- "judge not, let ye be judged."

[smiles 0]

The bible is not that easy to interpret for me. I am not a Christian but do try to read the Bible at times.

Many churches are destroying themselves over the issue of “blessing” gay unions and haven’t even reached the point of homosexual marriage. They have lost members over the issue and splinter groups remain. I am talking about churches in the corporate sense.

Some claim their interpretation of God’s word ends the matter. I must respectfully disagree. We mortals can only try to interpret God’s word and, I would argue, not enforce them, as that would be God’s prerogative. Instead of humbly admitting they are merely interpreters who hope they are right, they judge and, indeed, impose penalties.

The cornerstone of Christian belief is the Bible. If it were easy to interpret, we would have one Christian church, not thousands. The books that make up the Bible were selected by the delegates at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The council decided what the “real” church was and thus expelled a number of what then became heretical “sects”, such as the Arians (in whom I’m beginning to have some interest.) Since that time of course, the church has split and splintered often over doctrinal matters.

Fast forward to the issue of homosexuality, something Jesus didn’t refer to- even though, considering its prevalence, one might have thought He would have, had he been concerned about it. There are indictments against homosexuality, especially in Leviticus and the writings of St. Paul.

For the sake of this discourse, let’s assume that, according to our reading of the Bible, it’s forbidden. The question now becomes, how do Christians treat those who practice homosexuality? They can, of course, expel them from their own corporate version of Christianity. Simply cast them out to find God as they can. It follows from this that they would deny them the “services” of the church, such as baptism, burial and of course marriage. Doing this seems to me to be an obvious rejection of what the church stands for, namely a gateway to forgiveness. There are chapels for sinners in prison and for those on the streets who sin with drugs and crime. I think most Christians would agree they do not cast out sinners, but embrace them.

So, do they baptize them? Bury them? Marry them?
If you believe members of corporate churches can make such judgments -that gives them the right to make such decisions that please them. This doesn’t get to the root of the matter. In saying “no” to any they consider sinners, aren’t they rendering a judgment that is God’s alone to make? Are they not hypocrites to marry thieves, for example, yet reject gays, practicing or otherwise? If sinners are to be denied the church’s services, which sinners- and what services?

Are there any churches with clergymen that do not presume to “bless”, they ask God’s blessing? (very different thing.) Was it the essence of Reformation that priests couldn’t sell, or indeed grant, that which was God’s prerogative alone?

It seems to me Christians who decide what is right or wrong, and dispense or withhold church services based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures, are violating a very important Bibical injunction- “judge not, let ye be judged.”

SMiles

[JohnRich 4]

That was an excellent piece of thinking! Thanks.

[Nightingale 0]

I attended a catholic wedding ceremony a year or so ago. I was very impressed by the priest.

in his sermon, he spoke about how the two people before him weren't his to pronounce "married", that they marry each other, asking the blessing of god on their union. the priest felt his role was more of a master of ceremonies, to make sure everything happened at the right time in the right way, rather than to "perform a marriage", because marriage wasn't a status that was put up on you by someone else, it was something you had to choose for yourself.

[MC208B 0]

interesting post. Puts a whole new slant on the gay marraige thing.

[Zenister 0]

yes i agree...a nice bit of religious commentaty.... of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=community/chilliwack&articleID=1766463


plagiarism should be a sin too....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

The question now becomes, how do Christians treat those who practice homosexuality?

Plagiarism or not, I will comment on this one statement. This Christian believes that the only person I have a right to judge is myself. I believe it will be me alone with my good and bad deeds standing before God on my judgement day.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Tonto 1]

"judge not, lest ye be judged."

Changes the meaning considerably.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lest

I do agree with your sentiments though.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[smiles 0]

Quote

...of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....

I stated I was not a christian in 2nd. line:

Quote

The bible is not that easy to interpret for me. I am not a Christian but do try to read the Bible at times.

Quote

plagiarism should be a sin too....

Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing.
------citing the source of that line of info came from:http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html

My buddy Rafe Mair :
http://www.rafeonline.com/about.shtml
inspired quite alot of my post (listen to his radio show almost daily)- also read recent editorial by him titled "The bible is not that easy to interpret"....

Interesting the link you provided did not have citation to Rafe Mair, and the wording of that editorial is different?

ahhh, the sinners today

SMiles

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

...of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....

I stated I was not a christian in 2nd. line:

Quote

The bible is not that easy to interpret for me. I am not a Christian but do try to read the Bible at times.

Quote

plagiarism should be a sin too....

Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing.
------citing the source of that line of info came from:http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html

My buddy Rafe Mair :
http://www.rafeonline.com/about.shtml
inspired quite alot of my post (listen to his radio show almost daily)- also read recent editorial by him titled "The bible is not that easy to interpret"....

Interesting the link you provided did not have citation to Rafe Mair, and the wording of that editorial is different?

ahhh, the sinners today

SMiles

Glass houses for everyone, especially me!

Religion is a very emotional issue, and if cornered, some will venture to misdirection to avoid the real issues like: Judgment, and our place within it.

Great post.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

yes i agree...a nice bit of religious commentaty.... of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=community/chilliwack&articleID=1766463


plagiarism should be a sin too....

Plagiarism is basically theft, so I guess it is a sin according to the ten commandments. (Not that it really matters on dz.com, but it is not very cool to post something to look like your own writing when it is pretty much word for word from someone else's article. )

As to the original article, I think that Christians who view homosexuality as a sin would embrace someone who is gay as long as they repent their "sin" of being gay. To allow a same-sex couple to marry in their church would be to endorse the sin of homosexuality. To allow a thief to marry in their church does not endorse the sin of theft, so that comparison really doesn't work. The Church doesn't just embrace sinners for who they are; they embrace sinners who they think they can "save" and change for the better. I don't think they are judging homosexuals any more than they judge other sinners, but (like any other sinner) they do want to help them to stop their sins ("cure" them of their homosexuality).

And why would anyone who is gay want to go to a church that believes homosexuality is a sin anyway? Wouldn't it be better to find a church that fits their beliefs a little better?

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

As to the original article, I think that Christians who view homosexuality as a sin would embrace someone who is gay as long as they repent their "sin" of being gay.

Shotgun, I agree with everything you wrote here except this one sentence. As a Christian, I do not believe it is my place to demand that someone 'repent of their sin'. It is my belief we're all sinners and have our own repenting to do. As for people who commit criminal acts, once again, same standard...but they must face the judicial system.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

As to the original article, I think that Christians who view homosexuality as a sin would embrace someone who is gay as long as they repent their "sin" of being gay.

Shotgun, I agree with everything you wrote here except this one sentence. As a Christian, I do not believe it is my place to demand that someone 'repent of their sin'. It is my belief we're all sinners and have our own repenting to do. As for people who commit criminal acts, once again, same standard...but they must face the judicial system.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply all Christians... I was referring to the judgemental Christians they are talking about in the article:

Quote

It seems to me Christians who decide what is right or wrong, and dispense or withhold church services based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures, are violating a very important Bibical injunction- “judge not, let ye be judged.”

And from reading your posts, I would not consider you to be a judgemental person.
And now I'm curious... Being a Christian, do you feel that homosexuality is a sin?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

...of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....

I stated I was not a christian in 2nd. line:

Quote

The bible is not that easy to interpret for me. I am not a Christian but do try to read the Bible at times.

Quote

plagiarism should be a sin too....

Giving credit to the original author by citing sources is the only way to use other people's work without plagiarizing.
------citing the source of that line of info came from:http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html

My buddy Rafe Mair :
http://www.rafeonline.com/about.shtml
inspired quite alot of my post (listen to his radio show almost daily)- also read recent editorial by him titled "The bible is not that easy to interpret"....

Interesting the link you provided did not have citation to Rafe Mair, and the wording of that editorial is different?

ahhh, the sinners today

so your going to STILL claim the majority of your post is in fact your own written words?

did you read the text??? here it is... i'll let the forum compare and decide if some massive cosmic coincidence occurred and your opinion happened to match this editorial nearly word for word throughout the majority of your post..... if your 'friend' Ray has an issue with them plagarizing him perhaps he should investigate..seems chilliwack seems to think they have copyright authority..


sorry..but i smell BS..

Quote

| Feedback |
Sunday, Nov 14, 2004 Email this to a friend
print this page

Judgement is Gods' domain


There is an issue, which divides our community that bothers me greatly.

Believe me, I don't want to offend. Quite the opposite. My hope - forlorn no doubt - is to heal.

My church, the Anglican Church of Canada, is destroying itself over the issue of "blessing" gay unions and hasn't even reached the point of homosexual marriage. We have lost members over the issue and now a splinter group has started.

Let's be clear. We're talking about churches in the corporate sense. While some claim their interpretation of God's word ends the matter, I must respectfully disagree. We mortals can only try to interpret God's word and, I would argue, not enforce them, that being God's prerogative.

Here's where we get into trouble. Instead of humbly admitting we are merely interpreters who hope we're right, we judge and, indeed, impose penalties.


