 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6065
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | FFT, I refer to this last line by eskibbubub.. whatever: | ekspiulo wrote: | | For this reason, you will not get much of a response from these fundamentalist hate-mongers. They don't know what to say. |
I simply understood that to mean that he was not referring to the fundamentalist hate mongers out in the world but the ones that apparently are members of this board. |
Strange, the last time you tried to subtly attack me you defended yourself by pointing out that you hadn't labelled me specifically (despite the fact that you were clearly talking about me).  Strange how it doesn't work that way now.
| RevJP wrote: | | FFT; there is nothing referring to ritual homosexual sex in that chapter. |
"תועבה" (Original Hebrew abomination/detestable act/whatever) is equivalent to "wrong worship." "βδελυγμα" (Original Greek abomination/detestable act/whatever) is equivalent to "ritual uncleanliness."
| RevJP wrote: | | Leviticus 18:1-30 AMP |
You're not going to get anywhere with an English translation, and you're certainly not going to make any progress with the joke that is the Amplified Bible.
| RevJP wrote: | | I understand that some WANT to blend verse 21 with 22 and say they are combined and that only gay sex while worshipping Molech is an abomination, but linguistically, literally, and grammatically that is not a correct reading of the passage. |
Strange, then, that 18:6-18:20 is about relatives you can't have sex with, but then 18:21 is about a pagan religious ritual (sending your kids to become temple prostitutes) and 18:23 is about a pagan religious ritual (I don't know why they thought having sex was a good way to get in touch with their god, but by Jove they did it). But 18:22 isn't at all related to pagan religious rituals? How does that work, linguistically, literally and grammatically?
| RevJP wrote: | and there is really no way to misinterpret (or re-interpret) this passage:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AMP |
Because it's far too late at that point. Any misinterpretation was done before it was written. | FFT wrote: | | Of course, the New Testament has some choice words on the matter, but they're irrelevant. Jesus didn't say them, therefore they could easily have been later misinterpretations. Wouldn't be the first time someone's used the Bible to justify their prejudices. |
| RevJP wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | It's one thing to say that the Bible forbids ritual homosexual sex — it does. It does not forbid homosexual relationships. |
I agree completely, and I have never stated otherwise. |
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. It's one thing to say that the Bible forbids ritual homosexual sex — it does. It does not forbid homosexual relationships or sex within homosexual relationships.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admin
Beloved Admin
Joined: 28 Sep 2000
Posts: 1749
Location: Macau, China
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*Commercial Break*
When you come across translation errors/re-translations - please post them in the word origins forum - would like that to be a reference point for members.
*Back to the thread*
_________________
Cybermonsters (Most Beloved Admin)
Favorite Octopus Video! - My Site - Studio
Have a question or need help with your account? E-mail: forum @ askland.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | committed ones like their heterosexual counterparts |
I hesitate to answer this loaded question, but for the most part I agree, until you try to slip in the having sex part. I would agree that a loving, committed, sexless homosexual relationship is okay.
Again, have I ever said anything other than that? |
Well, it's good to know, Rev, that you're okay with two women who want to live together and pledge their love for one another in a life of commitment as long as they do not have sex. Ruth and Naomi would be proud since this kind of love and commitment between two women who make such a vow is celebrated and not condemned in the bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="RevJP"]
I understand that some WANT to blend verse 21 with 22 and say they are combined and that only gay sex while worshipping Molech is an abomination, but linguistically, literally, and grammatically that is not a correct reading of the passage.
The word used there as in other areas as you have pointed out means abomination or abhorrence.
and there is really no way to misinterpret (or re-interpret) this passage |
As FFT (hope I got that name right) pointed out, 'abomination' refers to wrong kind of worship. In chapter 18, the term refers to something morally disgusting;an abhorrent thing;ESPECIALLY idolatry or an idol. To worship an idol via sexual rituals is idolatry and that, to God, is what was morally disgusting and abhorrent. This is the context of the term and the same sex activity going on. As is evident in Romans 1 in reference to those who do not worship God, but idols/images of man, birds, beasts, etc.
As far as abominable foods go, in Leviticus 11:10 and 11, the term means figuratively and specifically an idolatrous object that is viewed as filthy and intensely loathed and polluted. The operative word here is figuratively. This means that the foods prohibited are not in and of themselves bad to eat, but are bad in the textual context because of what they represent: idolatry and their association with idolatry. They symbolize idolatry due to their connection with idolatrous people. Thus, they are idolatrous objects, in this case. If they were LITERALLY filthy and polluted foods to avoid then in the NT, Jesus would still uphold the law against them. But that is not the case. The prohibition against them are based on context. Now, the text does not come right out and say they are associated with idolatry. Hence, your seeming need to see actual text that says gay relationships are okay. However, the DEFINING of the term abomination in the text sheds light on what is being said. That's how I know the term abomination in the 18th chapter is referring to the surrounding idolatrous nations that Israel were to dwell among. Nations that did idolatrous things of which Israel was instructed not to partake in. Things that involved same sex ritual sex worship to idols like Molech. Thus, the Leviticus 20:5 reference to Molech and the man and his family who "go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech.." I suggest you read a book called The Children Are Free as well as listen to as many of the sermons at www.jesusmcc.org as you can. I believe if Jesus were here, he would shed more light for you in your spirit so that you see more than what you see via the letter or what is written (the bible). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="RevJP"]
I understand that some WANT to blend verse 21 with 22 and say they are combined and that only gay sex while worshipping Molech is an abomination, but linguistically, literally, and grammatically that is not a correct reading of the passage.
The word used there as in other areas as you have pointed out means abomination or abhorrence. |
The original Bible did not have chapters, paragraphs, or verses, or even punctuation! So, to believe this text could be referencing cultic ritual sex worship is not far fetched.
| Quote: | and there is really no way to misinterpret (or re-interpret) this passage:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AMP Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, (10) Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God. |
Not all bible translations have this phrasing in this text, which is the problem with the various bible tranlations that have been created after the original bible text. If you look at another translation, this verse would not automatically lead one to assume what you are assuming. Though it is understandable, based on this particular translation, why you would think all forms of homosexuality is prohibited, it is not an accurate translation. This is evident by looking at all other various versions of this text.
Last edited by summertime on Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The original Bible did not have chapters, paragraphs, or verses, or even punctuation! |
No punctuation? 
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunderone
Tadpole
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how some can read verses from the bible and not understand the nature of men and women. The verses were written because if God says that homosexual sex, men or women, is wrong then the lifestyle that leads to it is also wrong.
When a man goes out to a bar and gets drunk, is getting drunk wrong or going to the bar and getting drunk is wrong. When a man goes to a certain part of town and picks up a prostitute and commits adultery, is the trip to and the act of adultery wrong.
God gave us common sense, well at least most people. If you live a homosexual life then you are living a life in temptation to commit sin.
These are some of the verses about Hmosexual sin:
Lev. 18:22-23
1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom. 1:21-23
Roman chapters 5,6&7 talk about the law.
The Lifestyle of a homosexual couple is sinful in nature and does nothing but lead to more sin.
In Romans we are told when we come to Jesus and accept him we are to throw off the old man, (our old sinful lives) and the things in our lives that lead us to sin.
If a homosexual couple comes to christ and gives up there homosexual lives and are just friends in Christ and have no sexual relations, then they done what is pleasing to God. And yes petting, kissing, holding hands in the lifestyle of a man and man or women and women are sinful, lustful ways that should be cast off as spoken of in Romans.
A man and a women who do these things, can also lead to sin, but the remedy for the sinful life is not to stop, but to be married in the eyes of
god. Then it is no longer sin. But a homosexual relationship can lead nowhere but sin, do to the nature of men and women. The flesh is weak, therefore the acts that lead to sin should be avoided. There is no remedy for this lifestyle to make it sinless, as in a man & women relationship.
God does not hate the sinner, just the sin. Yes, he is a God of Love ,understanding, mercy and forgiveness. But he is also a Just God, fair, Slow to Anger, has Indignation for those who refuse to turn away from there sinful ways and corrupts others into there sinful lives.
We are told in the bible if one in the church is living a life of sin, we are to go to them with 3 or more and confront them, if they don't change we are to bring it before the church and if they still refuse, we are to separate ourselves from these people.
Everyone should have the opportunity to come to Jesus and give up the sin in there lives. But to continue living in sin knowingly and willfully and to continue doing things that will lead to sin is what is talked about in Romans and what Jesus was saying about the Pharisees and there lives. And a unrepentive heart will not be forgiven and will not enter the gates of Heaven.
_________________
Thunderone
Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.
Romans 15:4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6065
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunderone wrote: | | It never ceases to amaze me how some can read verses from the bible and not understand the nature of men and women. |
It never ceases to amaze me how some insist on ignoring historical context to justify their prejudices.
| Thunderone wrote: | | The verses were written because if God says that homosexual sex, men or women, is wrong then the lifestyle that leads to it is also wrong. |
No. It's as if Leviticus had a passage that says "don't kiss in church." Does that mean you can't kiss outside of church?
| Thunderone wrote: | These are some of the verses about Hmosexual sin:
Lev. 18:22-23
1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom. 1:21-23 |
Read this, please.
| Thunderone wrote: | | And yes petting, kissing, holding hands in the lifestyle of a man and man or women and women are sinful, lustful ways that should be cast off as spoken of in Romans. |
None of these say anything about women. So clearly, that's okay, right?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunderone wrote: | | It never ceases to amaze me how some can read verses from the bible and not understand the nature of men and women. |
Please tell me what the 'nature' of men and women is. Also, while you're at it, define 'nature' since it can have more than one definition. Thanks.
| Quote: | | The verses were written because if God says that homosexual sex, men or women, is wrong then the lifestyle that leads to it is also wrong. |
Okay, so what you're saying is that if God says that homosexual sex is wrong, "he" said it was for a reason and that reason is because the lifestyle it leads to is wrong? What lifestyle is that, Thuderone? Is it a lifestyle that a hetrosexual could be lead to in a heterosexual lifestyle?
| Quote: | | When a man goes out to a bar and gets drunk, is getting drunk wrong or going to the bar and getting drunk is wrong. |
What one considers wrong, one may not consider a sin. There are differences between the two, depending on who you're talking to. Picking your nose is wrong to some people. Even gross, but is it a sin? Admittedly, getting drunk, as far as my view goes, is not a sin or wrong. It's just not beneficial to get drunk. Look at what could happen to you or what you coud do to someone when you're not in a sober mind. Sometimes nothing happens when you're drunk. Is it unhealthy physically? Maybe so. I don't drink. However, I do know it's not beneficial to get in such a state and, therefore, a waste of one's time.
| Quote: | | When a man goes to a certain part of town and picks up a prostitute and commits adultery, is the trip to and the act of adultery wrong. |
A man intending to have sex with a prostitute when he is a married man goes against the law that is above ALL laws: love thy neighbor as self. He is hurting his spouse, though his spouse may be unaware of it at the time. He made a vow to his spouse and is breaking it. In comparison to gay relationships, the royal law is not being broken. A man hurting his spouse is not the same as a man loving another man. If one is opposed to same sex relationships then one might say that the opposing party is hurt because it goes against what they believe. Sometimes that's unavoidable. We all don't agree on all things, so we have to change our attitudes and/or respect the other person's views. Affirming same sex relationships does not hurt children either, as some might assume. Just because the parents are opposed to such relationships and they ignorantly believe that their child will want to have same sex sex is silly, I think. The only way a man loving a man is equivalent to a man cheating and hurting his spouse would be to have the belief that a man loving another man is a sin and not everyone who cherishes the bible believes that.
| Quote: | | God gave us common sense, well at least most people. If you live a homosexual life then you are living a life in temptation to commit sin. |
As stated above, this is only true if you believe homosexual sex is a sin. I think there should be a differentiation between homosexual sex and homosexual relationship in which sex could take place. It's all about context. Sure, homosexual sex is a sin if it is in a particular context. The same applies to hetero sex. The question that I believe you and others like you FAIL to ask is what context is the homosexual sex referred to in the bible taking place in.
| Quote: | These are some of the verses about Hmosexual sin:
Lev. 18:22-23 |
True. They are about homosexual sin. What is the context of the homosexual sex that makes it sin? Why no female homosexual sin references? Is God forgetful or something? Or, did "he" not care at that point in time? My point is there was a reason for homosexual sex prohibitions, but, as I see it, the reason was not for the reason you think it was. For God is not forgetful. Nor do I believe "he" decided to only get onto male homosexuals in the levitical law while omitting the lesbians. In fact, I don't think it was directed towards homsexuals (in general) at all. It was about males (of any orientation) who engaged in homosexual sex (in the context) of abominations (ie. idolatries) in which the surrounding cities that Israel was amongst committed as a part of their rituals. THAT is the context as I see it. Disagree with me. That's fine, but you can't tell me that the sense that it makes to me does not make sense. Maybe not to you, and that's your right, but I speak for myself, my heart, my perceptions. They're personal. Which means that what's personally mine may not be personally yours.
