Posted on 07/12/2006 10:43:24 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Forget about traditional morality—Christianity should focus on eradicating poverty, protecting the environment and ending the war in Iraq, according to the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, Dr. Bob Edgar.
“Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, never said one word about civil marriage or abortion,” said Dr. Edgar to CBS News at a recent gathering of liberal Christian leaders in Washington.
The gathering was the latest effort by the “religious left” to gain back some of the political power the group enjoyed during the 60’s and early 70’s. 30 years ago liberal religious leaders used their political influence to lead demonstrations against social injustices such as civil rights abuses and the Vietnam War. Once those issues left the spotlight, liberal Christianity lost focus and faded to the background.
Now, liberal Christian leaders are attempting to stage a return to power, targeting young voters and concentrating on increasing childcare funding and raising the minimum wage. The group wants to build a strong voter base to counter what it calls the “ground game” of the Christian right—the powerful voting block of traditional Christians that has significant influence on the country’s politics.
Finding a unifying message that will allow the group to achieve political clout has been a struggle, observers have said. The New York Times reported in May on an earlier meeting by liberal Christian activists in Washington, a brainstorming session concentrating on identifying the group’s goals.
During a session on ethical sexual behavior, the meeting bypassed discussion of concrete issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Instead, Rev. Ama Zenya of First Congregational Church in Oakland, California, directed the gathering to discuss their spiritual values and “to practice fully our authentic being,” reported the Times.
The results of the gathering were disappointing, said liberal Baptist minister Rev. Tony Campolo, who once acted as spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton, and attended the conference.
“We didn’t get on the same page with everyone, and it is about getting on the same page. The thing about the left is that they want everybody to feel good.”
Dr. Edgar, who has been general secretary of the NCC since 2000, was applauded by homosexual activist organizations shortly after his election for withdrawing his signature from an ecumenical statement in defence of traditional marriage, “A Christian Declaration on Marriage.”
Dr. Edgar also apologized to members of the homosexual community for originally endorsing the document, which was co-signed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Funny he never mentioned global warming either..
That would be the non-judgement.
His argument also ignores that the Didache is very clear in its condemnation of abortion and birth control. Is this man suggesting that those who wrote the Didache who were contemporaries ( if I remember rightly) of the Gospel writers would have written or preached something that contradicted what Jesus had passed on to His Church through the Apostles?. Why would they witness against abortion if Jesus and the Apostles were neuteral on the subject?
But I don't think that would matter to them anyway. To believe the teachings of the Apostles' are infallible you would have to believe that Scripture is infallible and without error. I bet NCC holds no such belief.
So what does it matter what any writing on Christian morality says. What matters to them is celebrating sin and degradation and sending more lost souls on the way to hell.
Just for starters, read Mark 10:6-9.
Dossier on The National Council of Churches:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6916
You're right. And they'll use the "turn the other cheek" line as proof Jesus SUPPORTS homosexuality... ;)
This will be a short course, I recommend you read the New Testament with an eye to that. Paul describes the separation of Christianity's adherance to the OT laws throughout many of his letters in the New Testament, the best being his letter to the Romans.
A dietary aspect of the law was in part decided early on:
Acts 21:25 - As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
The Ten Commandments are still in force, in Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus condensed them down into two fundamental commandments.
There are many others teachings by Jesus which clarified the OT laws. The degree to which we are required to hold to them is debatable on some measures, but by and large it is not too difficult to discern.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
The logic of this statement implies that it is impossible for a Christian to know with certainty what God wants and that sin is not real, but only subjective.
In reality, 99% of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Reformed - agreed on almost every last detail of this question until the 1930s.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
It's such a shame that they are more interested in a rhetorical game that suits their political beliefs, as opposed to arguing on the points, aka the beliefs expressed in the Gospels.
On grounds for divorce, Jews followed one of two main schools of thought in the time of Christ, Hillel or Shammai. Jesus trumped both schools, going all the way back to God's original intent for the human race:
Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So, yes, Jesus did address the homosexual issue. In trumping the Pharisees, in the process he also trumped the silly arguments of these defenders of homosexuality.
God instituted marraige between a man and woman, THIS is what "God hath joined together." No "man can put it asunder." No leftist religionist, no ruling of the SCOTUS.
Dr. Bob Edgar is a LIAR and he will pay heavy price for his deception.
"The liberal Christians would point out that Romans was not written by Jesus or can you attribute a direct quotation in Romans to Jesus regarding homosexuality."
Did Jesus ever speak out against shoplifting, child molestation or perjury?
It's beyond myopic. It's completely hollow.
St Paul and St Peter build the Christian church. Any person that rejects their words and acts is rejecting core Christian faith.
Too bad we must rely on Paul, and not an apostle.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Excellent way of putting it.
Paul was an Apostle.
The NCC and the DNC sh do have a thing with queers don't they? Fo De Chillins? I think not.
I don't recall the Master ever condemning rape, spousal abuse, child molestation...so they, too, must be ok. Right Dr. Edgar? Come to think of it, I don't recall Him saying much about people being idiots, which is certainly a point in your favor.
Jesus also never said anything about cannibalism, porn, or S&M.
These people are sick.
Your point is such an important one. It frustrates me how few Christians point to this key passage when radicals say Jesus never said anyting about homosexuality. The scriptures contain an even stronger argument for marriage that I also never hear made.
The reason or cause for marriage is the difference of the sexes. The fact that we are different-- male and female is the purpose that drives marriage.
Same sex marriage is immediately and necessarily NOT DIVERSE. The idea that is somehow indicates diversity is absurd. It is the embodiment of sexism-- yet no one ever points this out.
