 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ron
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Location: home, wa, usa
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Smilin' Jacks"] | Ron wrote: | | Smilin' Jacks wrote: | Didn't the Pharisees construct their arguments using similar logic?
No, not really. They added to God's Word to fill their own laws, traditions of man. Remember when Jesus told them they follow traditions of man over the Word of God. I have not added anything to His Word, but rather point out the clarity in which He addressed this question. |
Our laws haven't? The Talmud the Pharisees studied is of a similar vein to our Magna Carta, the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and every other codified law in the land. Our "laws" are no different and they've added just as much (if not more) than was added to the Talmud.
|
You have switched the subject and context. Our laws indeed are based on biblical principles. But that is not what we were discussing.
I was showing how Scripture is explicit on the subject of homosexuality. You stated that I was inferring this of my own accord and that was how the Pharasees established their laws.
I then pointed out that the Pharasees valued their own traditions over the Word of God.
My point in context is that homosexual behavior is explicitly prohibited through God's Word. Nothing added to Scripture brings us to this conclusion- Scripture itself is very clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ron
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Location: home, wa, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Smilin' Jacks"] | RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm sorry, but if I see a person steal, I know they are sinning. If I hear a person lie, I know they are sinning. |
And therein lies the 'sin' of judging...  |
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
An error widely spread is that we are not to judge. The above passage makes clear the context of our judgment. If one considers himself a brother, we are to correct, rebuke, admonish his sinful behavior.
The beginning of this chapter sums up quite well just what our attitude should be-
1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles-that a man has his father's wife!
1Cor 5:2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.
The deed is different. The treatment is the same. We are to mourn our brothers' sins, not let then revel in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron wrote: | They added to God's Word to fill their own laws, traditions of man.
Our laws haven't? The Talmud the Pharisees studied is of a similar vein to our Magna Carta, the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and every other codified law in the land. Our "laws" are no different and they've added just as much (if not more) than was added to the Talmud.
You have switched the subject and context. Our laws indeed are based on biblical principles. But that is not what we were discussing. |
I disagree - parallel statement, parallel principles...
| Quote: | | My point in context is that homosexual behavior is explicitly prohibited through God's Word. |
God's Word? The only thing I've seen remotely connected to homosexuality in "God's Word" is from Leviticus, where the prohibition against lying with another male as a woman does "may have been prompted by a concern that Israel not adopt the ways of Egypt and Canaan. Neither here nor elsewhere in the OT is female homosexuality mentioned." (Harper's Bible Dictionary)
Civil prohibition, then, is the basis for the text...And civil prohibition to me means laws similar to the Magna Carta, et al. 8)
| Quote: | | Nothing added to Scripture brings us to this conclusion- Scripture itself is very clear. |
Of course it is. That's why for two millenia man has fought wars over it's interpretations.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Da Blonde Bombshell
Cobra
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 461
Location: Brooklyn NY (formerly TX)
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | A just God would never ever create a small group of people with a different capacity to love than the vast majority, ridiculed and oppressed by that huge majority, and tell them: "Everyone else can have a soul mate of their own choosing toward which they have a physical bond, but you lot cannot ere ye defy me". No, a God who would do such a thing would not be just at all, and would not be worthy to worship whatsoever. |
and by whose authority do you decide what a 'just' God would or wouldn't do? His? God is not one to whom we can chant the saying of the day "We're *Man's Man* and we're here, so you better get used to it!" God, the God of the Scriptures is the one who makes the call on who He does or does not accept, He makes the call on behaviors or actions that He does or does not accept - not us. |
If it were you I'd want to be sure I was worshipping a God of Love rather than a Devil of Evil. The way you suggest that being a sycophant toward whomever has the power is the way to go rather than evaluating who it is you are worshipping indicates you don't care.
Of course, God said zero about homosexuality so the entire concept is immaterial anyway.
| Quote: | | Scripture tells us that adultery, lust, fornication, drunkenness, slander, hate, etc. are all sins - and we accept that, but you take 'homosexuality' out of the same scriptures, standing side by side with the other sins as a matter of fact, and say that this one thing that scripture speaks against is not from God, and only a construct, or misinterpretation of man? Where is the logic in that? |
All the knowledge of the universe is not contained in scripture. Truth is continually being revealed. People can see homosexuality does not belong in that series at all. To have a capacity to love is not a bad thing.
The logic in misinterpreting a form of love as a sin is not unlike the words of those who told the Wright Brothers "Man was not meant to fly!" Psychology and sociology are often considered enemies by fundamentalism and with good reason: scientific knowledge trumps superstition every time. We know more about homosexuality than the ancients could have ever conceived. They were mistaken in many concepts and some such as Paul were blinded by their own sins.
| Quote: | | Ever hear the saying "God doesn't make junk"? This unfortunate method of fundamentalists-applied it seems to everyone but themselves-does not hold up. People are corrupt, yes, but they are good as well. It is the nature of duality of people. There is absolutely no absolute corruption to anyone. |
A nice saying, but not scripture.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed-superior to scripture, as are all products of the human mind.
| Quote: | | God did not make junk in the begining, He made perfect humans, without sin, without blemish, without error. Man made the decision to disobey, and seperate himself from God. His fate from that point on was sealed. He had corrupted himself and his nature and the nature of all his decendents - that is scripture. People are corrupt at their very being, it is a fact of God's Word, and He gave them up to their corruption. Anything truly good in man comes from God, not himself. |
So all you have done is posit a religion of self-hatred. This nonsense is not going to sell very well. I truly feel sorry for any fundamentalists foolish enough to believe such nonsense.
If such were so, preachers, deacons etc. would be entirely useless. None are worhty to have any authority over others nor to finger point at sins of others as they love to do. They should be regarded when they do these things as DSM-IV diagnosable.
| Quote: | | the world is not black and white; there are considerable shades of gray |
The world may be grey, but scripture is pretty black and white, it doesn't prevaricate or obfuscate - those are traits of men, not God.[/QUOTE]
Wrong again. If what you say was so we wouldn't have disagreements as Christians about scripture. As it is there's little in the Bible you can't find contrary interpretations of within minutes.
| Quote: | | Mature Christians realize the Bible is not in any sense to be taken literally |
So mature Christians should understand that the four Gospels are all a story and the life of Christ was not real? Mature Christians are to understand that Jesus' commandments to 'Love your God with all your heart, mind, body and soul, and to love your brother as yourself' are not to be taken literally and are only a metaphor for something else?[/quote]
To those invested emotionally in the fundamentalist error, exagerration and silly arguments to ridiculous extremes like this one are often a response, but clearly only a defense mechanism and cannot be seriously pursued.
It might be suggested that reading Reading the Bible Again for the first
Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally by Marcus borg might help those willing to grow in faith.
| Quote: | | The assumption you "know" someone else is sinning is offensive and inapppropriate. You are in no position whatosever to have any even slight ability to discern that in any form. Your proper task would be to look in the mirror before you look out the window, especially in the form of heaping oppression on already oppressed people. Shame. |
I'm sorry, but if I see a person steal, I know they are sinning. If I hear a person lie, I know they are sinning. [/QUOTE]
If you've never read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables you should. From your viewpoint the obsessive Inspector Javert would be a hero, which shows well how legalism and fundamentalism perverts one's soul.
| Quote: | | As Christians we are to judge fellow believers if they are living a life of sin. We are to confront them and encourage them in remedying their ways. As for the rest of the world - it is not our place to put judgements upon them for their actions, but to spread the good news of Christ. |
What smugness and arrogance you possess! You definitely need to spend more time looking in that mirror. You appear incapable of abilities of discernment to judge anything making such unfortunate remarks.
| Quote: | | I'm sorry if you come to a bible-discussion board and find posts that say that homosexuality is wrong and choose to feel that it is oppression. |
Sir, that is no "feeling": it is reality. Mislabeling a form of love as sin is nothing but bigotry and oppression.
| Quote: | I can only base my position on scripture. I have in the past been proven wrong through scripture (in fact this subject is one of the areas which I have had to change my way of thinking - because of the truth of scripture). Scripture says the very nature of man is corrupt. It follows logically that anything that eminates from man's nature would be corrupt - this includes religion as well as the 'nature of homosexuality'. I may not completely agree with positions of scripture in certain respects (women pastors or turning the other cheek, or committed, loving homosexual relationships) but I'm not given the choice to pick and choose what I want to beleive, if I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I have to accept what it says, understand it through study, prayer and meditation, and let the Holy Spirit lead me to illumination.