It is questionable whether or not this text is referring to homosexual sin like you say it is. Depending on your bible translation, this text may or may not lead the reader to conclude that it is. There are too many variances among translations to conclude with 100% certainty this text supports your claim. Don't get me wrong. Some tranlations do, but some others do not. If anything, neither translation seems to be referring to two same sex persons who love one another in relationship. Love that includes concern for the other person and how they feel, etc.
Is homosexual sin being talked about in this text? I think so, yes! What is it's context? All you have to do is read it carefully and you'll see it. Idol worshippers who don't worship God, but images made to look like man and created beasts. Flashback to my comment on Leviticus' ritual prohibitions that involved homosexual sex. The female references in this text could be about lesbianism, but I believe, that is not the only plausible conclusion. Especially back then. Women, considering their status, could be guilty of acting unnaturally if anything other than the horizontal position was done. That is, if they were not on the bottom during sex. Anything other than being the passive partner for a woman could be classifed as unnatural. Atleast, that would not be hard to believe. And for a man to be the passive partner was humiliating for the man. Thus, Sodom and Gomorrah's storyline of abuse and its plotline to have the daughters abused instead. Ah, to be a woman back then and the daughter of the righteous Lot who allowed it:) For a man to be in the woman's sexual position was likely unnatural too as well as a humiliation. At any rate, Romans one does not speak on the issue of two persons loving one another in relationship.
| Quote: | | Roman chapters 5,6&7 talk about the law. The Lifestyle of a homosexual couple is sinful in nature and does nothing but lead to more sin. |
What is the additional sin that it would lead to? I understand that if you believe the relationship itself is a sin then to continue in the relationship is to be continually sinning...in your eyes anyway. So, I'm guessing, that's what you mean?
| Quote: | | If a homosexual couple comes to christ and gives up there homosexual lives and are just friends in Christ and have no sexual relations, then they done what is pleasing to God. |
Maybe you should visit a gay christian site like www.gaychristian.net and read the testimonies of those who have "accepted Christ", traditionally, and are still gay. They've tried everything under the sun to change and have not. Usually, when I read a story about someone who has changed, it was because they never really were gay in the first place. Ofcourse, this is my assumption, but that's the way their stories come across to me based on how they are worded. Abuse (physical or othewise) can cause a person to get involved in same sex relationships when, if they had not been abused, they would not have done such a thing. Abuse can alter a person this way. So, to come out of that is indeed a healing, but they were usually abused in some way. It does nothing for those who either willingly or not tried to change via numerous avenues. I also should mention eunuchs. Natural eunuchs (as opposed to man made eunuchs). I believe gays are natural eunuchs. They are distinct from mand made eununchs in that they still have their genitalia, but they have no interest in women. Whereas man made eunuchs have no genitalia, but are known for their interest in women. It is highly probable that the eunuchs that watched over female harems were natural eunuchs since man made ones could still try something with the women, if you get my drift:)
| Quote: | | God does not hate the sinner, just the sin. |
I am reading a book by John Shelby Spong called The Sins of Scripture. In it, he talks about how God is portrayed in scripture. I hesitate to use the word 'scripture' since it has been brought to my attention by another author that when the bible mentions the word scripture, it was usually in reference to OT texts, not NT texts. That's another issue though, huh? Anyway, in his book Spong speaks of God in the OT who does things you would not expect God to do, but because these things are in the bible, they are easily accepted as righteous acts. One of the ones I note is God immediately killing Onan for NOT doing something that some of us today would find unacceptable for a brother in law to do: sleep with his deceased brother's wife. God kills Onan for not doing this when he was told to by God. There are two things that stand out to me in this story: 1) that God would find it okay to do, and 2) that God, who loves the sinner so much, would kill his child instantly. My point? The 'love the sinner and hate the sin' mantra sounds nice, but, personally, the God as portrayed in some texts of the bible did not live by it some of the time. And God is said to be the same yesterday, today, and forever, but I know the God of the bible changed from time to time.
| Quote: | | Yes, he is a God of Love ,understanding, mercy and forgiveness. But he is also a Just God, fair, Slow to Anger, has Indignation for those who refuse to turn away from there sinful ways and corrupts others into there sinful lives. |
God's love is told to be unconditional, wide enough for all, forgiving, unlike a human's love, etc, yet "he" will send you to hell, if it's an actual place. So, some of us, anyway, are not loved that much that God would keep us from the place called hell. God being God is supposedly powerful enought to do so, is "he" not? We are taught to forgive. Cannot God forgive those who are unrepentant? If we are to forgive seventy times seven...and then some, why was not Onan forgiven by God? Slow to anger? Once again...Onan:(
| Quote: | | We are told in the bible if one in the church is living a life of sin, we are to go to them with 3 or more and confront them, if they don't change we are to bring it before the church and if they still refuse, we are to separate ourselves from these people |
.
If we are going to go by what the bible (literally) says then having slaves is okay. Paul even instructs in the bible how they should treat their masters and, I believe, vice versa. Why would it be okay? Because it's in the bible after all!! Is "because it's in the bible" a good motto to go by at all times?
| Quote: | | And a unrepentive heart will not be forgiven and will not enter the gates of Heaven. |
Do you believe in telling someone that they will go to hell? Sound like you do. I do not. It's not my job. I'm not the all knowing God that I believe in. The God who may decide to forgive who "he" wills. And what would that have to do with me if "he" forgave everyone? Not a thing:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | [quote="RevJP"]If God, being Perfect Love, Perfect Justice, Perfect Righteousness and Perfect Holiness declares that something is an abomination, how then can we say that said thing is acceptable to Him? |
How can we say that slavery is not okay when the bible endorses it? How can we allow women to speak in church if the bible SAYS they should be silent? Apparently, the bible does not always mean what it says. It means what it means. I'm guessing that makes no sense to you considering the view you hold and that you take what you read at face value. Haven't you ever said anything to someone and they replied back to you with what they thought you MEANT based on what you SAID, but you told them, "THAT'S not what I MEANT? If you have then possibly you can grasp a hold of what I mean when I say that the bible does not always mean what it says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is summertime that God is not the author of confusion. His Word means what it says and even when parables are used they are identified as such and explained.
You are attempting to say the bible doesn't mean what it says = confusion. That cannot be.
| Quote: |
Haven't you ever said anything to someone and they replied back to you with what they thought you MEANT based on what you SAID, but you told them, "THAT'S not what I MEANT? |
Not really. I am very careful in what I say, and I consider carefully to whom I am speaking and choose my words and phrases appropriately for that person or group. In written communication I am extremely careful not to insinuate, intimate, or imply - I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Granted, there are times that what I say is not understood, albeit very rarely, and on those occassions it is usually the failing of the person I was speaking to, as they did not pay attention to what I had said.
I would think God, being omniscient would do no less in His communications with us, and that He would make the effort to see that His written word reaches us as He intended it to.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | quote="RevJP"-The problem is summertime that God is not the author of confusion. His Word means what it says and even when parables are used they are identified as such and explained. |
You are assuming that ALL parables are explained. You are also assuming that if something is meant to be taken figuratively or symbolically or if something has the potential of being interpreted figuratively or symbolically then the bible will inform the reader to take it figuratively or symbolically. I disagree with you on that. No surprise though, huh?
| Quote: | | You are attempting to say the bible doesn't mean what it says = confusion. That cannot be. |
No. That is just how you are taking what I am saying. You just don't understand what I MEAN when I say what I say. That's okay. It's to be expected.
| Quote: | | Not really. I am very careful in what I say, and I consider carefully to whom I am speaking and choose my words and phrases appropriately for that person or group. In written communication I am extremely careful not to insinuate, intimate, or imply - I say what I mean and I mean what I say. |
I will have to assume that after having spoke to a group of people that you have indeed verified with EACH person there that they understood what you meant in EVERY given instance. If you ask from where you're standing, "Does anybody not understand this?", that does not count since not every person will willingly put up there hand and make themselves known. Some, but not all. Needless to say, just because you feel that you are understood because you have such confidence in your delivery does not guarantee that all parties listening actually do understand you 100%. For the issue is not the specifically about the words you choose. It's more about the person or persons receiving the words. Not everyone receives things in the same manner. Thus, differences of opinions and views.
| Quote: | | Granted, there are times that what I say is not understood, albeit very rarely, and on those occassions it is usually the failing of the person I was speaking to, as they did not pay attention to what I had said. |
So somene who does pay attention cannot possibly misunderstand you still? Not at all possible?
| Quote: | | I would think God, being omniscient would do no less in His communications with us, and that He would make the effort to see that His written word reaches us as He intended it to. |
That may be the case with God. If God uses fallible humans, that may not be the case. For the bible did not just fall out of the sky straight from God's clutches. Humans have been involved in its evolvement. Besides, though I believe God is omniscient, "he" did not seem to be in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Does not the text imply that God had to send two angels to the city to see if what "he" heard was actually true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Needless to say, just because you feel that you are understood because you have such confidence in your delivery does not guarantee that all parties listening actually does understand you 100%. For the issue is not the specifically about the words you choose. It's more about the person or persons receiving the words. Not everyone receives things in the same manner. Thus, differences of opinions and views. |
Thanks for that primer in communication. I hadn't heard that since my first communications class in high school. All though I have learned quite a bit since then while earning my various degrees in communications, management, and a few others.... 
Not to mention the years of practical experience in public speaking, teaching, coaching, managing, media, leading troops in combat, etc.
| Quote: |
I will have to assume that after having spoke to a group of people that you have indeed verified with EACH person there that they understood what you meant in EVERY given instance. |
On much more than one occassion, thank you very much.
| Quote: | | So somene who does pay attention cannot possibly misunderstand you still? |
What did I say? It was even written down for you:
and on those occassions it is usually the failing of the person I was speaking to, as they did not pay attention to what I had said.
| Quote: |
That may be the case with God. If God uses fallible humans, that may not be the case. For the bible did not just fall out of the sky straight from God's clutches. Humans have been involved in its evolvement. |
So God, being infalliable and omnipotent is powerless to cause His Word to come down through the ages as He intended for it to? All because of those pesky humans? Not a very omnipotent God then is He?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nerina
Sea Monkey
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder what the pro-homosexual group here think of Jesus Himself upholding heterosexual marriage alone in Mark 10? He's speaking in the context of divorce and specifically upholds the Old Testament truth that in the beginning God created them male and female and they unite to become one flesh. No mention there of a lawful alternative of homosexual relationships.
Oh and before I'm condemned as a fundie hatemonger, I am a former bisexual set free by Jesus. I was convicted of my sin by the Holy Spirit, I repented and turned away from it, and was cleansed and healed. What God did for me, He has done, can and will do for others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | quote="RevJP"-Thanks for that primer in communication. I hadn't heard that since my first communications class in high school. All though I have learned quite a bit since then while earning my various degrees in communications, management, and a few others.... |
Wasn't aware I was doing that, but you're welcome.
| Quote: | | On much more than one occassion, thank you very much. |
I can only take you at your word. Must not have been HUGE crowds though. It would take numerous hours to do that one person at a time in a place that was packed. However, you never said how many so....
| Quote: | | What did I say? It was even written down for you: |
I did get that:)
| Quote: | | So God, being infalliable and omnipotent is powerless to cause His Word to come down through the ages as He intended for it to? All because of those pesky humans? Not a very omnipotent God then is He? |
What! No comment on God's inquiry of Sodom and Gomorrah? Please don't let that one slide by. You are assuming that just because God is believed to be all knowing and all powerful that "he" would control the free will of humans. Humans which would include bible translator, scribes, and anyone else involved in the bible's evolvement. Why would God control the free will of the humans involved in the bible's evolvement while in all other areas of life our free will is not controled in the same way as you are implying? If that were the case, I would think God would do that in all things that have to do with God. Not just the bible. All of life, I'd say, has to do with God, so why does God not assert his power to control our free will where priests and children are concerned? That is important too, right? Yes, I am saying that the bible has had fallible human hands on it. How do you know that THAT isn't how God intended it to come down through the ages? Woud you be lost without it if that were the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
