In the aftermath of the passage of California's Proposition 8, Newsweek and Hollywood are the latest players to launch their attacks on traditional marriage supporters and the biblical case against homosexuality.
-
(Photo: AP Images / FunnyOrDie.com)In this image released by FunnyorDie, Jack Black portrays Jesus in a Web video called "Prop 8: The Musical."
And Christians are taking issue with the misconceptions, factual errors and holes in the arguments being presented in popular public spheres.
"It doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, according to Politico. "I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously."
Land's comments were directed at Newsweek's current cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," written by religion editor Lisa Miller. In the story, Miller says "examples of 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found" in the Old Testament and that the Bible does not explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman. She further argues that the modern married couple would not look to the Bible as a guide while citing polygamy in the Old Testament.
"Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller writes. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."
Rejecting Miller's arguments, Land said the Bible clearly prescribes marriage as heterosexual, citing passages in Genesis, where God pairs Adam and Eve, and Ephesians (in the New Testament) when the apostle Paul compares the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the Church, according to Politico.
Newsweek's story reflects the confusion that many people have regarding Scripture and homosexuality.
And the media isn't the only one to blame for it.
"Part of that [confusion] is skillful misrepresentation, and part of it is the failure of the church to faithfully and diligently promote biblical apologetics and exegesis," according to Bob Stith, who heads the Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force in the Southern Baptist Convention.
The confusion is also played out in the Funny Or Die video, "Prop 8 – The Musical," which was posted last week. In it, popular celebrities, including Neil Patrick Harris and Jack Black, weigh in on the amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The musical accuses Christians of picking and choosing Bible verses to make their case against gay marriage and mocks them as hatemongers.
"Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination," Black, who portrays Jesus in the musical, states in the musical as he responds to the Christians' argument that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. "The Bible says a lot of interesting things like you can stone your wife or sell your daughter into slavery."
"Well we ignore those verses," says John C. Reilly, who plays a Christian.
"It seems to me you pick and choose. Well please choose love instead of hate," Black sings.
Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, responded saying the musical showed a "sincere misunderstanding of Scripture."
Tim Wilkins, a former homosexual who heads Cross Ministry, argued that gay marriage supporters "are doing the very thing they accuse Christians of." Continue >>
I have a begrudging respect for the journalism of Lillian Kwon & many of the other regular contributors to CP. But there are side items that need to be corrected , as they automatically twist everything following. For example : I guarantee you that Throckmorton & Cameron are not widely or narrowly respected by any in the scientific disciplines from the right or left.
Thank you Bryan, but you know as well as I, that God through is word express that homosexuality is a sin, this is nothing whic is a man made conspiracy against homosexuals, and this what is and has been said comes froms from the book(Bible) which is part of this nations religious fiber. This is not self style teaching because the source of this doctrine and teaching is from God. 1 timothy 1:9-10, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawlwss ans insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murders of fathers, and murders of mothers, for manslayers. For fornicators, for sodomite, for kidnappers, for liars ,for perjurers, and anyother thing thatis contrary to sound doctrine. This is documented, Bryan, not something that was new from the heavens presented now. So this documented doctrine has stood the test of time and declaring a believer speaking what has been taught, from the heart, as speeaking hate , will soon be seen as foolish when what is says come from the docmented word of the Lord.
"There are selfstyle teachers who use the bible to support their unrighteous causes and argue hate and attack."
Reread that sentence and see how it relfects on people who think homosexuality is a sin.
"These selfstyle teachers use the bible unlawfully to support and excuse sin of individuals, but what the bible says will utlimately defeat false accusers always. "
Reread that and see how it reflects on those who justify their persecution on God's creations - women, blacks, homosexuals, etc.
Seeing both points discussed, only have me to think of 1 Timothy 1:6-8," From which some ,having strayed, having turned ,aside to idle talk. Desiring to be teacheers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know t hat the lawis good if one uses it lawfully." There are selfstyle teachers who use the bible to support their unrighteous causes and argue hate and attack, the believer, who is grounded in the word, who reveals biblical truths against sin. These selfstyle teachers use the bible unlawfully to support and excuse sin of individuals, but what the bible says will utlimately defeat false accusers always.
bryan, just because something doesn't make sense to you and I doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to God or to the people who were living during the time God gave them that word, plus this was an option as were many of the laws that said a person could be executed for violating them, but yet in Numbers were told only murder required that the death penalty be carried out. But there are many more teachings that are black and white that can and should be taken literally by believers.