The cornerstone of Christian belief is the Bible. If it were easy to interpret, we would have one Christian Church, not thousands. The books that make up the Bible were selected by the delegates at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Many books were rejected. The council decided what the "real church" was and thus expelled a number of what then became heretical "sects", such as the Arians (in whom I'm beginning to have some interest). Since that time, of course, the church has split and splintered often over doctrinal matters.


Let's fast forward to the issue of homosexuality, something Jesus didn't refer to - even though, considering its prevalence, one might have thought He would have, had he been concerned about it. There are indictments against homosexuality, especially in Leviticus and the writings of St. Paul.

For the sake of this discourse, let's assume that, according to our reading of the Bible, it's forbidden. I don't believe it is, but let's cast aside that dispute for the moment.

The question now becomes, how do Christians treat those who practice homosexuality?

We can, of course, expel them from our own corporate version of Christianity. Simply cast them out to find God as they can. It follows from this that we would deny them the "services" of the church, such as baptism, burial and, of course marriage. But doing this seems to me to be an obvious rejection of what the church stands for, namely a gateway to forgiveness. We have chapels for sinners in prison and for those on the streets who sin with drugs and stealing for them. I think most Christians would agree we do not cast out sinners, but embrace them.

Let's get to the point. Do we permit homosexuals to partake of our services? Do we baptize them? Bury them? Marry them?

If you believe we members of corporate churches can make such judgments, that gives us the right to make such decisions that please us. But doesn't this get to the root of the matter? In saying "no" to any we consider sinners, aren't we rendering a judgment that is God's alone to make? And aren't we hypocrites to marry thieves, for example, yet reject gays, practicing or otherwise?

If sinners are to be denied the church's services, which sinners and what services? For Protestants, this shouldn't pose a problem. It was the essence of the Reformation that priests couldn't sell, or indeed grant, that which was God's prerogative alone. Clergymen in Protestant churches don't presume to "bless", they ask God's blessing - a very different thing. I'm bewildered that Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham hasn't made this point.

It seems to me Christians who decide what is right or wrong, and dispense or withhold church services based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures, are violating another very important Biblical injunction - "judge not, let ye be judged."

Copyright 2003 chilliwack

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[smiles 0]

Quote

so your going to STILL claim the majority of your post is in fact your own written words?

...you are using caps "STILL"

I posted that:

Quote

quite alot of my post

was inspired by Rafe Mair, .......are you dz.com's plagiarism cop?


SMiles

[Zenister 0]

looks like quite alot of your post was lifted straight from another source...

i'm just someone who values honesty, integrity and original thought.....attempting to pass off another's work and ideas as your own says alot about one's character...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[smiles 0]

Quote

looks like quite alot of your post was lifted straight from another source...

exactly.

Quote

i'm just someone who values honesty, integrity and original thought.....attempting to pass off another's work and ideas as your own says alot about one's character...

I am not honest, nor do I have integrity. I read someones original thoughts that correlated very close to my own, then I lifted straight from the original source (Rafe Mair "Rants and Rafe" titled "Bible is not that easy to interpret")
and changed it a little- then posted without citation to the original. You found a different source (copyright chilliwack 2004) than the original source I lifted from.
Rafe Mair's editorial commentary has been widely published in newspapers: (Vancouver Province, Financial Post, Georgia Straight, Vancouver Courier) and on daily radio shows. All give citation to Rafe Mair. Your source indicated copyright chilliwack 2004 without citation to Rafe Mair and wording very similar.

This says alot about my character and therefore you do not value me.

This also says alot about your character, nice to have met you.

SMiles

[pajarito 0]

Quote

yes i agree...a nice bit of religious commentaty.... of course i have to wonder why a christian would post it in a manner that appears as if they wrote it themselves.....


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=community/chilliwack&articleID=1766463


plagiarism should be a sin too....

Dooo!!! I agree with Zen. Busted..

[Zenister 0]

cant read?

i'm pretty sure 3 comes before 4...

how about you post a link to your source so we can compare then?? or are we expected to believe you recalled and retyped Rafe's commentary so precisely... but honestly it doesnt matter WHO the original source was.. the plagarism occured when you tried to pass it off as your own...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[smiles 0]

I read someones original thoughts that correlated very close to my own, then I lifted straight from the original source (Rafe Mair "Rants and Rafe" titled "Bible is not that easy to interpret")
and changed it a little- then posted without citation to the original.
---You found a different source (copyright chilliwack 2004) than the original source I lifted from.
Your source indicated copyright chilliwack 2004 without citation to Rafe Mair and wording very similar.

My source:

Quote

http://www.abbynews.com
The Abbotsford News
Opinion
Posted on Nov 23 2004

Rants and Rafe
By RAFE MAIR

Bible is not that easy to interpret.

