Re: It seems...
Submitted by ATN on 2002-09-3 23:39:58, Tuesday
In reply to Re: It seems... submitted by JohnDoe420 on 2002-09-3 19:39:15, Tuesday
|
True - I was relying on a consensus of biblical scholars; the bible itself never mentions a specific age. All right -- and that is certainly interesting for discussion in itself, but you will forgive me if I don't allow myself to consider any argument based purely on it particularly important. Oh, my... now you're ascribing to me a religion, a hatred of another religion, and an intent to attack Christianity? Such was the opinion I had formed based on other posts; if it was incorrect I apologize. Why was the Samaritan not condemned by Jesus for being a Samaritan, alone? And what, pray tell, accorded this one Samaritan the respect the ages have shown him? First of all, Samaritan is an ethnic designation, and Jesus never condemned anybody for that (although during the duration of the Old Covenant He continued to favor the Jews in a few instances). It has nothing to do with behavior. In this instance, He was using a despised individual (a Samaritan) to drive home the importance of loving our fellow men and treating them that way... and if you mean to suggest that many in the modern church have lost sight of that, I will not try to argue. I will also point out, though, that many have not, and have even managed to embrace it and orthodox Christian theology at the same time. He did, didn't he - but he also did not spend much time helping men who were righteous and Godly in the sight of the people, saying that they already have their reward in full, and doing little but to condemn them. Why did 'upstanding, important citizens, and members of the priesthood' earn so much ire? I don't think it was upstanding, important citizens who earned ire; look at the rich young ruler and the centurion ("I have not seen such faith...") The ones who had received their reward in full were those who were doing good works, but with the motive of getting praise. What He wanted was genuine repentance and humility; see the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. Well, I dare say - that's far better than lynching them, IMO. I would go so far as to say that anybody who linches somebody for being homosexual is no Christian at all or, worse, is a Christian who has spit in the face of God's mercy. 2000 years later, how do we judge - by the scandal of it all, by the fact that they are one of 'them' - or by the heart, the love and goodness shown? Yes, I think that's very well put. Love and goodness.... I think both. Love (and accompanying actions) and righeousness are both totally vital for Christians. 2000 years later - Samaritans now accepted - if a known pedophile showed kindess to an injured child, tending their wounds, taking their unconscious form to a hotel for an evening - is there a church in the land who would not fear for the child in the merciless clutches of such a predator? I suppose that depends... in the case of some pedophiles, their fear would be well justified, and so if ignorance causes them to expand the fear to all, the only motive may yet be genuine love and concern for the child. The more understanding may appreciate the genuinely good work the pedophile is doing, and love him for it, but mourn at the loss he is causing himself through his continuing sin (if he is active). This is what I wonder - is there even Christianity? There is. And for the last 2000 years, it has existed in its best and purest form among the rank and file, with a few exceptions among the prominent; it continues so today. I think it is important to maintain the distinction between what is required of a Christian (a great deal) and what is required in another for a Christian to love him (nothing whatsoever). God bless, ATN |
Follow ups: