Yes, Opinionated2, Jesus creates problems for fundamentalists. And for all other Christians too. The specific challenge you raise here pretty much turns on what Jesus meant by ‘the Law’. Only if he meant ‘every rule ever written in the OT’ would Meg1 and I be busy stockpiling stones. But as Jesus himself breaks so many of the old rules, he can’t mean this. Does he mean the ten commandments? If so, we have less of a problem, as most Christians regard these as still pretty much binding.
Another way of understanding the passage is to consider Jesus’ phrase ‘until all is accomplished’ in verse 18. If this refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection, then everything changes after those events. This seems to be St Paul’s understanding in Ephesians 2. There are other interpretations available too.
So Christians may have a problem. But I’m not sure it is all that huge. The main thrust of Jesus’s teaching is freedom and love. He is just not interested in passing judgment on peoples’ private lives provided they honour God and love others. This is where Jesus and his followers were so radically different from the prevailing religious authorities, and such a threat to them. For me, the problem is not understanding Jesus’ teaching, but living it. On the oppression of homosexuals, O2, I agree.

Alan,

TY for your reply.

I would argue something way different to you.

In Matthew 5,6,7 Jesus selectively changes some laws and gives greater guidance on Anger, Adultery (nearly everyone is an adulterer by this measure), Judging Others, Divorce (anti-women), revenge, Love for enemies etc.

But before doing so in (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus, emphatically empowers the laws of Moses and the prophets.

Now assuming this book is chronologically correct (none of us can prove this though) Jesus only modified some laws.

Now added to this, Jesus is allegedly the greatest being in the Universe and beyond, even though in John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" he contradicts this explicitly.

Surely the greatest mind other than God's would know what he was saying and how it would be correctly or incorrectly construed by his followers.

To not believe this is actually calling Jesus and God a little thick? I think Jesus/God might be a little insulted! Would this constitute blasphemy? OOps here we go stoning people again.

Now Meg you have shot yourself in the foot again.

<<Bishop Bathersby's been tolerant for a long time, he's obliged to act>>

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25083343-3102,00.html

If this is true, wasn't he obliged to act here, also? See the problem?

That is why I likened the St Mary's people to the people at the Sermon on the Mount ... They didn't count the homosexuals in attendance there!

Your comments of infallibility regarding the Pope are not born out by history. Here check for yourself.

http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm

Some of these are even confirmed although less vividly in the Catholic Encyclopaedia!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Also on the haulocast denying Bishop http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpAv-XCnRkh9A6YycUSb9_omKvuw

My last question on the Catholic Encyclopaedia is why did they stop at St Pius X? They say they will add the rest at a later date... Why when it is more fresh in their minds now?

(Cont...)
Distinct similarities to crowds demanding Christ's crucifixion-ignoring right-from-wrong or recognising His efforts to work with and heal them? Whose 'crucifixion' are you calling for? Bishop Bathersby consistently worked to negotiate a reasonable outcome. His efforts were rebuffed until the media circus was put in place by Fr Kennedy...crowd psychology works every time...still after 2000 years!

Interestingly, Fr Kennedy seems more rigid than any I've seen in the Church, 'one-way-or-the-highway' – you can't use traditional Church liturgies, you're given the 'sheets',i.e.,'Fr Kennedy's approved' script. Sounds hypocritical when he's preaching 'choices'.

If Fr Kennedy feels the issue is faith, why not trust in his god-budha or one of the
many race and religious icons that clutter St Mary's church and start up his own, 'on faith' with his 'loyal' band of media tarts. I wonder how many would be there to support him then? I wonder how many really give a damn about what he does at St Mary's or why? I wonder why so many of his usual congregation were absent from the church on that day? I wonder why so many conscripts from MardiGras fame turned up to denigrate all things Catholic...and Christian, especially the Pope. Close your eyes, roll the tape and you'll be listening to the same verbiage and bile that spews out at MardiGras in Sydney, same sentiments, different location.