Hey Brother Steiner...
Something I had to learn about the posting system here, I'd like to share. When copying text try removing quotes, commas in the text copy. Then copy it onto notepad.
There is also a 'delete' feature next to the thumbs up and down; you can delete any comment you make. (the false starts).
Happy posting, hope to see you around and about.
jh-"See what I mean? Now I am a duplicate Christ."
A bit touchy, jh?
Here's what I said: "Mark 13:22 says "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Careful of duplicate Christs. Only one who saves."
What's wrong with that, giving Scripture to Bryan after his comment about you being another Christ, or a prophet.
jh-" I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd prefer it if you did not call me a prophet. I am simply a human being who reads one part of Scripture a bit differently."
Not a prophet?
1Cor 14:39 "Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy..."
And for the record this statement is incorrect, "who reads one part of Scripture a bit differently."
One Part? I can point to at least two and to get where you are in your reading, then many other Scriptures read " a bit differently" for you as well.
1) Homosexuality is not a sin and is 'could be' part of God's plan for mankind.
2) Christians should not judge sin.
Romans 16:17-20 "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil."
I hesitate to carry on with you, jh as I fear there are many more scriptures you read a bit differently and you are one who doesn't listen to correction. Please know that if I see you on CP saying anything contrary to the Word of God, I will challenge you.
jh,
Unfortuantely, for the most part you are believeing in a doctrine relatively new. And because of this most feel it is necessary to either teach you more accurately or expose your false doctrine. You do not strick me as niave. I'll be willing to gander you are well aware of the reactions you'll recieve.
I seems you are sincere. But a wise man used to have a saying about some folks...someone can be sincerely wrong, too.
Yes, we do disagree, but I still have enjoyed a few good discussions with you. Hope you Christmas was enjoyable.
Jhilgeman,
Regarding your claim that Jesus said that no food is unclean, therefore breaking the laws of the O.T.
You are incorrect...
Jesus was simply disagreeing with the Pharisaic notion that food touched by unwashed hands was made unclean.
In fact, Jesus plainly states this further down in Matthew 15.20 (... these are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.)
Now, because your interpretation led to a wrong premise(s), then your argument is untenable.
This explains why you got hung up on #6 (as you stated in a previous thread)
Jesus upheld all the Law, Matthew 5.17 (...do not think that I came to destroy the law, I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
As regards to the healing that Jesus performed on Saturday...This, once again is not work(it is what the Pharisees defined as work, but not the Law)...or please clarify what work you mean.
Remember, the only accusation that stuck, made by the Pharisees, was that Jesus blasphemed in claiming to be God, which is what Jesus said and that is why they had Jesus crucified.
The resurrection of Jesus proved in fact, that His claim is true. He is God incarnate, the Immanuel.
The other dilemma that you have and that I wish to clarify is in regards to the customary laws in the O.T.
Why do we not follow them?
These were meant for the Hebrews: to distinguish them and keep them apart from the other nations....Jesus was to be a Hebrew as as a fulfilment of God s promise to Abraham.
They are no longer necessary, that is why in Acts 15.1-30 the apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit removed the burden of the customary laws from the gentiles.
Sexual sins(sexual immorality) do not fall under customary laws...and that is why, while the customary laws are discarded, sexual immorality laws are upheld in Acts 15. That is why Paul condemns the case of sexual immorality in 1st Corinthians 5, and adultery and homosexuality and other sexual immoral activity in 1 Corinthians 6.9-11
In 1 Corinthians 17.2, Paul sanctions sexual behaviour only between a husband and a wife.
Once again... bestiality, paedophelia, necromancy...clearly forbidden in the O.T. and even though they are not specifically in the N.T. they remain so, because they fall under the canopy of immoral sexual acts.
Tying these immoral sexual acts to marriage does not in any way sanction them.
Part 2
Jesus upheld all the Law…. Matthew 5.17 – Do not think that I came to destroy the law. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
As regards to the healing that Jesus performed on Saturday…This is not work(it s what the Pharisees defined as work, but not the law)…or please clarify exactly what work you mean.
Remember, the only accusation that stuck, made by the Pharisees, was that Jesus blasphemed in claiming to be God, which is what Jesus said and that is why they had Jesus crucified.
The resurrection of Jesus proved that in fact His claim is true. He is God incarnate.
The other dilemma that you have, is in regards to the customary laws. Why do we not follow them?
These were meant for the Hebrews: to distinguish them and keep them apart from the other nations…Jesus was to be a Hebrew (as promised by God as a fulfilment of God s promise to Abraham).
