Who decides what is good in the Bible?

[teancum79]

Theodore you stated that morality changes with society. It is true that popular morels do change, but this does not mean that Gods morels change.

If the end result of a choice had eternal implications would not God stand his ground on that point?

[theodore]

teancum79 said:

Theodore you stated that morality changes with society. It is true that popular morels do change, but this does not mean that Gods morels change.

If the end result of a choice had eternal implications would not God stand his ground on that point?

The only choice we can make that has eternal implications is to Love God.
I realize that many people believe that when we “sin” here or fail to make the “right” choice, that it will effect us forever. I do not believe that to be true for a number of reasons.
I also don’t believe that God advocates or condemns any particular behavior. I base this on the fact that we have been given free will. If God were to dictate His morality then that would usurp our free will.
That does not mean that God hasn’t included natural laws into His creation. It also doesn’t mean to imply that anyone should ignore societies laws, customs and morality. I just think that God lets us bump our heads and skin our knees as a part of the process of living. We are here to make mistakes and learn lessons.

[dianaholberg]

theodore said:

His explanation of sexual expression between two people was based on our desire to become “one” with another.

Yes, and that is the definition of "unitive".

The problem is that it cannot be divorced from "procreative".

In other words, we all have a deep seated desire to reunite and become one with God. In many ways, a sexual union is a result of that longing to become one. When the physical desire is added to the spiritual longing it becomes a powerful drive to consummate a passionate union. We long for that intimacy.
The book is merely saying that this is a natural human condition and nothing to be ashamed about. God is saying that we feel this way because that’s the way He made it. How can He make a moral judgment and say that sex is wrong when He designed it this way in the first place?

Because He designed it for the purpose of procreation as well as union. If He hadn't, we would be perfectly happy raising the children He gives us instead of killing them before they take their first breath.

Same thing with abortion. God does not condemn us for making decisions he provides for us. Abortion, like everything else in this world, is only morally wrong if we decide it is. God will not give us the option to do anything He doesn’t want us to. Think about that!
If a woman terminates a pregnancy, what does that mean? It means the physical life of an unborn soul has been ended.
Has that soul died? No
Can that soul have another chance to live a physical life? Absolutely.
Has any permanent damage been done? No. People will continue to have sex and make babies by the millions. They all need souls.

This is by far the most horrible characterization of the murder of children I have ever seen. I have not been adamantly pro-Life in the past, but things like this sure push me in that direction.

You could easily apply this argument to any murder. What prevents you from excusing murderers? Or do you say that they do no "permanent damage" too? What about all of those besides the victim who are affected? (Relatives, etc.) Why do you think those others are any less affected by the death of their unborn grandchild, niece or nephew?

So where does the condemnation come from? Man’s ignorance. In thinking that a soul only has one shot at life, the horror of a life being cut short in the womb is born. “Thou shall not kill” rings as a false indictment and condemnation of every woman who has had an abortion. Ignorance of the true nature of this world is the only “crime” here.
God puts us in this “disposable” world to learn and make mistakes. Whatever we do here has no permanent effect other that the spiritual growth we take with us. Everything here is ultimately disposable, even our bodies. We can all die in a thousand different ways, so why would abortion be any different?
I don’t advocate abortion, but I also don’t think it’s a reason for condemnation. Self forgiveness is a much healthier remedy than condemnation.

Appalling. I hope you are not in a policy-making position.

[theodore]

dianaholberg said:

Yes, and that is the definition of "unitive"

The problem is that it cannot be divorced from "procreative".

Sure it can. It’s called birth control.

This is by far the most horrible characterization of the murder of children I have ever seen. I have not been adamantly pro-Life in the past, but things like this sure push me in that direction.

You could easily apply this argument to any murder. What prevents you from excusing murderers? Or do you say that they do no "permanent damage" too? What about all of those besides the victim who are affected? (Relatives, etc.) Why do you think those others are any less affected by the death of their unborn grandchild, niece or nephew?

I am advocating neither abortion nor murder. I am merely putting abortion in another context.

Appalling. I hope you are not in a policy-making position.

Gee Diana, I feel like I hit a raw nerve here. Sorry to get you all upset.

[dianaholberg]

No, you just made me aware of how far from grace we are.

[theodore]

dianaholberg said:

No, you just made me aware of how far from grace we are.

I think we just have different world views.
Your view of life within the understanding of the Christian church is far different than mine.
I see my life continuing through many cycles of physical birth and death. My body can die but I can’t. I see the body as just a covering, much like a suit of clothes. I honor my body and take good care of it, but I also know it only has a relatively short time to exist.
Murder is depriving someone of their chance to live the remainder of their life, which is considered very wrong in all civilized societies. I totally agree with this.
However, from a grand spiritual point of view, losing a body is the end of nothing. Life, in it’s real sense, has not been lost at all. Instead, it has merely gone through a change.
While the thought of aborting unborn babies is repugnant, I can still take philosophical comfort in knowing that the souls of those babies are going back to be with God for a little while longer.
What makes all this so horrible?

[dianaholberg]

I suggest for perspective you check out this site, and in particular:

Revelation and Discovery of the Nuptial Meaning of the Body

[theodore]

It’s the Pope speculating on what the Bible means. It’s what most Christians do. They speculate because the Bible is so vague with regard to almost everything.
I have read many encyclicals, some brilliant and some bizarre. It’s still just speculation based on a fragmented, 2000 year old compilation of third hand accounts.
Even guys like CS Lewis, who many regard as an “inspired” Christian, still is only speculating.
I would much rather hear from people who are in direct contact with God. Saints and mystics who have experienced God firsthand can give clear and concise accounts of what they know. People also channel God and other divine entities who give a much broader and more detailed description on a myriad of topics.
Most of these sources agree with one another too. They all say things slightly differently, but the basic principals don’t change.
Why in the world would I rely on one dusty old book to be my only source of spiritual answers? How can otherwise intelligent people be so blind to the plethora of spiritual material available to answer their every question? Has everyone been so brainwashed by the church that they lost their reason.

End of rant.

[dianaholberg]

So glad not to walk through the world that cynically. The whole reason we have the Pope is because everyone else is speculating.

But you're right -- these were not written authoritatively, so it is a given that they are speculation. However, I do believe time will prove that Pope John Paul II was given unique insight into the dignity and sanctity of the Body.

[theodore]

So glad not to walk through the world that cynically. The whole reason we have the Pope is because everyone else is speculating.

But you're right -- these were not written authoritatively, so it is a given that they are speculation. However, I do believe time will prove that Pope John Paul II was given unique insight into the dignity and sanctity of the Body.

I am cynical when it comes to institutional Christianity. It’s not really even Christianity, it’s Churchianity.
Churchianity is primarily interested in it’s own propagation and survival. The best interest of the church members is subjugated to the best interest of the church. It will emphasize those parts of scripture that empower the church and ignore those parts that empower the individual.
As a social support mechanism, the church operates wonderfully. The pastor and the members lend each other support and comfort in times of loss. It also functions as a center for remembrance of our divine origin.
But as far as providing accurate spiritual information and guidance, it sucks. It will only provide people with information and interpretations that empower the church. Even worse, it does this under the auspices of representing Jesus.
Jesus is the embodiment of Christianity. Christ is where the salvation is and Christ is in our hearts. The church has become a parasitic organization that only survives by it’s deceptive claim that it is the conduit to Christ. That is absolutely incorrect.
History is rife with Churchianity’s criminal justifications of righteousness. From the inquisition to the Crusades, Churchianity has used the Bible and the teachings of Jesus to further ignorant men’s lust for power and domination. These instances are not the result of a selfless organization solely dedicated to serving it’s members. They are the indication of corruption.
The true words of Christ have been re-forged into the foundation of a self serving institution. This institution will always put it’s own survival above all else. That is primarily why I have a cynical view of the church.

[dianaholberg]

Is it safe to say that you do not believe that the Church is the Body of Christ as the early Christians did (and Christians do today)?

[theodore]

dianaholberg said:

Is it safe to say that you do not believe that the Church is the Body of Christ as the early Christians did (and Christians do today)?

Not the institution of the church. The disciples of Christ are the body as originally intended.

[dianaholberg]

theodore said:

dianaholberg said:

Is it safe to say that you do not believe that the Church is the Body of Christ as the early Christians did (and Christians do today)?

Not the institution of the church. The disciples of Christ are the body as originally intended.

Okay then. We have to revisit your last post.

theodore said:

I am cynical when it comes to institutional Christianity. It’s not really even Christianity, it’s Churchianity.
Churchianity is primarily interested in it’s own propagation and survival. The best interest of the church members is subjugated to the best interest of the church.

Putting aside the instituational Church for the moment, consider the Church (meaning the disciples of Christ, as you said) as the Body of Christ.

We can then think about what makes sense by considering our own bodies. If a member of your body is threatened (say, by disease), do you put the best interest of the member first? For example, say your toe was infected, and the doctors said that if you didn't amputate it the infection could spread to your whole body. Would you try to save the toe?

If we view the Church as the Body of Christ, the same reasoning applies. Jesus Himself said that if our eye offended us, pluck it out; if our hand offended us, cut it off.

But your overarching point is a valid one -- the Body is only as healthy as its members, and the overall health of the Body is not possible without being concerned for the interests of its members.

It will emphasize those parts of scripture that empower the church and ignore those parts that empower the individual.

Example, please?

History is rife with Churchianity’s criminal justifications of righteousness. From the inquisition to the Crusades, Churchianity has used the Bible and the teachings of Jesus to further ignorant men’s lust for power and domination.

You need to take a closer look at history. Those efforts were primarily led by the political leaders of the day. And while there have been bad Popes, none have disrupted the flow of infallible teaching... none issued an official proclamation containing error.

You have to understand that God's Church is protected in spite of the humanity of its leaders and members. God is not going to separate the "wheat" from the "weeds" until the Last Day.

These instances are not the result of a selfless organization solely dedicated to serving it’s members. They are the indication of corruption.

All human institutions involve a certain level of corruption. If they didn't, well... we'd be in Heaven, wouldn't we?

The true words of Christ have been re-forged into the foundation of a self serving institution. This institution will always put it’s own survival above all else. That is primarily why I have a cynical view of the church.

Again, I need a specific example. What has the Church taught that is self-serving for its own survival? And why would not a Body act in the interests of its own survival?

By the way... are you by chance ex-Catholic? I rarely encounter such animosity against the Church except from ex-Catholics or those raised in ultra-authoritarian Catholic schools.

[theodore]

I think out of all the denominations, Catholicism is the most rational. At least they honor the saints and have a much more compassionate approach to religion. My family is all Catholic and I often attend services. I have no animosity towards the church even though I disagree with many of it’s precepts. I also see the good in the church as a place to honor our God, no matter what our beliefs.
Fundamental Christianity, such as the Baptists, leave me shaking my head. I realize that everyone is different and has their own particular capacity for understanding. However, having fundamentalists going around telling people that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity unless they accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior, tries my patience. Condemning people as sinners and warning them to repent “or else” is beyond ignorance and bad manners, it’s just plain mean. This is not spirituality to me.
I have been bashing the church too much myself. I have let my frustration vent itself here and I am sorry if it has offended anyone. But I do feel much better for it and will let it go for now.
In the dichotomy of life, I will go to church with my family today and participate in that which I have railed against all week. I will sit in the pew, looking at Jesus on the cross and wonder what He thinks of all this. I will see him smile and say: "don't worry about it, just go with the flow. Everything will be just fine".

God has a wonderful sense of humor.

[dianaholberg]

You're right about that, theodore...

God bless!