My nature is corrupt, and my understanding of God's plan is likely corrupt without the guidance of the Spirit. In this case the Spirit has guided me and I will rely on the wisdom of God's Word versus the desires of humanity. |
All you are doing is arguing while digging yourself deeper in a hole. You are only fooling yourself-I notice you didn't comment on the series of verses I cited elsewhere, reproduced here for your convenience:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
These are but illustrations of the folly of fundamentalism and prove the bankruptcy and hypocricy of your position. If you choose to take some verses literally that confirm your prejudices-like those which appear to apply to homosexuality-but not these-and say you do so because you take the Bible literally-you are either lying or being willfully ignorant: whining "please don't confuse me with the facts!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Da Blonde Bombshell
Cobra
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 461
Location: Brooklyn NY (formerly TX)
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron wrote: | | homosexual behavior is explicitly prohibited through God's Word. Nothing added to Scripture brings us to this conclusion- Scripture itself is very clear. |
Theologians significantly disagree on the matter as do everyday Christians, which proves it is anything but "very clear". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron
Grizzly Bear
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750
Location: home, wa, usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me first remind you, DBB, of some interesting comments of your last post, then a comment:
| Da Blonde Bombshell wrote: |
Of course, God said zero about homosexuality so the entire concept is immaterial anyway.
All the knowledge of the universe is not contained in scripture. Truth is continually being revealed.
Psychology and sociology are often considered enemies by fundamentalism and with good reason: scientific knowledge trumps superstition every time. We know more about homosexuality than the ancients could have ever conceived. They were mistaken in many concepts and some such as Paul were blinded by their own sins.
Indeed-superior to scripture, as are all products of the human mind.
Wrong again [refering to Scripture being black and white]. If what you say was so we wouldn't have disagreements as Christians about scripture. As it is there's little in the Bible you can't find contrary interpretations of within minutes.
| Quote: | | As Christians we are to judge fellow believers if they are living a life of sin. We are to confront them and encourage them in remedying their ways. As for the rest of the world - it is not our place to put judgements upon them for their actions, but to spread the good news of Christ. |
Mislabeling a form of love as sin is nothing but bigotry and oppression.
These are but illustrations of the folly of fundamentalism and prove the bankruptcy and hypocricy of your position. If you choose to take some verses literally that confirm your prejudices-like those which appear to apply to homosexuality-but not these-and say you do so because you take the Bible literally-you are either lying or being willfully ignorant: whining "please don't confuse me with the facts!" |
I must ask you to what definition do you profess your brand of Christianity. Is Christianity not following the teachings of Jesus and the Word of God? To be Christ-like?
You are attempting to bridge Chrsitianity to relativism. You say "truth is continually being revealed". How can you justify carrying the name of Christ with statements such as these above? The products of the human mind are superior to Scripture????? And I was accused of using Pharasee reasoning!!!!!
I will comment on the verses you posted. Each and every one of them is fulfilled in the Work of Christ on the Cross. He makes all things new. A new covenant. Not a disposing of the old but a fulfillment of it.
Would you care to comment on the Scriptures I posted? And you can restrict your comments to New Testament passages only if you like.
Long ago we were all given great caution against these hypocracies in Christ's teaching that you are spreading in an attempt to justify what you know to be sinful behavior. I could cite verse after verse to show you the "folly of your pposition".
What makes me really scratch my head is why in the world would you call yourself a Christian??? That is incomprehensible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Da Blonde Bombshell wrote: | | Of course, God said zero about homosexuality so the entire concept is immaterial anyway. |
True. You are right, of course...
| Quote: | | All the knowledge of the universe is not contained in scripture. Truth is continually being revealed. (...) To have a capacity to love is not a bad thing. |
I include these two statements together for a reason - isn't love for one another and love for God what Scripture is about? Isn't that the Truth of God? 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron wrote: | | Long ago we were all given great caution against these hypocracies in Christ's teaching that you are spreading in an attempt to justify what you know to be sinful behavior. I could cite verse after verse to show you the "folly of your pposition". |
No doubt you could but that would neither prove the sin, nor the sinner in anyone's mind but your own.
| Quote: | | What makes me really scratch my head is why in the world would you call yourself a Christian??? That is incomprehensible. |
I am a Christian. I also believe several things that DBB has posited here are correct: there is no admonition by God against love, and I believe DBB has refuted a number of times the arguments presented here - chapter and verse notwithstanding. 8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
feetxxxl
Sea Monkey
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 13
Location: houston texas
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i think you should reconsider the issue about natural. my understanding of god is that he allows for all possibilities and forms . believers have a tendency be worshipful of a specific form. example, interracial marriages were also considered against god, sighting chapter and verse. you can antidote history with examples of prohibitions based on some conceived idea about god's order. instead consider that the unnatural would be about issues of spirit. like natural being the fruits of spirit galatians being exchangedfor lusts of the natural man. does a man lust after his wife or a wife her husband. surely this would be a prescription for divorce. how can a man honor what he lusts after. a man is suppose leave his parents and cleave to another. to lust after this individual would be a desecration. consider that the exchange of lustful relations for human bonding and intimacy as the natural being exchanged for the unnatural. the reason i say this, is because committed homosexual relationships have been found to exude the fruits of the spirit of galatians, the same as heterosexual married couples. also the the sexual intimacy that they express in those relation ships enhances those same fruits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Da Blonde Bombshell
Cobra
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 461
Location: Brooklyn NY (formerly TX)
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good post, feetxxl, and welcome.
Would you be able to give the chapter and verse of Galatians you referred to? Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| feetxxxl wrote: | | does a man lust after his wife or a wife her husband. surely this would be a prescription for divorce. how can a man honor what he lusts after. a man is suppose leave his parents and cleave to another.. |
Good post.
One of the issues that is not addressed here or in the NT is the Jewish thought of the dual nature of God - male and female. The "cleaving" referred to is the symbolic union of the two halves of the Creative Spirit into one...
8) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| feetxxxl wrote: | | i think you should reconsider the issue about natural. my understanding of god is that he allows for all possibilities and forms . believers have a tendency be worshipful of a specific form. example, interracial marriages were also considered against god, sighting chapter and verse. you can antidote history with examples of prohibitions based on some conceived idea about god's order. instead consider that the unnatural would be about issues of spirit. like natural being the fruits of spirit galatians being exchangedfor lusts of the natural man. does a man lust after his wife or a wife her husband. surely this would be a prescription for divorce. how can a man honor what he lusts after. a man is suppose leave his parents and cleave to another. to lust after this individual would be a desecration. consider that the exchange of lustful relations for human bonding and intimacy as the natural being exchanged for the unnatural. the reason i say this, is because committed homosexual relationships have been found to exude the fruits of the spirit of galatians, the same as heterosexual married couples. also the the sexual intimacy that they express in those relation ships enhances those same fruits. |
It would appear that you have made some people think. Good job. It's always a good thing when you make people think. It's sad when some don't realize that they go to the bible, to a specific text, to justify themselves, but they have an excuse in a similar situation. For example, a christian can go to the bible to prove that anyone who denies Christ (who is not a christian) is not of God, but at the same time, if you go to the bible to a text that seemingly justifies the acceptance of slavery, what you will get is a, "Yeah, but..." This response implies that the text does say this, but there is something else we have to consider. Whatever it is that has to be considered no doubt results in slavery not being acceptable. Regardless of the fact that it was acceptable in bible times. Why can there be a "Yeah, but..." about slavery and its acceptance in the bible by Paul and not a "Yeah, but..." about other things said in the bible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Da Blonde Bombshell wrote: | Good post, feetxxl, and welcome.
Would you be able to give the chapter and verse of Galatians you referred to? Thanks. |
That reference may be Galatians 5:22. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Slavery again? See the other thread for a response to that.
As for the rest of your post.... prooftexting, removal of scripture from context and biblical concept can aid a person in supporting any point or view they wish to champion. It does not mean that The Word truly supports those issues.
Homosexuality is clearly a sin, there is no escaping that biblical fact without twisting scripture, washing away its truth with imagined cultural nuances, or simply refusing to believe what is written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Slavery again? See the other thread for a response to that.
As for the rest of your post.... prooftexting, removal of scripture from context and biblical concept can aid a person in supporting any point or view they wish to champion. It does not mean that The Word truly supports those issues.
Homosexuality is clearly a sin, there is no escaping that biblical fact without twisting scripture, washing away its truth with imagined cultural nuances, or simply refusing to believe what is written. |
When Paul says to a slave to remain a slave if he/she cannot be free, is this not condoning slavery? Why not announce slavery wrong right from the get go and put an end to it? Besides, who says that I have to believe what is written? Where is it written or instructed HOW to read the scriptures? I don't view the bible as the word of God. Only Jesus as the word of God. To me, there is a difference. Jesus himself corrected the misunderstandings of scripture by infallible humans. "You've heard it told in the days of old...but I say to you this...." (paraphrasing). Just because you may be a literalist or fundamentalist reader, does not mean everyone who values learning from the bible should approach it in the same manner as you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
