based on society and how they view the world that is currently around them. What is morally accptable in the West is not in the Middle East. So which of man’s morally acceptable views is correct? Can both be at the same time? How many standards are we required to live by? When that standard changes, are we to change with it? What dictates that the new standard is better or worse than the old. God’s standard does not change.

      What God has put out there is either truth or it isnt. There is no middle ground with God and people do not like that.

  2. societyvs

    “I am not saying it makes sense. I am saying He doens’t change. God’s stance is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow” (Xander)

    Based on what exactly? For example, God gave the law to Moses on Sinai and they travelled on under Joshua into Canaan. Then they appointed judges to over-see the land. Later, there was Kings (which was actually forbidden) to rule the land. Later, there are no kings – but prophets become the over-sears of the law. Eventually, in Christianity, we have a messiah that includes the Gentile nation as part of this covenant.

    Things seemed to have changed – and always have changed. God doesn’t seem to mind all that much – as with the election of Kings to the leadership position…which was not the original intention (a Theocracy of sorts was).

    Now God may not change, but He is more willing to live with the changes us humans make it seems.

    • Each step of the way, God was appointing the leadership. God gave the commandments to Moses and invited people into His presence. They said no and more laws followed so the people could try and be holy. God said here is the land I promised you, go in and take it. The people said no, we are scared and don’t believe you. They died in the wilderness. Joshua took another generation into Canaan to take ownership of what God had promised. The people started “doing what was right in their own eyes” and God gave them up to the enemies. He then brought up a Judge to lead the people back to the way which God had established. The people would return and then go back to doing what seemed right in their own eyes. The cycle would continue until Samuel. His sons were not worthy to be judges and the people said we no longer want to be under your rule God. We want to be slaves to a king like everyone else. God said fine, as He did on Sinai. He told the people that you want to try things your way instead of what I have established, so now you have sold yourself into slavery. Even as slaves to the king, the people could not be holy and would return to doing what was right in their own eyes. God would give them up. He would send prophets to warn the people and to pronounce judgment. The people would repent for a time. He even send Jonah as a profit to the gentiles. The people would return to their ways and God would give them over to some enemy. Until Jesus. Jesus came and gave people, Jew and Gentile, the way back into the kingdom of God. He atoned for their ways and removed the barrier created by man between man and God. This continues until those that refused the choice are removed.

      He doesn’t change. He allows us to make our own decisions and is there for when we decide to come back.

  3. societyvs

    “So which of man’s morally acceptable views is correct? Can both be at the same time? How many standards are we required to live by? When that standard changes, are we to change with it? What dictates that the new standard is better or worse than the old. God’s standard does not change” (Xander)

    (1) We need to define the standard(s) of God that do not change – since you make a claim God’s standards do not change (even if we do).

    (2) Can 2 standards be accurate at the same time? Yes. The intent of the law was ‘to love one’s neighbor as ones-self’ and this is not anything direct. Obviously it is based on the contents and teachings in the law concerning our neighbor but can be summed up as ‘treat others as you would like to be treated’. Can 2 varying standards that seek to love another person be different? Yes.

    (3) For me, the dictation of a societal standard that needs to change is one that seeks to destroy life or human relations.

    One could of argued slavery was ‘okay’ and segregation was ‘okay’ and allowed by the bible (and these cases were made in fact). However, if you were the one being segregated or being a slave the biblical reasoning would of fell short of actual experience of ‘godliness’. These things needed to change.

    However, the fact is slavery can be argued as ‘okay’ if we go by the biblical teachings on this – based on societies from as long as 3000+ years ago (when being a slave was part of the society it seemed). In fact, the Torah (from Sinai) even has laws on this very topic (Exodus 21 is a classic example). Did God change or did we concerning slavery? If God didn’t, He still likes humans being slaves. But of the law was written for our society of that time, then God doesn’t need to change – we do (and our mentality about other humans as property).

    The law was ‘okay’ with a variety of things we find barbaric in today’s society. Adulterers were stoned to death for example. Do we still kill people that cheat on their spouses – or is that a punishment not fitting the crime? Or was adultery something a tad different in their culture? Did one need to ‘rub someone’s spoouse out’ so they could be with that person (like in the David and Bathsheeba story)? Maybe the law was only adressing death for people at the high end of this – like someone who killed someone’s spouse so they could have them.

    Nonetheless, it goes to show change occurs. The greatest example is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the majesty of serving God (aside from Judaism); this includes both of us. The Gentiles were always seen as a different people group and could serve their gods how they wanted. However, they were Gentile people and not part of the congregation of Israel. That change occurs in the messianic age – with Jesus (we Christians believe). So why did God change some 1000+ years later? One has to think this system occured for a 1000+ years before a change in some 60+ AD…that’s like 15 of our lifetimes (provided we lived to 70 each time). That’s a long time – nonetheless it is a change from what was handed down in the Torah.

    So, as you can easily see, some change has to occur. To think ‘God’s standards were perfect and always will be’ is to not read the texts as written. If this were the case – multiple marriage would be suitable (women as 2nd class citizens), slavery and segregation could be justified as normal, and Gentiles would not be included in the covenant (even under the messiah Jesus) – since no messiah existed at the time of the handing down of the Torah (a concept that built over the next 100’s of years and found fluidity in the prophets).

    So who changed? God or us? Or both of us (together)? And does this mean gay people will now get a fair shot from the Christian faith for inclusion?

    • “(3) For me, the dictation of a societal standard that needs to change is one that seeks to destroy life or human relations.”

      It is morally acceptable to stone homosexuals, Christians, and adulterers to this day in other cultures. How well does that mesh with what you consider morally acceptable?

      “The greatest example is the inclusion of the Gentiles into the majesty of serving God (aside from Judaism); ”

      They could convert to Judaism before the time of Jesus and serve God. They were not forbidden from it and with the case of Jonah, God even showed that He cared about them.

      “If this were the case – multiple marriage would be suitable (women as 2nd class citizens), slavery and segregation could be justified as normal, and Gentiles would not be included in the covenant (even under the messiah Jesus) – since no messiah existed at the time of the handing down of the Torah (a concept that built over the next 100′s of years and found fluidity in the prophets).”

      When marriage was first established, it was one man and one woman. Society changed that. Slavery did not exist until society implemented it. Segregation because of ideas and not skin color or gender is not ok? Do you befriend neo-Nazis? The covenant of Abraham predated Israel and the Law.

      “So who changed? God or us? Or both of us (together)? And does this mean gay people will now get a fair shot from the Christian faith for inclusion?”

      People changed. God has always been waiting on them to turn back to Him. As for homosexuals, Jesus never once turned anyone away because of actives sins in their life. Once they are placed into Jesus though, they are changed. It is nothing against the person, just the act.

  4. societyvs

    “It is morally acceptable to stone homosexuals, Christians, and adulterers to this day in other cultures. How well does that mesh with what you consider morally acceptable?” (Xander)

    Personally I find that abhorrent and reprehensible. Again, it is taking life that may not be deserving of such a penalty. I think when we read the Torah we are not quite getting what is being said there (logistically and lawfully). I raised the point about adultery already and the problem people have with interpreting that law in Torah.

    But let’s make this clearer in understanding – more close to home. Some states have the death penalty for the act of pre-meditated murder. However, for other acts of murder (2nd degree) there may only be a stiff jail term. And for even lesser offences within the murder hierarchy (manslaughter) someone may see short stints in prison – even extended probation. However, it’s all ‘thou shalt not murder’.

    The problem with present Christians and their view of the Torah is they don’t understand what it is they are reading – they see a narrative and an ethical code – but it’s a law code….and it needs to be interpreted as such. In the case of something like ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14) – well at what point of severity is the stoning to occur? Anyone that cheats is to be killed? Or is it more like a hierarchy – like murder is? One needs to remember, ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life’…the only thing deserving of death is ‘murder’ (not adultery according to that measurement for judgment). Adultery that ends in murder would make more sense in this context as to what was deserving of ‘death’.

    But far be it for current Christianity to really get down and dirty with the texts to start revealing the methods of the Torah (functions as law). Christians really have no clue how to approach those texts…and law can change. Judaism is aware of this. Christians should be aware of this – just cannot grasp God provided a law that can change. Movements away from slavery, genocide, and segregation are supposed be the norm as humans seek ‘peace’. One needs remember this is a God of peace we supposedly serve.

