"..Jesus may not have condoned gay marriage, but he was against oppression. His harsh criticisms were against the OVERLY religious....NOT the sinners."
pretty much tells us all we need to know about your views of Christ and Christianity. Christ wasn't harsh with sinners? Oh, really?
Maybe you ought to read some quotes of His regarding sinners before agreeing with someone that was just banned here on FR. Or maybe you think Christ wasn't judgmental about those who would condone homosexual marriage and other perversions? Really?
Better still maybe you should read some of St. Paul's published letters and words and get back to us on what Christ "believed," OK?
Here are some words to ponder in an interview with a Robert Gagnon (Robert A.J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, a graduate institution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Gagnon is the author of "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" (Abingdon, 2001):
Gagnon: First, the prohibitions against same-sex intercourse occur in the context of other types of sexual activity that the church today still largely regards as illegitimate: incest, adultery and bestiality.
The strong prohibitions against these forms of sexual activity represent the closest analogues to the prohibition of same-sex intercourse. This is particularly the case with the prohibition of incest which, as with the prohibition of same-sex intercourse, rejects intercourse between two beings that are too much alike. Leviticus refers pejoratively to sex with a family member as sex with "one´s own flesh."
Second, the attachment of purity language in ancient Israelite culture to such acts as incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, idolatry, economic exploitation, and the like -- far from suggesting an amoral or non-moral basis for the rejection of such acts -- actually buttresses the moral focus on the inherently degrading character of the acts themselves. It underscores that any talk about the positive moral intent of the participants is irrelevant.
For the same reason, the Apostle Paul many centuries later connected the language of impurity with acts -- usually sexual acts -- that are rejected on moral grounds: not only same-sex intercourse but also adultery, incest, sex with prostitutes, and promiscuous sexual activity. [Gagnon later cites some texts: Romans 1:24 and 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Thessalonians 2:3 and 4:7; see Ephesians 4:19; 5:3,5; and Colossians 3:5.]
Third, unlike a number of the now-defunct elements of the Holiness Code to which reference is often made, the indictment of same-sex intercourse is particularly severe, as suggested by the specific attachment of the label "toevah" and by making it a capital offense.
Same-sex intercourse was regarded by ancient Israel as a particularly severe infraction of God´s will. Indeed, we know of no ancient Near Eastern culture that adopted a more rigorous opposition to all forms of same-sex intercourse. True, the New Testament and the contemporary church does not apply the penalty attached to this act in the Levitical code. But, then again, it does not retain the Old Testament valuation of adultery, incest and bestiality as capital offenses either, even as it still rejects such forms of intercourse as immoral.
Fourth, the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse are not limited to particularly exploitative forms but are rather unqualified and absolute.
I don't read ambiguity in these statements, do you? Or do you still agree with Sandy01?
Excellent critique.
When people on FR lie or obfuscate or try to slither away from what they said, it is a boon that no one can edit their posts here!
Posting history tells the tale.
Not a thoughtful response. I see you didn't click my screen name as I suggested, and your reading comprehension skills continue to be an embarrassment to you.
The point being made was that the "sinners" that Christ withheld his harshest criticisms for were the hypocritical legalists (ie: the religious zealot "leaders" of his day.) :
"Jesus defined legalism in Matthew 15:9b as "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." The 'commandments of men' usually begin with something God commanded and then over-extend it at the expense of some other Godly quality.
Legalism is a zeal for righteousness, the law, truth, and justice. However, it is at the expense of grace, mercy, forbearance, and love. It tends to the spiritual affairs of others without grace, mercy, forbearance, or love. It is unbalanced.
Legalism is not a zeal for God. It is trusting in oneself, as Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 18:9. "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others."
All eight statements by Jesus above can be summed up in a few words.
These people were about Power, Prestige, and the Purse (see The News & Views, Vol. 2, No. 5, Religious Dysfunction and Christian Responsibility). These are the root motives behind the desire of one group of people to impose the "commandments of men" upon others."
Of course, that is why I wrote this in post #500:
There are plenty of professing Christians (of all spiritually immature stripes) who would like nothing better than to be able to use the arm of government to impose their personal religious conscience on others.... "for their own good", of course. (See my previous post quoting C.S. Lewis, who understood that mentality perfectly.) They are merely the flip-side of the extremist left coin. bttt"
<>.//<>
"..The Pharisee [put your name here] stood and prayed, "God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess." The publican, however, standing afar off, would not even lift his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner."