betsy

"THou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Does that love manifest itself by undermining His teachings...chipping at the rock on which He built His church...causing not only dissension among His followers but also causing confusion in an arrogant attempt to supplant and revise the doctrine? It is a strange way of showing love. I thought we do not seek to destroy what we profess to love. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Do we not wish redemption for those we love? Did Christ not instructed to help others see the way to His kingdom. Is not spreading the words of Christ one of the greatest act of love...for the rewards to those who are saved goes way beyond mere material or earthly trinkets? Anyway, this topic is not really about love and hate.

Was any war ever won by an army led by no one? Was there ever any civilization that thrived with no one to lead? It is a romantic notion in a way....but got to face it, quite comical too. Here I am (couldn't help but grin), envisioning hordes of people running here and there and everywhere, each one thinking for himself, helter skelter while the enemy is at the door......kinda remind me of my daycare on a really bad day.

On the contrary, Jesus DID SAY something about this topic. If it was not that important, then why did he have to say this? "I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it." Besides, plain common sense dictates why on earth should the church...or any man-made organization for that matter...have someone who do not believe in the doctrine to preach that very doctrine? Will you hire someone to represent you knowing you'd be butting heads every step of the way? Why go through that head-ache? How effective would that representative be in giving a FULL, UN-EDITED information if he does not agree with some of your important policies? Will the Liberals hire a Conservative PR guy? And He also talked much of deception by the devil....of preparation and redemption, the way to His Kingdom.

Well I guess being dragged along is part and parcel of the whole kaboodle when you're a citizen and/or part of a group. That's what it is to choose and have a leader to lead. There can't be all of us planning and cooking in the kitchen. I guess the Jews being dragged to concentration camps and gas chambers must've thought they were living a nightmare...and that's putting it mildly. Or those who had lived in fear and repression under the taliban rule. I'm sure the women there took it as just another day in paradise being a chattel, thankful and grateful for each day of not getting whipped or beaten. Of course those kind of existence couldn't possibly come to these shores. All those terrorists acts against the West...those are just figments of our imagination. Too much time on our hands. We'd continue to enjoy life as we know it...for generations to come. Too bad there aren't too many uninhabited islands so one can become a Crusoe...hope not to be discovered and "colonized." Boy Jews dragged to the concentration camps, well they could have come to North America and many applied but were turned down. Canadians should not be so hypocritical. Bush is slowly turning the US into a dictatorship and Harper would gladly do the same. If I'm not mistaken...the US dragged its heels for too long before getting involved in that war and going right smack in the middle of it, right? That Jews were reportedly being systematically slaughtered was just so diabolical that it was not taken seriously. So by the time the US joined the war....how many Jews had already perished? Perhaps somebody learned a lesson from that. As for dictatorship...okay, let's assume you're right. I'd still prefer the dictatorship of Bush and Harper to that of the Taliban rule! I surely wouldn't look good in a burqua...and I love pork!

Well I guess being dragged along is part and parcel of the whole kaboodle when you're a citizen and/or part of a group. That's what it is to choose and have a leader to lead. There can't be all of us planning and cooking in the kitchen. I guess the Jews being dragged to concentration camps and gas chambers must've thought they were living a nightmare...and that's putting it mildly. Or those who had lived in fear and repression under the taliban rule. I'm sure the women there took it as just another day in paradise being a chattel, thankful and grateful for each day of not getting whipped or beaten. Of course those kind of existence couldn't possibly come to these shores. All those terrorists acts against the West...those are just figments of our imagination. Too much time on our hands. We'd continue to enjoy life as we know it...for generations to come. Too bad there aren't too many uninhabited islands so one can become a Crusoe...hope not to be discovered and "colonized."

Btw, isn't it that Christianity has nothing much to do with the old testament. It all begins with Christ and His teachings.

What about going under RELIGIOUS rule? The Taliban perhaps?

You got me lost there. Please explain how Mulroney was a traitor to this country.

And Trudeau was a nazi-sympathiser! Whle my father in-law was fighting it out in Germany (and other Canadian sons and fathers were dying)...Trudeau was busy playing Mr Dress-Up in nazi costumes!

But when you're at war, you expect to see body bags! Get used to it. Some of the parents of dead soldiers voiced out their sons' belief in the mission. Let us not cheapen their memory by using them to politicize and to further an anti-war agenda. They've died a noble death. I'd rather see my sons coming home in body bags than living under tyranny and in fear. See what media coverage and body counts does? It not only demoralizes our troops and people...it also work well serving the terrorists in striking fear into your heart...right there in your own living room!

That quote is from Paul's Letter to Titus. Below is the ENTIRE passage. "I left you in Crete for you to put in order the things that still needed doing, and to appoint church elders in every town. Remember my instructions: an elder must be without fault; he must have only one wife, and his children must be believers and not have the reputation of being wild and disobedient. For since he is in charge of God's work, the church leader should be without fault. He must not be arrogant or quick tempered, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy. He must be hospitable and love what is good. He must be self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the message which can be trusted and which agrees with the doctrine. In this way he will be able to encourage other with the true teaching, and also show the error of those who are opposed to it. For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense, especially the converts from Judaism. it is necessary to stop their talking, because they are upsetting whole families by teaching what they should not, for the shameful purpose of making money. It was a Cretan himself, one of their own prophets who said, "Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts, and lazy gluttons." and what he said is true. For this reason you must rebuke them sharply, so that they may have a healthy faith, and no longer hold on to Jewish legends and to human commandments which come from men who have rejected the truth. Everything is pure to those who are themselves pure; but nothing is pure to those who are defiled and unbelieving, because their minds and conscience had been defiled. they claim that they know God, but their actions deny it. they are hateful and disobedient, not fit to do anything good." It is interesting to see that the very passage you chose as a sample holds the answer to some of the arguments in this very topic we speak of. Did you know that and deliberately chose not to include it....or were you distracted that you were not actually aware of its relevance to the topic? If it is the latter, perhaps we should say you were "led" to it by divine providence? Consider it a sign? I would just like to point out again what I've answered above regarding unruly, vain and deceivers, a description which I think mirrors what those two priests are doing to the church. "For there are many who rebel and deceive others with their nonsense,..." I find that the entire passage is really about the conduct of a church leader appointed and ENTRUSTED to spread the words and teachings of Christ. That the Jews were mentioned at all in particular....along with other non-Jews I must add....was just as an example. But the true message is about that of being a true church elder spreading the teachings of Christ. It does really emphasize in warning of rebellion and of deceiving others. Anyway, do I believe the whole passage in its entirety? Yes.

In other words, if someone killed somebody...I should not tell him to ask for God's forgiveness since he's committed a sin? But I think I get what you're saying, since Christ also reminded us about not seeing the pebble in our own eye.

Thanks for the references. The first reference doesn't say anything about not being allowed to belong to the church, it just says "treat them as a pagan (or heathen depending on the version) or a tax collector". I imagine that only God could cast the first stone against a pagan or tax collector. As for the second reference, if I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that God made them homosexuals as punishment for not worshipping God and then punished them for being homosexuals? Am I reading that right? Are there any references where Jesus himself condones homosexuality? I think "heathen" means someone with no religion.

Yes, I know he gave Peter the responsibility to continue the church, but did he give Peter, and for that matter all humans, the power to punish sinners? I don't think I referred to any punishments being done by the church. I said that according to the bible, only Jesus (he without sin) has the authority to punish. I don't think he gave humans the power to punish sinners. He gave us all the responsibility to spread the words of God. And several passages in the New Testament, we are warned of being deceived by Satan.

However, the New Testament suggests that is especially Jews. But it also said there are those that are not Jews.

Then why did God give us the 10 Commandments if there would be no laws? And He placed a lot of importance on it! And why did He tell us about "sins" if we cannot even know what is and what is not a sin? And with Christ...He, too referred to KNOWING how to get to paradise. "I AM THE WAY..." To know is having to use one's judgement.

It will be interesting to see if the Church of England treats them the same as it would treat a heterosexual priest who commits fornication. That's for the Church to decide. Whether we agree with what the Church says or not....it is still considered the rep of God. If one finds himself at odds with the rules of a church, then why not start their own religion? That's how the Protestant church came to be, if I'm not mistaken. Or why not join other churches that conformed with the wishes of humans. Some church condone and accept homosexual marriage. Why not just believe what you choose to believe and worship on your own time? Why do you have to join a church? Well it's up to the individual to do what he wants...anyway, he's already doing what he wants (even though it goes against his church) ! It just behooves me why on earth priests (of all people), who should know better would not only insist in doing what is against the belief...but also choose to challenge and cause this pain for the church.

What about this passage from the New Testament? Titus 1:10-16 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision(Jews): Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Do you believe that? "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, SPECIALLY they of the circumcision(Jews):" This passage speaks of everyone (not only Jews). Is it not vain of man to think he can manipulate and change the dictates of God? Are we not deceivers if we can confuse and have others believe in what we spout that they in turn go against the dictates of God? Is it not unruly to cause havoc, dissension and confusion, having others lose faith in His church...and turning away from God?

Yes but that was Jesus doing the punishment. As it says in the New Testament, only Jesus/God may punish as they are the only ones without sin. If you believe everything in the New Testament, then you must believe that only Jesus/God may punish people, but I think that goes contrary to what the vast majority of Christians believe. Jesus had given Peter that authority/responsibility to continue the work and spread the words of Christ: Upon this rock I build My Church. But what punishments are you referring to nowadays being done by the church?

The punishments were quite severe in the old testament. One minute you're going about your business...and the next thing you know, you're a pillar of salt! But mostly the sins or the unacceptable actions mostly remain the same between the old and the new. So far, Christ and the New Testament STILL do not condone homosexuality. Unless there is another testament revising this.... as Christians, we can only abide by it, and try our hardest to follow the teachings of Christ.

Only God can make the final judgment. But the Church can judge whether the action goes against their faith or belief. 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2 Are you serious? If we go by your interpretation...there wouldn't be any laws at all! Read my statement again. "....the church can judge whether the ACTION goes AGAINST THEIR FAITH or belief." Of course the Church knows what is against its belief! IT IS THE CHURCH's responsibility to bring people to GOD!

And may I add, Christ upheld the marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN. Did He not join in the celebration of marriage where he performed one of His miracles by turning water into wine? And Fourth Commandment of God, "Honor thy FATHER AND thy MOTHER." It didn't say , "Honor thy Parents!"

It will be interesting to see if the Church of England treats them the same as it would treat a heterosexual priest who commits fornication. That's for the Church to decide. Whether we agree with what the Church says or not....it is still considered the rep of God. If one finds himself at odds with the rules of a church, then why not start their own religion? That's how the Protestant church came to be, if I'm not mistaken. Or why not join other churches that conformed with the wishes of humans. Some church condone and accept homosexual marriage.

If you can't remember the details then why would you use it as a basis for your sweeping accusation (and don't tell me "I'm just asking a question" because obviously you think the answer is yes) If you want to smear a group of people and have no "details" to back you up, it's best to do so in the form of a question. And this. “Through its actions, this university has made a clear admission that it cannot guarantee a safe environment for a distinguished speaker like Ehud Barak,” Rabbi Poupko said before the rally. “They have also told us that any anti-Israel speakers are allowed to come here, but that pro-Israel speakers would cause a riot and are, therefore, denied access.” http://www.bnaibrith.ca/tribune/jt-040929-24.html

If you can't remember the details then why would you use it as a basis for your sweeping accusation (and don't tell me "I'm just asking a question" because obviously you think the answer is yes) If you want to smear a group of people and have no "details" to back you up, it's best to do so in the form of a question. Here. Will this suffice? "In September 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech was cancelled due to a riot outside the Hall Building. A window was broken, students were intimidated and a point of view was silenced. The university community was appalled by the violence and largely assumed this was an unfortunate onetime event. Sadly, last year’s cancellation of Ehud Barak’s speech at Concordia suggests that this optimistic assumption was mistaken. Whether Ehud Barak ultimately makes it to the university is immaterial. The larger question is one of free speech." http://magazine.concordia.ca/2005/march/endpiece/