    • I am referring to when you leave the comfort of the west and travel to the middle east. Try Egypt for example. What they consider as morally acceptable is not what you hold to be morally acceptable. There are two different systems that are both considered right but can not intermingle because they are at extreme opposites.

      This is the case all over the world. There is no one moral standard in the world as they are all derived from mankind has deemed acceptable.

  5. Pingback: Moral Relativity & Interpreting the Law « Losing My Religion

  6. societyvs

    “They could convert to Judaism before the time of Jesus and serve God. They were not forbidden from it and with the case of Jonah, God even showed that He cared about them.” (Xander)

    True but Gentiles were still considered an outside group. If you check for the word in the Tanakh it appears so rarely one might have to consider if they were even a consideration (unless ‘stranger’ in the Torah means ‘Gentile’). God may have loved Gentiles, He just saw no reason to mention them much is all.

    Also Paul changed the rules concerning ‘conversion’…circumcision was taboo for Gentiles (yet there is a clear cut verse in the Torah stating this is not that case). The Gentiles also did not need to keep kosher or even celebrate the high holidays. Gentiles were basically equals and on their own footing before God under this new ‘messianic age’…that’s a huge shift.

    “When marriage was first established, it was one man and one woman” (Xander)

    Not exactly. The laws on marriage do not exactly state ‘one man and one woman’. Just because Adam and Eve were created as the first on earth means nothing – it’s not a precedent of any sort (they were the only 2 living at the time). But marriage is not neccesarily mentioned to be ‘monogamous’ as we know it. I would say check the Torah out – not one time does it say ‘a man is to take 1 wife’. Maybe the Mormons had it right in the late 1800’s (maybe God is also a chauvinist as well, after all he is immoral). Or maybe it didn’t need to be said?

    “Slavery did not exist until society implemented it. Segregation because of ideas and not skin color or gender is not ok?” (Xander)

    True, but God still spoke on these issues and they have been used in recent American history (by people in churches) to defend the laws of slavery and segregation (because God never changes). The same argument you are defending about God has been a stronghold within America to defend atrocious actions against black people – and to justify it. I know God spoke on slavery and even acts of segregation within the bible – however – never should such passages be used to defend either position since socio-historically things are much different now.

    My point was you want to believe in a God that never changes (to defend your stance against gay people) – if this is the case, what about slavery, multiple marriage, segregation, genocide, etc…all these things were also spoke about by God in the ‘word of God’…and yet as good Christian people we accept they have changed.

    • Xander

      “Also Paul changed the rules concerning ‘conversion’…circumcision was taboo for Gentiles (yet there is a clear cut verse in the Torah stating this is not that case).”

      The old circumcision was gone, for Jew and Gentile alike. Christianity is not a gentile only thing. The Jew needs Jesus every bit as much as the Gentile.

      “Not exactly. The laws on marriage do not exactly state ‘one man and one woman’. Just because Adam and Eve were created as the first on earth means nothing – it’s not a precedent of any sort (they were the only 2 living at the time)”

      True, but the first one that was mentioned to take two wives was Lamech who committed murder and then tried to raise his own self above Cain. Multiple wives was a man made desire.
      I am not justifying mankind’s actions one bit. I am showing there is a difference between man thinks is right and what God stated was right.

      I am not defending a stance against gay people. I am defending a stance against compromise and falling away from God. I have friends that are gay. That doesn’t mean it is ok though. I also have friends that have sex outside of marriage and some who are pagans. That doesn’t mean their actions are ok. God still loves them though. You don’t have to accept someone’s choices in order to love them.

  7. societyvs

    “The old circumcision was gone, for Jew and Gentile alike. Christianity is not a gentile only thing. The Jew needs Jesus every bit as much as the Gentile” (Xander)

    Paul wrote his letters to Gentiles alone (not Jewish communities) – context may be everything here. Circumcision was okay for Jewish adherents – Paul’s only qualm is that Gentiles don’t have to do it (since they under ‘faith’ – like Abraham). As for the Jewish people, in Acts 15 – they are allowed to be on their own as a ‘faith’…which is a model I follow…God spoke to them originally – I am not going to question God on that one.

    “I am not justifying mankind’s actions one bit. I am showing there is a difference between man thinks is right and what God stated was right” (Xander)

    True, but what does God think is right? If we are going to play literalist with the law/Torah – slavery has to be ‘a-okay’ in God’s eyes too. Genocide must also be okay. This is the problem with the literalism of the texts – they don’t help when we are talking about ‘law’.