The most sincere experience that the average person will access in regard to diversity is a lifelong relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Same sex marrige is the walling out of the opposite sex and deeming them irrelevant to God's purpose.
I'm not a theologian, but my opinion is that the dietary and ritual laws (washing hands, pork, worship in the Temple, monthly uncleanliness of women, etc) do not apply to Christians, while the ones governing our relationship with our fellow man do.
Care for the poor, for example, does. Thou shalt not steal does also. How, oh how, to reconcile the two?? That is the liberal's dilemman as they do not want to share their own wealth.
Jesus said that that a man was to have one wife:
Matthew 19
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So I would say sexual immorality: adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. are still forbidden.
That's my take, anyway.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Jesus never told anyone to stop being Jewish. The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. He was observant to the end.
Another pick and chooser, never mind the fact that Chrisitanity relies on the entire bible and not just the portions that discuss when Jesus was alive.
Sickening.
The Eastern Orthodox believe in apostolic tradition, which most certainly does have something to say about sexual morality. Are they still going to support the National Council of Churches?
Jesus never said anything about cannibalism either, what's their point?
I can't; I have to assume that many of Jehovah's laws are so profoundly immoral by today's standards that Jesus can not and would not condone them.
That explains a LOT...
The reason he never spoke about any of these topics is that they were so against thousands of years of Jewish tradition and teachings that there was no need to discuss them.
As was the case in most Christian religions' traditions until late in the 20th century.
There is not the slightest implication in the original text that forcible intercourse is at issue.
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." (Romans 1:1 RSV)
OK, sure.
I will say that Paul's words are the hardest to believe.
In moments of doubt I can envision a clever and brilliant man, working for the Roman authorities who, I hope, was contacted by God and then created the modern church. I hope he has not led the world astray.
I say this not to damage the Church(as if I could), but because I believe the worst in people sometimes, and it is easier to have faith in God than in man.
NAS Hebrew Lexicon H8610 taphas H8610 taphas a prim. root; to lay hold of, wield Usage: arrested(2), capture(2), captured(8), caught(5), grasp(1), grasps(1), handle(4), handled(1), hold(1), lay hold(1), lays hold(1), occupy(1), overlaid(1), play(1), profane(1), seize(5), seized(13), seizes(1), surely be captured(1), take(3), taken over(1), took(3), took hold(3), wielding(1), wields(1).
We can see in Judges here that the word for rape is different from the Deut 22:28
NASB with Strong's Numbers Judges 19:25 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they raped H3045 her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn.
NAS Hebrew Lexicon H3045 yada H3045 yada a prim. root; to know Usage: ability(1), acknowledge(4), acknowledged(2), acquaintances(5), acquainted(1), aware(6), becomes known(1), bring forth(1), cared(1), chosen(2), clearly understand(2), cohabit(1), comprehend(1), concern(2), concerned(1), consider(3), declare(1), detected(1), directed(1), discern(2), disciplined(1), discovered(3), distinguish(1), endowed(3), experienced(4), experiences(1), familiar friend(1), find(5), found(1), gain(1), had knowledge(1), had relations(6), had...relations(1), has(1), has regard(1), has...knowledge(1), have(4), have relations(3), have...knowledge(2), ignorant*(1), illiterate*(1), indeed learn(1), inform(1), informed(4), instruct(3), instructed(1), intimate friends(1), investigate(2), knew(38), know(542), know for certain(4), know with certainty(1), know assuredly(1), know well(1), knowing(5), knowledge(4), known(65), knows(54), knows well(1), lain*(1), leading(1), learn(7), learned(1), literate*(1), made himself known(2), made it known(1), made myself known(2), made known(10), make himself known(1), make his known(1), make it known(1), make my known(1), make myself known(4), make them known(1), make your known(1), make yourself known(1), make known(14), notice(2), observe(2), perceive(1), perceived(1), possibly know(1), predict(1), professional mourners(1), provided(1), raped(1), read*(1), realize(1), realized(5), recognize(2), recognized(1), regard(1), satisfied*(1), seems(1), show(3), shown(1), skillful(3), sure(1), take knowledge(1), take note(1), take notice(1), taught(2), teach(6), tell(3), tells(1), took notice(1), unaware*(1), unawares*(1), understand(10), understands(1), understood(3), unknown*(1), very well know(1), well aware(1).
Judaism recognized the need for divorce. Where it differs with Christianity in its avoidance of an impossible ideal and the need to live life in accodance with God's will...
"Judaism recognized the need for divorce."
So did Jesus.
"Where it differs with Christianity in its avoidance of an impossible ideal and the need to live life in accodance with God's will."
You seem to be missing the original intent. One man, one woman was God's will. An adulterous relationship? No. That was NOT God's will.
Up until the last 50 years ago in the USA, especially since "no fault" divorce has been implemented, continued faithful marraige relationships "until death do us part" was assumed. It was NOT the "impossible ideal" as you say. Nowadays, people are brainwashed by the liberals to think it is.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
"I'm not a Christian, but I do have a question. Which old laws not longer applied after Christ and which ones still do? Any resources on this? I've always been curious about this aspect of Christianity."
The laws that Jesus made reference to. Example: When asked what is the greated law? Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,....Love your neighbor as yourself." Matt. 22:37-39. You might say that is only two. What about the other eight? If you recall, the first 3 commandments are about God. The other 7 commandments are about relationship to fellow men.
I have never heard anyone make that claim before.
But even should I concede your point, what about the genocide?
What about instructing the army to keep virgin girls as spoils of war? What about being required to marry rdead brother's wife? What about slavery.
Jehovah's laws are full of things which we will rightly reject today.
LOL!
I used TNIV but again this verse is just one of many.
Jehovah's laws were very often evil by today's standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.