My church, the Anglican Church of Canada, is destroying itself over the issue of "blessing" gay unions and hasn't even reached the point of homosexual marriage. We have lost members over the issue and now a splinter group has started.
Let's be clear. We're talking about churches in the corporate sense. While some claim their interpretation of God's word ends the matter, I must respectfully disagree. We mortals can only try to interpret God's word and, I would argue, not enforce them, that being God's prerogative. Here's where we get into trouble. Instead of humbly admitting we are merely interpreters who hope we're right, we judge and, indeed, impose penalties.
The cornerstone of Christian belief is the Bible. If it were easy to interpret, we would have one Christian Church, not thousands. The books that make up the Bible were selected by the delegates at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Many books were rejected. The council decided what the "real church" was and thus expelled a number of what then became heretical "sects", such as the Arians (in whom I'm beginning to have some interest). Since that time, of course, the church has split and splintered often over doctrinal matters.
Let's fast forward to the issue of homosexuality, something Jesus didn't refer to - even though, considering its prevalence, one might have thought He would have, had he been concerned about it. There are indictments against homosexuality, especially in Leviticus and the writings of St. Paul.
For the sake of this discourse, let's assume that, according to our reading of the Bible, it's forbidden. I don't believe it is, but let's cast aside that dispute for the moment.
The question now becomes, how do Christians treat those who practice homosexuality?
We can, of course, expel them from our own corporate version of Christianity. Simply cast them out to find God as they can. It follows from this that we would deny them the "services" of the church, such as baptism, burial and, of course marriage. But doing this seems to me to be an obvious rejection of what the church stands for, namely a gateway to forgiveness. We have chapels for sinners in prison and for those on the streets who sin with drugs and stealing for them. I think most Christians would agree we do not cast out sinners, but embrace them.
Let's get to the point. Do we permit homosexuals to partake of our services? Do we baptize them? Bury them? Marry them?
If you believe we members of corporate churches can make such judgments, that gives us the right to make such decisions that please us. But doesn't this get to the root of the matter? In saying "no" to any we consider sinners, aren't we rendering a judgment that is God's alone to make? And aren't we hypocrites to marry thieves, for example, yet reject gays, practicing or otherwise?
If sinners are to be denied the church's services, which sinners and what services? For Protestants, this shouldn't pose a problem. It was the essence of the Reformation that priests couldn't sell, or indeed grant, that which was God's prerogative alone. Clergymen in Protestant churches don't presume to "bless", they ask God's blessing-a very different thing. I'm bewildered that Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham hasn't made this point.
It seems to me Christians who decide what is right or wrong, and dispense or withhold church services based upon their interpretation of the Scriptures, are violating another very important Biblical injunction - "judge not, let ye be judged."

Quote

it doesnt matter WHO the original source was.. the plagarism occured when you tried to pass it off as your own...

exactly, my post was plagarism and also the source you gave link to (copyright chilliwack 2004) was plagarism.

You are not expected to believe anything you read, especially when posted by myself.
SMiles

[peregrinerose 0]

Don't take plagarism so lightly. I did an extensive research paper that was published. It took a lot of time and work, and about 60 sources were used (and documented). One of my professors had the balls to quote from it basically verbatim for a text he was working on and gave me no credit. Because I was 'only' a student and he was a prof he thought he could get away with it. I raised holy hell, probably could have gotten him fired if I really wanted to. The guy is a total joke and does this to a lot of his students. He doesn't have much respect in the field. Thanks to nepotism he got his job to begin with.

You lose all credence and respect when you plagarize, and really piss off the original author, even when you change a handful of words and pass it off as your own. Writers put a lot of time into writing and it's a pain in the ass sometimes to get writing into print. Don't take our work so lightly, it is extremely disrespectful. It's bad enough that you plagarized, but you have the balls to defend that plagarism and that makes it even worse.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[kallend 1,649]

To all those preaching about plagiarism, I have only one thing to say:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

To all those preaching about plagiarism, I have only one thing to say:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Well, at least you got the quote right...

But now you're plagiarizing Jesus for godsakes!

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

To all those preaching about plagiarism, I have only one thing to say:

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Well, at least you got the quote right...

But now you're plagiarizing Jesus for godsakes!

It's OK, the copyright expired.

Besides, Jesus said it in Aramaic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

geee and that was so hard wasnt it?? the simple use of url and qoute links to give proper credit... but then of course it would be obvious it wasnt your own original thought... but since you felt the need to edit it in a manner that made it appear it was, what were you really after??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.