    “That doesn’t mean their actions are ok. God still loves them though. You don’t have to accept someone’s choices in order to love them.” (Xander)

    I do agree here – we can love people despite their obvious flaws. However, I am not sure being gay is a problem or sin. I know you want to read the law/Torah that way (literal) – but it is law and as concrete as we think it is – it is very subject to historical context, understanding, and interpretation. There is more to the law than what it says (as I have proved with adultery and murder examples).

    • “Paul wrote his letters to Gentiles alone (not Jewish communities) – context may be everything here. Circumcision was okay for Jewish adherents – Paul’s only qualm is that Gentiles don’t have to do it (since they under ‘faith’ – like Abraham). As for the Jewish people, in Acts 15 – they are allowed to be on their own as a ‘faith’…which is a model I follow…God spoke to them originally – I am not going to question God on that one. ”

      Paul wrote to all believers in those areas. He did not say this to the Gentile only. Paul is saying that the Gentile does not have to follow the circumcision ritual, because it does nothing. Those who were circumcised still fell short, so how required is it when those who are not circumcised were better at keeping the law. God does a circumcision of the heart, for both Jew and Gentile. Why do you think Jesus first went to the Jew? Peter first went to the Jew. To the Jew first. What would the Jew be first if it had no relevance to them?

      “True, but what does God think is right? If we are going to play literalist with the law/Torah – slavery has to be ‘a-okay’ in God’s eyes too. Genocide must also be okay. This is the problem with the literalism of the texts – they don’t help when we are talking about ‘law’.”

      We know what God thinks is right. He tells us. If the Bible is slowly becoming irrelevant, why follow it? How do you know who God is if God is actually a reflection of modern society? God is always changing, even though in the Bible He says He is always the same. The two can not coexist. So you either are following God or you become your own god.

      “I do agree here – we can love people despite their obvious flaws. However, I am not sure being gay is a problem or sin. I know you want to read the law/Torah that way (literal) – but it is law and as concrete as we think it is – it is very subject to historical context, understanding, and interpretation. There is more to the law than what it says (as I have proved with adultery and murder examples).”

      What was the purpose of the destruction of Sodom? It predates the law, so I am curious as to why it would need to be destroyed and why homosexuality is pointed out in the story. I missed the adultery and murder examples.

  8. societyvs

    “Why do you think Jesus first went to the Jew? Peter first went to the Jew. To the Jew first. What would the Jew be first if it had no relevance to them?” (Xander)

    Truthfully, because Jesus and Peter (and James and John) were Jewish and this was their core concern. But they did not go to this group because of the end of the law and inclusion of the gentiles – in fact the gospels and Acts point pretty clearly in the other direction until Paul arrives. But why does this mean Judaism, which follows God’s words as well, is any worse for wear because Gentiles have been ‘included’? This has been the agenda of the church for centuries – and I think it is a huge mis-interpretation that has caused more than pain for the Jewish people of this planet.

    “God is always changing, even though in the Bible He says He is always the same. The two can not coexist. So you either are following God or you become your own god.” (Xander)

    But you fail to address the crux of the problem, your literalism of the law texts. I am not saying God isn’t right or that God may not change – those may both be facts…the crux is your literalism and it creates even more problems concerning your version of God than it helps. In fact, it is clearly wrong or without a good semblance of workable logic.

    For example, you want to uphold God’s law about homosexuality as ‘right’. Well, what about slavery? What about segregation? What about killing people for a variety of crimes ranging from adultery to not keeping the sabbath (which is a Saturday – Christians actually don’t revere that day)?

    Now I am not saying God isn’t right – I am saying it is law and should be interpreted that way. Your the one playing with it’s literalism and will need to answer for the rest as well concerning your verison of what God is and isn’t saying.

    Can you own a slave? Yes, according to the Torah. Can you kill someone for cheating on their spouse? Yes, you may. Can you wear two fabrics in the same coat? No, not allowed.

    In all honesty, the literalists are creating God in their image as much as anyone else out there – let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves on this one.

