Are you saying that because it's something you don't like?
I'm saying it because none of us were there, so we don't know what actually happened, or what was actually said.
So....he should tell her to sin just a little bit? That's silly. The goal is to be perfect as our Father is perfect, even if it's unreachable in our current state.
So you'd rather presume that Jesus went around placing irrational demands on people?
It's true he didn't speak about homosexuality but you don't know why he didn't. Neither do I. But if you are saying he was OK with it then you are speculating more than those who would say Jesus wasn't.
I'm saying the provincial religious biases of the day are irrelevant. Jesus did explain sin to us. And as he explained it, it is something that occurs in us by the motive of our heart and mind. Not by breaking some ancient religious rule.
I actually haven't said anything about my views on homosexuality. That's more of your projection. And again, you accuse others of being so stuck in such-and-such and fail to see the irony/hypocrisy because you appear to be so stuck in your own thinking.
My views on homosexuality are irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm not trying to convince you to believe it's a sin, or even to support what this church did. My main point in talking to you has been about your unfair assumptions and accusations about why this church's leadership did what they did.
All you're doing is trying to deflect the sting of the accusation by accusing the accuser. And the only people who will fall for that are those who will fall for anything, no matter how silly or unreasoned, so long as it thwarts an accusation that they don't want to face.
It's not really authoritarian. They aren't forcing him to do anything. Membership means A, B, and C and this guy rejects C so they cut out the membership. It's not really punishment and it's not authoritarian, unless you think any/all membership is authoritarian. They aren't even banning him from the church completely.
The whole point is to punish him, and anyone else, for not accepting their beliefs as facts of God. The only legal way they have of doing that is to reject him and shun him. Of course it's authoritarianism. The whole point is that the theology club maintains it's illusion of self-righteous authority. Otherwise, they wouldn't care if he agreed with them, or not.
"Emptiness of religious dogma", but you appear to be calling the law that Jesus upheld 'religious dogma'. Jesus is hard to grasp. For all you accuse them of worshiping ancient Judaism you are worshiping a few statements from Jesus that are nice and non-judgmental. Jesus can't be pigeon-holed.
It's true, he was an ancient Jew, and as such supported their beliefs and rituals. Yet it's also true that they murdered him for daring to speak of a higher, spiritual way of living, that supersedes their dogmatic traditional religious rule. It's also true that Jews, then and now, do not proselytize, nor seek conversions. And yet Jesus did preach to anyone who would listen, and did admonish his followers to do the same (supposedly).
So he is somewhat of a dichotomy, and that's all the more reason for us
not to presume he was preaching adherence to ancient Judaism.
I find it interesting that in one sentence you say most sins are unconscious and then later say (and in other places) that sin is in the motive. Are people unconscious of their motives? :idunno:
Yes, much of the time, we are. Often, deliberately so.