...tolerance, acceptance and unity...that sounds more like what the Church is asking for...not the disunity and intolerance Fr Kennedy directs towards Catholics and priests who're quietly living by Christ's teachings and are labelled most dispicably and without cause by his actions and those supporting his actions in the media 'rent-a-crowd'. God laid down the commandments, and the greatest of His teachings is to Love God and Love one another...that does not mean that we have to condone or love what goes against the teachings of Christ or His Commandments...there's the difference. Love the sinner...not the sin.

St Michaels is irrelevant to St Mary's at every level.

Jesus refers to 10Commandments – not Deteronomy, o2...you're selectively blind. Do you suggest rape's equivalent to homosexuality? Odd suggestion...'at-this-point,-you-have-a-huge-problem...

Meg, I'm selectively blind? lol

Jesus appears to be beating you Meg!

Are you reading Matthew 5:17-20 with an angry mind? (OOps Matthew 5:22)

17... "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" - Very explicit!

18...not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until ALL is accomplished. - Super explicit!

To argue this only refers to the commandments is being very selective. Jesus mentions the law twice! He does mention the commandments in 20 but he speaks explicitly about the law prior to it.

Are you selective with the Archbishop's, as you called it, "obligation to act"? Do you want him to act on Father Kennedy but ignore what the article alleged?

<<He taught that no sin is unforgiveable...REPENT>>

He also taught "Do not Judge others" Matthew 7:1-5. Are you judging Meg? Sin!

Matthew 7:4-5 How's that log in your eye Meg? Sin!

Father Kennedy has you fired up... Is name calling representing your faith in Jesus and the image of Catholicism well?

Do you really love the sinner? Didn't you call those horrid sinners "rent-a-crowd"?

Did Jesus need you at the the Sermon on the Mount to clear out "rent-a-crowd"?

Jesus never said "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" but he did say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12 How are you doing with that one Meg?

And whilst we're at it ...How many buildings did Jesus build? I was always taught the Church was the people, not the building! How do we get so far off the word of Jesus in only 2000 odd years?

Is it that man through the churches started to make things up?

Dear Meg1,

One Jew who was never a Christian is Jesus Christ. If you were really a follower of his you would follow his religion not a religion set up by other people. I wrote a song on the subject which I sang on the radio to the tune of the old jazz standard.

The Imitation of Christ (consult your local rabbi!)

6 ft 2
Eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Big hooked nose
There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows.
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Speared in the abdomen
By a Roman,
Blood gushing out.

Rose from the dead,
So it is said.
People believe without a doubt.

Jesus died,
Still a Jew.
Still a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Should be backed up by a moldy fig jazz band with a lead wahwah cornet ala Muggsy Spanier

Good night,

David

alan:

>>My point in raising those questions was to clarify Meg’s understanding of homosexuality ...

thanks for trying, but you've done no such thing. let's try to get to this.

>> The bizarre stories of conquests, slaughters and supernatural visitations are read by many Christian today as parabolic.
>> ... they can be instructive without being true.

Yes, but the fact that they are not true does not help them be instructive. if you claim they are instructive, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that.

>>Similarly many ancient commandments are read today as intriguing insights into ... a primitive - and sometimes appallingly cruel – early society.

sure. isn't this what i was indicating by referring to such writings as historical artifacts?
you used the word "inspired", but that seems wrong. it's not that the nasty lines are inspired, it's that they may inspire reflection from the reader.

but then the same can be said of any text which delves deeply into the good or the bad of human nature. in that sense, OT nastiness is, um, inspiring in exactly the same manner as Mein Kampf.

but let's be specific.

1) take one of the verses you quoted:

>> Stubborn children must be killed by stoning. Deut 21:21

alan, what do YOU gain from this line? i gain nothing, but horror and disgust. for the people who wrote it, and for anyone who did or does anoint such a line, in any way shape or form.

2) alan, do YOU regard homsexuality as immoral? if so, why?

you have no obligation to answer, but is it unfair of me to ask? i don't see why. you can chat all you want about meaning and parables, and inspiration. but for me it doesn't have substance unless you address it to a substantive question.

meg ducked. what is your response?