    “What was the purpose of the destruction of Sodom? It predates the law, so I am curious as to why it would need to be destroyed and why homosexuality is pointed out in the story. I missed the adultery and murder examples.” (Xander)

    The earliest rabbinical studies on this text do not mention anything about homosexuality in Sodom (in case you wanted to know)…that wasn’t the issue for them. In fact, Ezekiel the prophet mentions Sodom and Gommorah – he doesn’t mention it’s homosexuality either…imagine a prophet of God *who hears directly from God* missing that obvious point. In fact the NT says nothing about this city concerning homosexuality although Jude’s epistle mentions the indicident.

    Jude rightly nails the literalism of the texts on Sodom and Gommorrah – concerning having sex with ‘angels’ – and not ‘other men’. If we are going to be literal in the English on these texts.

    The earliest rabbinical commentaries on Sodom and Gommorah say nothing about the homosexuality involved but rather the greed of the city and it’s lack of concern for it’s poor in it’s midst.

    Ezekiel sums it up best ‘Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)

    Christians trying to find an ‘anti-gay’ story there are searching in the wrong place based in the oldest interpretations of that story (which includes what Ezekiel and Isaiah have to say about that place).

    • Truthfully, because Jesus and Peter (and James and John) were Jewish and this was their core concern. But they did not go to this group because of the end of the law and inclusion of the gentiles – in fact the gospels and Acts point pretty clearly in the other direction until Paul arrives. But why does this mean Judaism, which follows God’s words as well, is any worse for wear because Gentiles have been ‘included’? This has been the agenda of the church for centuries – and I think it is a huge mis-interpretation that has caused more than pain for the Jewish people of this planet.

      Paul was more of a Jew than Peter, James and John so your logic is strange. Paul was trained as a Pharisee where the others were not. They did not go to the Gentiles first because They had to take the message of Jesus as the messiah for all to the Jews first.

      Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

      The commission from Jesus. Jerusalem first, then What is the purpose of Jesus as Messiah if He is not Messiah for the Jews?

      Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, (77) to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,

      This was said about Jesus. If what the Jews were following was working, why would Jesus be sent to give knowledge of salvation and forgiveness of sins to them? Your desire to not offend Jewish people by saying they do not need Jesus does not help them. Christianity is not the replacement of Judaism. Rather it is the completion of it.

      “For example, you want to uphold God’s law about homosexuality as ‘right’. Well, what about slavery? What about segregation? What about killing people for a variety of crimes ranging from adultery to not keeping the Sabbath (which is a Saturday – Christians actually don’t revere that day)? ”

      Paul did not denounce slavery, but instead sent a runaway slave back to his owner. Do you associate with neo-Nazis? If not, you yourself practice segregation. Why didn’t the Jews just kill the woman in John 8? Because they did not have the legal authority to anymore. It was taken away by the Romans. Judaism actually starts to observe the Sabbath at sundown on Friday. Christianity is supposed to make every day a Sabbath as God is with us every day. Don’t justify things because man has misused what God has said.

      “The earliest rabbinical studies on this text do not mention anything about homosexuality in Sodom (in case you wanted to know)…that wasn’t the issue for them. In fact, Ezekiel the prophet mentions Sodom and Gomorrah – he doesn’t mention it’s homosexuality either…imagine a prophet of God *who hears directly from God* missing that obvious point. In fact the NT says nothing about this city concerning homosexuality although Jude’s epistle mentions the indicident.

      Ezekiel sums it up best ‘Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49)”

      Eze 16:55 As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state.

      I thought Sodom was destroyed in Genesis, never to be brought back. How can this be, unless it is not speaking of the city but the region.

      Mat 11:24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

      The land of Sodom not the destroyed city.

      “Jude rightly nails the literalism of the texts on Sodom and Gomorrah – concerning having sex with ‘angels’ – and not ‘other men’. If we are going to be literal in the English on these texts. ”

      Jud 1:6-8 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day– (7) just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (8) Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

      The angels left heaven. Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and unnatural desires. No mention of having sex with those angels though.

      Orthodox Judaism stills hold that homosexuality is wrong. They must not have read those commentaries either.

  9. societyvs

    “The commission from Jesus. Jerusalem first, then What is the purpose of Jesus as Messiah if He is not Messiah for the Jews?” (Xander)

    Point is this was his concern (as well as ours) – but as Paul states also ‘Salvation is from the Jews’ (not vice versa). Both the gospels and Paul seem to be stating quite clearly there were 2 religious strands to this faith – A bona fide Jewish one and a Gentile one (and they were quite different).

    For me, this means a Jewish person could follow Judaism and still be counted as in correct standing with God. They still hold to Maimonides principle about the ‘coming of the messiah’ (in general). So they are not to be treated as 2nd class to the Gentiles who are more firm in their convictions about Jesus as a messiah that included us into access to God. Equality is the stance of their day and as well as mine.

    “This was said about Jesus. If what the Jews were following was working, why would Jesus be sent to give knowledge of salvation and forgiveness of sins to them?” (Xander)

    Also it is from Luke in a ‘virgin birth story’ in a gospel written and directed at ‘Gentiles’…not Jews. Do you think Jews are not saved nor forgiven? Luke has to make this point to the Gentiles reading more or less – since this is what they were likely teaching. That all being said, Jesus did forgive people and his salvation is available to all via his death/resurrection (which is an occurence that is ‘finished’ and no one can add to it). It is is either true for both parties or neither party.

    “Your desire to not offend Jewish people by saying they do not need Jesus does not help them. Christianity is not the replacement of Judaism. Rather it is the completion of it.” (Xander)

    Of course it helps them, if they want to accept Jesus they can feel free to and if they feel he is not the messiah they expected – they can also feel free to do that (they follow the Torah of Almighty God anyways). Nonetheless, they are waiting for the messiah and the same thing Revelations is pointing out – the freedom of the Israelite territory from human tyranny.

    I was also afraid you would say something like this about Christianity – when we should be seen as brothers and not usurpers. What right do we have to take from the chosen of God that which was given to them at Mt Sinai? Who are we exactly that we are making any of these claims of completion and usurption of their history? Xander, we’re nothing but a few Gentiles arguing over scriptures and ideas that began with the same Judaism you say ‘we have completed’. I don’t see a completion – I see an addition and nothing more.

    “Do you associate with neo-Nazis? If not, you yourself practice segregation.” (Xander)

    Thats a laugh and a 1/2. I don’t associate with neo-nazi’s because (a) they only come around when they want to hate a minority (which I am); and (b) they are a ‘hate’ group based on ‘racism’…they are segregating themselves from larger society and I don’t function in ‘hate’ as a mandatory piece for my life. I have no commonalities with such a group and for anyone to claim I am being segregatory because I don’t hang with neo-nazi’s is to invite shame and foolery to their own logic.

    “Paul did not denounce slavery, but instead sent a runaway slave back to his owner.” (Xander)

    True, and for his day this was all he could do – but he did ask his ‘owners’ to treat him as an equal (even he knew this needed to change). Times have changed though Xander, or do you think slavery is still ‘okay’?

    “Don’t justify things because man has misused what God has said” (Xander)

    Things change with the times Xander, heck even the messiah ideology arose much later – in the prophet times and after the Maccabee’s….when Israel started to be taken over by huge foreign powers. Then it became a viable ideology and a needed one for a oppressed people – salvation! Reminds me of Exodus.

    However, the point is – things change Xander and this is the way of the bible – in fact – it’s right in there and pasted all over the place. Things modernize and adapt to the law and society one is in. You mention Rome – classic example – about the sabbaths…that’s still a celebration though – isn’t it? It may not be the ideal but it works. This is how the story always goes, over and over again. I don’t know why you cannot accept it yet the bible is filled with example where this is the case.

    “The land of Sodom not the destroyed city.” (Xander)

    You think there is some difference somehow? Oh well, all I can tell you is what the rabbi’s have said in times past concerning that passage (and the prophets) and whether you accept that is the same Sodom or not is your call. I have no reason to believe it isn’t.

    “The angels left heaven. Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and unnatural desires. No mention of having sex with those angels though” (Xander)

    Re-read the Sodom and Gommorrah story again and cross compare it with that little tidbit from Jude (which actually comes from a non-bibilical source – Enoch). I have. Those were angels Xander that came to Lot…and even the book of Enoch backs this point up. Jude is re-stating it again as ‘sexual indecency’ – because these men tried to have sex with ‘angels’…or the ‘glorious ones’.

    “Orthodox Judaism stills hold that homosexuality is wrong. They must not have read those commentaries either.” (Xander)

    So? What authority do they have exactly?

  10. Awesome webpage, exactly where did you get the web template?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s