Now, they are now no longer necessary.
Jhilgeman, (sorry about previous postings...having trouble pasting)
Regarding your claim that Jesus said that no food is unclean, therefore breaking the laws of the O.T.
You are wrong...
Jesus was simply disagreeing with the pharisaic notion that food touched by unwashed hands was made unclean.
In fact Jesus summarises this further down in Matthew 15.20
These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Now, because your interpretation was wrong, the premises you made are consequently wrong.
This explains why you got hung up on #6 (as you stated).
Jesus upheld all the Law…. Matthew 5.17 – Do not think that I came to destroy the law. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
As regards to the healing that Jesus performed on Saturday…This is not work(it s what the Pharisees defined as work, but not the law)…or please clarify exactly what work you mean.
Remember, the only accusation that stuck, made by the Pharisees, was that Jesus blasphemed in claiming to be God, which is what Jesus said and that is why they had Jesus crucified.
The resurrection of Jesus proved that in fact His claim is true. He is God incarnate.
The other dilemma that you have, is in regards to the customary laws. Why do we not follow them?
These were meant for the Hebrews: to distinguish them and keep them apart from the other nations…Jesus was to be a Hebrew (as promised by God as a fulfilment of God s promise to Abraham).
Now, they are now no longer necessary.
That is why in Acts 15.1-30 the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit removed the burden of the customary laws from the gentiles.
Sexual sins(immorality), as I have pointed out before, do not fall under customary laws…and that is why, while the customary laws are discarded, sexual immorality laws are upheld in Acts 15. That is why Paul condemns a case of sexual immorality in 1st Corinthians 5…and homosexual acts or any other sexual immoral activity in 1Corinthians 6.9-11.
In 1st Corinthians 17.2 Paul sanctions sexual behaviour only between a husband and wife.
Once again… bestiality, paedophilia are immoral sexual and necromancy are clearly forbidden in the O.T. and even though they are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, they remain so because they are defined as immoral sexual acts.
Tying these immoral sexual acts and homosexuality to marriage does not in any way sanction these acts. They all fall under the canopy of immoral sexual behaviour.
Jhilgeman,
Regarding your claim that Jesus said that no food is unclean, therefore breaking the laws of the O.T.
You are wrong...
Jesus was simply disagreeing with the pharisaic notion that food touched by unwashed hands was made unclean.
In fact Jesus summarises this further down in Matthew 15.20
These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Now, because your interpretation was wrong, the premises you made are consequently wrong.
This explains why you got hung up on #6 (as you stated).
Jesus upheld all the Law…. Matthew 5.17 – Do not think that I came to destroy the law. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
As regards to the healing that Jesus performed on Saturday…This is not work(it s what the Pharisees defined as work, but not the law)…or please clarify exactly what work you mean.
Remember, the only accusation that stuck, made by the Pharisees, was that Jesus blasphemed in claiming to be God, which is what Jesus said and that is why they had Jesus crucified.
The resurrection of Jesus proved that in fact His claim is true. He is God incarnate.
The other dilemma that you have, is in regards to the customary laws. Why do we not follow them?
These were meant for the Hebrews: to distinguish them and keep them apart from the other nations…Jesus was to be a Hebrew (as promised by God as a fulfilment of God s promise to Abraham).
Now, they are now no longer necessary.
That is why in Acts 15.1-30 the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit removed the burden of the customary laws from the gentiles.
Sexual sins(immorality), as I have pointed out before, do not fall under customary laws…and that is why, while the customary laws are discarded, sexual immorality laws are upheld in Acts 15. That is why Paul condemns a case of sexual immorality in 1st Corinthians 5…and homosexual acts or any other sexual immoral activity in 1Corinthians 6.9-11.
In 1st Corinthians 17.2 Paul sanctions sexual behaviour only between a husband and wife.
Once again… bestiality, paedophilia are immoral sexual and necromancy are clearly forbidden in the O.T. and even though they are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, they remain so because they are defined as immoral sexual acts.
Tying these immoral sexual acts and homosexuality to marriage does not in any way sanction these acts. They all fall under the canopy of immoral sexual behaviour.
Jhilgeman,
Regarding your claim that Jesus said that no food is unclean, therefore breaking the laws of the O.T.
You are wrong...
Jesus was simply disagreeing with the pharisaic notion that food touched by unwashed hands was made unclean.
In fact Jesus summarises this further down in Matthew 15.20
These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.
Now, because your interpretation was wrong, the premises you made are consequently wrong.
This explains why you got hung up on #6 (as you stated).
Jesus upheld all the Law…. Matthew 5.17 – Do not think that I came to destroy the law. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
As regards to the healing that Jesus performed on Saturday…This is not work(it s what the Pharisees defined as work, but not the law)…or please clarify exactly what work you mean.
Remember, the only accusation that stuck, made by the Pharisees, was that Jesus blasphemed in claiming to be God, which is what Jesus said and that is why they had Jesus crucified.
The resurrection of Jesus proved that in fact His claim is true. He is God incarnate.
The other dilemma that you have, is in regards to the customary laws. Why do we not follow them?
These were meant for the Hebrews: to distinguish them and keep them apart from the other nations…Jesus was to be a Hebrew (as promised by God as a fulfilment of God s promise to Abraham).
Now, they are now no longer necessary.
That is why in Acts 15.1-30 the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit removed the burden of the customary laws from the gentiles.
Sexual sins(immorality), as I have pointed out before, do not fall under customary laws…and that is why, while the customary laws are discarded, sexual immorality laws are upheld in Acts 15. That is why Paul condemns a case of sexual immorality in 1st Corinthians 5…and homosexual acts or any other sexual immoral activity in 1Corinthians 6.9-11.
In 1st Corinthians 17.2 Paul sanctions sexual behaviour only between a husband and wife.
Once again… bestiality, paedophilia are immoral sexual and necromancy are clearly forbidden in the O.T. and even though they are not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, they remain so because they are defined as immoral sexual acts.
Tying these immoral sexual acts and homosexuality to marriage does not in any way sanction these acts. They all fall under the canopy of immoral sexual behaviour.
-sigh- It is sad that I feel I even have to clarify this, but given the intensity of Delight's apparent hatred of me, that last post was purely sarcastic.
I do not believe I am a duplicate Christ. I do not believe I am Christ, either. I do not believe I am a prophet or anything more than another Christian. I don't do wonders, miracles, or anything of the sort, and I do not deceive or teach falsely. I sin and repent, just like all other Christians, am saved, and believe in and serve the Trinity.
See what I mean? Now I am a duplicate Christ.
Bryan90 - I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd prefer it if you did not call me a prophet. I am simply a human being who reads one part of Scripture a bit differently.
Normally, I'd just wave it off, but Delight and Steiner seem intent on making me into a false teacher or into Satan or something. Since they do not believe what you believe, you're the same as a pagan to them, and they'll just say, "Look - jh is a false teacher because a pagan is calling him a prophet." Delight already tried this on me using another person on here named Mike.
Mark 13:22 says "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Careful of duplicate Christs. Only one who saves.
Goodnight.
Delight - "Provoked? Why are you feeling provoked?"
Constantly belittling what I say or twisting it, putting my words in my mouth, making assumptions about my thoughts or motivations, saying that I don't have any Christian friends (which is not what I said - I said I could always use more), asking if my family is rolling over in their graves (thank you for assuming that they are dead and that there have been no recent deaths in the family)... Insults and provocation.
Maybe you do not understand what provocation is, but you should be able to realize that you are being the opposite of Christlike. You tear down people and you seem to "delight" in doing so, happily quoting Scripture for your own perverse justification rather than quoting Scripture for godly purposes. It is sickening.
Delight,
So what if Jhil is the prophet, like Jesus, condemned by many of the contemporary human beings? And now he is teaching us how to read the scriptures properly just as Jesus thought the people how to interpret God's will.
My point is that, after reading from so many of you, I realized that all of us here developed a strong sense of what God is, and what is God's will. I don't think any of us would be able to persuade the other to abandon our beliefs of God. On the surface, it almost seems like we all deem ourselves to be right, to be the prophet. I hope, we, myself included, would learn how to fight this pride and conquer another of God's test of humility.
Annotation on last post:
John 16:8 "And when He (the Holy Spirit) has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me..."
Provoked? Why are you feeling provoked?
Believer,
I don't feel very good myself about the post I made. But my point was scriptures cannot be taken for their face value but has to be interpreted from our contemporary wisdom in order to absorb it's true value.
It doesn't make sense when you read that a woman's hand should be chopped off just because she interfered her husband's argument. The magic behind the bible is that these stories are timeless. God, being God, was so smart that he created a book that would apply to every human being in every time line. No book could have achieved that because every book has a specific setting.
The bible is magical in the sense that whenever any human being reads the bible irrespective of location and time, he/she would be able to absorb the wisdom of God's words through his/her contemporary wisdom. Hence we ought not to take the scripture for its literal meaning, as in "chopping off her hands" might not literally mean "chopping off her hands". But instead the moral of the story could be applied in daily situations.
And this is truly beautiful!
Delight - For all your claims of Christianity, all your attempts to provoke and insult are not very Christlike. You seem to enjoy it, even. It is beyond sad.
Diffuse the issue all you want, no scriptural support is no scriptural support, I get it.
How many Christians in your life right now embrace your newfound belief on God and homosexuality?
I think you mentioned,jh, you didn't have any Christian friends you could talk to, that's why you would like to make Christian friends by posting here at CP. Good job. You also came from a Missionary family, but wasn't clear on denomination, are they rolling over in their graves?
Satan doesn't think Christians should judge sin either...let alone SAY something is a sin...or worse, TELL them that they are sinning. God forbid...they'll never come to Christ, now!
(sarcasm intended)
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."
Are you keeping His word?
believer - "the baby in this case being God's original and only design for marriage."
I understand what you're saying. My only disagreement is the "and only" part. I don't see the language in those verses to support that limitation.
Delight - I have nothing new for you. Every question you've asked of me can be answered by looking at my past posts. If you have something new to ask, go look through my posts. If you can't find the answer, read through them again (I'm sorry if you have to do a little bit of work and actually read for a change). If you still can't find the answer, then go ahead and ask.
I am not a false teacher, and labeling people as such when you happen to disagree with them on anything is about as self-righteous as you can get. You are a hypocrite who values being right over being Scriptural.
Hey Forgiven, thanks for the thought, you make me smile. Time to dust off; like I've said before it is indeed a character flaw to beat dead horses even if only metaphorically; guilty as charged. Hope your family gets well soon and you don't get the bug.
Bryan...just another thought;
Remember (we) the world crucified Christ. He wasn't popular.
Think about the words of Jesus:
"The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil".
No one wants to hear the words you are a sinner but the one that is truly seeking what Christ offers to us goes on to repent and live.
What good is it not to acknowledge our true condition before God?
True peace only comes through knowing that we are lost and the realization that God has a plan to redeem us, if we will first believe.
Delight,
Hey if you think you have a shot...go for it. Just remember to do a little dusting when it's time. Of course then throwing in your 2 cents every now and again is a good thing.
Mormons and Cults, huh? Not too shabby.
Christmas was long, but nice. Now the kids are sick, though.
bryan, what point are you trying to make or are you just trying to justify rejecting what God teaches in His Word about marriage and sexual intimacy? To be honest it appears to me that you are looking for excuses and not answers?
Hey Forgiven,
Christmas was really good! Thanks for asking and I hope yours was great, too.
Yeah, I know I should give it up with jh; I notice Believer is not saying a lot directly to him and who knows where Steiner went, bless his soul and now you've gone to a new post. I've been reading them, just not commenting much.
I just have a real difficulty with false teachers, I've helped convert some out of the lies of Mormonism and New Age cults by sticking with it...I'm beginning to think that once a person has tasted the goodness of God, then rejects His Word, that the only thing left is to crucify Christ again.(Hebrews 6:6)
What do you think Jude meant when in speaking about false teachers:
"And on some have compassion, making a distinction but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh." Hmmm.
Bryan,
There are a lot of things I don't like about God, especially if I contrast Him with the 'God of my Dreams' that exists only within the mind.
You do not conceive God because you have a preconcieved notion of Who He might be.
You desire peace at any price and God of the Bible says we will have tribulation here.
It's not a trendy message:
God loves us with 'jealous' love; the first Scripture you quote is regarding what idol worshippers do; much like you may feel if your boyfirnd is in bed with another. Think about it.
Secondly, you quote out the law and the law only points to our sin. We don't like our sin, we try to hide from Light and God is Light, He is holy and we are to walk in His Holiness and help others to see the sin that is separating us from God.
The God you mentioned earlier is a God that provides a state of mind and not an actual destination. A dream life not an eternal, physcial life with Christ.
It comes down Bryan, IS God calling or drawing you to Him right now?
If so, then He will complete His work and you will come to know Him as a person.
don't make the mistake of judging Jesus by His people as so many often do and without understanding. He comes into our lives by invitation only but He draws you first by softening your heart toward repentence. (another unpopular concept; repentance.)
As far as our witness here, please understand we live in times where people are struggling and there are ugly things going on, the bible warns of a falling away from the faith in the last days. The church must be doctrinally pure and brothers need correction about false teaching. The argument went on far too long, for that I apologize for my part.
"Am I going to regret doing this?" "YES!"
Isiah 66:17
"They sanctify themselves and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD"
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to the rescue of the husband from her assailant and she reaches out and seizes his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
Deuteronomy 23:2
"A b*stard shall not entre into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Leviticus 11:20
"All flying insects that creep on fours shall be an abomination to you."
"So why are you doing this? Going against your values."
"Because your followers are telling me that You are not what I conceive you to be. That you're not the perfect God whom I see you as. That you command without reason, punish without compassion. Perhaps I should open my eyes to the scriptures and find this "new" You. I am sorry."
Hey Delight,
How was your Christmas? You still going toe-toe with jh....I really don't see him changing his stance any time soon. Come on over and get into another conversation in another post.
" I have supported every single one of my beliefs with Scripture."
No, you haven't! Which Scripture allows for homosexual christians?
"A false teacher would eventually get caught up in contradictions that he/she would be unable to resolve."
You have ignored, not resolved the issue of the Nature of God and His supposed negligence for not specifically pointing to same-sex marriage, so that homosexuals wouldn't be fornicating before marriage; leaving marriage for government to enact on the part of homosexuals.
"I have pointed out more than a few times that you are ignoring Scripture that contradicts what you say."
What Scripture did you contradict me with? It's not 'scripture' your little stories about your cult of Attis, nor is it 'scripture' when you read into the absense of direct language permission for sin.
You dogmatically assert your newfound belief and have vacated sound doctrine:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."
jh- I've quoted God honoring Christians, we are to judge sin and let God do the punishing. That would also be a unanimious admonishment to you from 5 Christians on this post.
What am I supposed to say to God when I get to heaven?
GOD: "Why didn't you say anything?"
ME: "I tried, but so many Christians already believed it."
GOD: "Why do you think they call it TRADITIONAL belief?"
ME: "They didn't like what I had to say."
We are speaking about homosexuality here with this "dialog" between you and God? And...God wants you to tell them homosexuality is A-okay. But you couldn't get your message out because Christians already understood it to be a sin? Is this what you're saying?
God NEEDS you to speak on this...is this "new revelation"; God is pro-homosexual now and needs you like Isaiah to speak out? How highly you must think of yourself! Speaking for God! WoW, what 'service' you give to God, putting words into His mouth!
We don't call it a traditional belief (you do), we call that Scriptural truth taken straight from the pages of Scripture. God has said and it is written:
Lev 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Rom 1:27 "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due'
1Cr 6:9,10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
Rev 21:27 "But there shall by no means enter it (New Jerusalem) anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life."
I think God has spoken well of what He considers homosexuality. These are not ambiguous statements. You don't have any Scripture to support God's acceptance of homosexuality with the same authority which God has spoken AGAINST IT. But this doesn't seem to bother you.
jh-you are on the thin branch of false teaching and continuing your argument and your twisted logic and puts you in grave danger with God:
2Pe 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
Jude 1:3,4 "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the GRACE of our God into LEWDNESS and DENY the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
bryan, you are absolutely right the Bible has been misused to support views which are totally contrary to the Word of God, but here's the catch in all the issues you mentioned the Bible was not silent when it came to the truth in these matters, it was just that people refused to see the truth. But when it comes to marriage and sexual intimacy the Bible is plain and clear as to God's original and only design for both of those and unlike the issues you shared, the Bible is completely silent with regard to presenting any alternatives to either of those issues.
jh, I thought this site had dried up, but yes the primary issue was divorce but lets be careful we don't throw out the baby with the bath water, the baby in this case being God's original and only design for marriage.
*Fogive me father for I am about to sin*
50 years ago, the bible was used to justify slavery. A couple of centuries ago, the bible was used to justify the persecution of women.
So, for God's sake do not speak of the bible as the absolute truth for when you read the bible, regardless of how objective the words are, you read and hence interpret those words. You infuse your bias, your perception and your wisdom into it.
The bible was used to justify an array of evil that I dare not even imagine in the 21st century.
Both of you, in fact everyone here, reads the bible for what we want to read. We take phrases that reinforce our views, and interpret those that don't differently.
Religion is not all about scripture, God is not all about scripture. Using scripture to harm, to hate, and to persecute his creations - I cannot imagine His disappointment. (the last sentence is probably my bias, and he is probably not disappointed.)
Delight - By the way, I thought I should point out that Matthew 7:2 ALSO supports what I've said about sin and judgment being subjective:
"and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"
If you believe picking your nose is a sin and you judge others for picking their noses, then you'll be judged for picking your nose.
Delight -
"It is talking fully outright judging not merely verbally speaking"
"We haven't judged anyone until we carry out a penalty for the accused,"
I don't see anything in Matthew 7:1-6 about judging requiring penalties in order to be "judging" unless you're somehow interpreting the word "measure" as a penalty rather than actual measures (standards or rules used to judge). If I judge a height of something to be 2 feet tall using a measuring tape, I'm making a determination that has no penalty. Judges do not carry out the penalties - they say what the penalty should be. Condemning others is judging - plain and simple.
"what does a judge in a court of law do?"
I thought it was amusing that you talk down to my use of outside references when they don't fit your views, but you're more than happy to use them or quote other people using them otherwise.
Delight - "I have every right to do just that and expose false teaching!"
I agreed with steiner on that - that we can judge those in the church, and not those outside the church. As far as false teaching goes, that's your interpretation. I have supported every single one of my beliefs with Scripture. A false teacher would eventually get caught up in contradictions that he/she would be unable to resolve. I have pointed out more than a few times that you are ignoring Scripture that contradicts what you say.
"The Christians you have put off..."
I see, so 5 people disagree with me, and that must make me wrong? Is that the kind of criteria you use for believing in doctrine - if enough people agree with an idea, it's right? Think about how ridiculous that is. I could easily go out and invite 100 people who believe the same thing to come onto this forum and support what I say and you would be outnumbered 5 to 100. But I don't, because numbers do not make ANY idea any MORE or any LESS Scriptural.
"You put a call out to Bryan and Matucon to get into a doctrinal discussion with them."
A discussion that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and I don't recall you disagreeing with what I posted to them, so why are you bringing them up?
"You also requested early on to personally e-mail people on these posts."
Yes, because there were enough tangents going on that it was becoming hard to read and respond (I notice you happily ignored that I also suggested a different type of PUBLIC forum that better suited multiple simultaneous discussions.). Yet, I'm still here...
"No doubt to correct us..."
Thank you for assuming that you know my every thought and my every motivation.
"There is no context of idolatry only in Romans 1 but unbelief overall,"
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They didn't believe in God - they believed in a false idol. Paul did not call the worshippers homosexuals, he talked about the homosexual acts. The worshippers worshipped a fertility goddess/god and their homosexual acts were done for the purpose of idol worship. You are taking a very clear example and obfuscating it for your purposes.
"Remember Lev 18 and 1Cor 6:9?"
You mean 1 Corinthians 6:9 as in the one that doesn't really condemn homosexuality, but you insist on using it because you feel like the NIV translation is more accurate than the original text? And the verse from a list of laws that you apparently feel okay with disobeying some of? I have gone into detail on each of these verses and you have nothing to say except repeat your original belief.
"How you can separate homosexuality as something God approves of, NOW that's something!"
Because of what Jesus defines as sin.
"but insist on your own context,"
I have explained my beliefs in detail. You have not bothered to explain yours - you simply repeat your mantra over and over again, as if repetition will be a substitute for the gaps.
Bryan,
With all due respect, you seem like a person not keen on absolute truth as you have said you quit reading your Bible because you were unable to comprehend it.
There are false teachers out in the world that Paul tells us we must expose. Your idea of being nice, just going with the flow, just agree to disagree doesn't have Biblical support.
And, we are talking the Bible which is very clear on exposing lies that entrap folks into slavery to sin. Maybe you didn't get to Paul's writings to the Church?
If it sounds like bickering to you, then you are free to read elsewhere something more to your liking.
ON JUDGING THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH: Here, jh is an answer to your accusation to Steiner for judging those outside the church, it answers it beautifully.
This is a quote from forsaltnlight on the thread; Anti-theist: Christianity is Bad for the world. I don't think he/she will mind having it quoted here:
What do you make of Matthew 7:6?
I think Matt 7:6 is driving home the verses preceding 7:6
It is talking fully outright judging not merely verbally speaking. Here is a better explanation.
The other most incorrectly quoted liberal scripture is when a Christian is accused of judging when they speak of what sin is. Speaking God's Word and giving a description of sin is not judging. To those people I say, " what does a judge in a court of law do? He not only finds to the accused guilty, but he assigns the appropriate punishment and appoints someone to carry it out. Defining sin is far from judging, never let the devil's worker shut you up and prevent you from speaking God's Word with that trick.
The devil has a multitude of lies and he always gives a partial truth that is actually a deceptive lie. Just as he did Adam and Eve in the garden. The devil also tried that same strategy on Jesus a couple of times and Jesus always responded with, It is written from His Word. We should do the same.
Eph 5:10-14
11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
We haven't judged anyone until we carry out a penalty for the accused, in the same manner as a judge carries it out and also the same way the one and only true Holy Judge will do to all those who reject his son.
Come on my fellow friends!!!
This is starting to go into outright bickering, condemnation of others' faith and persecution of beliefs.
In my opinion, it's alright to share your opinions and your views, but please refrain from letting anger from affecting your rationality. Afterall is anger not a sin?
Love!
Bryan.
What does a False Teacher look like?
Paul told us to "judge those inside the church", which you are claiming.
I have every right to do just that and expose false teaching!
A false teacher will defend his belief as you do. He will attack other Christians for holding what he calls 'traditional beliefs'.A false teacher will use many words and other texts to make his argument and twist scripture. He will be full of self righteousness (how else can you believe you are "preaching the Word") and argue against the nature of God.
The Christians you have put off (1) Prophet, by judging him to be prideful right off the bat. (2)Myself, (3) Believer, who is stubbornly patient and very kind, (4) the same for Forgiven who tried to point you to truth, (5) Steiner. How many "amen" brothers? 0 zero, nada. This is an older post, not many others here but Steiner and me. You have been corrected by everyone of these Christians and it must take a giant leap of pride to think you are right and everyone else is wrong in the face of this. We are warned that in the last days false teachers would arise...and what I hear from you is false teaching. Do not ignore the warning.
"what am I supposed to say when I get to heaven?"
How about I'm sorry I got in the way of setting homosexuals free from their sin against you God. In which case, He may say to you 'depart from me'.
You put a call out to Bryan and Matucon to get into a doctrinal discussion with them. You also requested early on to personally e-mail people on these posts. No doubt to correct us on our 'traditional' thinking and to heartily approve of the sins of the others. (Romans 1:32). Your untraditional views on homosexuality has put you here on this post to affect the discussion and give false hope to those who wish to continue in sin.
There is no context of idolatry only in Romans 1 but unbelief overall, in which idolatry is just one sin. If temple homosexuals are performing homosexual acts...how are the acts themselves not condemned by God in the first place? Remember Lev 18 and 1Cor 6:9? No Scripture speaks of the acceptability of homosexual acts and refers to them only as related to unbelief and spiritual death. How you can separate homosexuality as something God approves of, NOW that's something!
I didn't include homosexuality in my quote to you, just the list of sins directly following the verse regarding homosexuals (Unrighteous Unbelievers) being given over. You're being deliberately OBTUSE.
You look for no common ground among brothers but insist on your own context, your understanding, your "interpretation", your knowledge exclusive from the knowledge and character of God, which you malign by accusing Him of a lack of oversight and diligence in addressing homosexual marriage.
"But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons..."
God always says it best!
steiner - "Do you not judge those who are within the church?"
Yes, you do, but you are passing judgment on those outside of the church. You are implying that because YOU believe something to be a sin, that another person cannot completely repent and become a Christian in the church unless they conform to what YOU believe. That is passing judgment on those outside the church.
You do not seem to be talking about judging those within the church already.
If you want to judge ME for something, that's fine. My beliefs are solidly found throughout all of Scripture, not just on pieces of it.
steiner - "I am not aware of any scripture that mentions that Jesus did not uphold the law regarding unclean foods."
Actually, I referenced scripture in my previous post where Jesus declared that no food was unclean. The Pharisees were talking about unwashed hands, but Jesus expanded it into "no food is unclean." That's a pretty direct contradiction to the unclean foods mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:3-21.
Jesus also broke the 4th commandment by "working" on the Sabbath (which the Pharisees were also quick to point out in order to try to judge him).
"...they arrogantly thought that they were free to continue sinning..."
You misjudge what I am saying. I am not advocating for the practice of sin.
I have repeatedly said that while I believe you CAN -technically- continue sinning afterwards, it doesn't really reflect true repentance, which is a requirement for understanding and accepting the gift of salvation. True repentance requires a change of heart. If someone is buying into the "cheap grace" salvation that believer has mentioned a few times before, then they're probably not really repenting. Just like sin comes from the heart, true repentance also has to come from the heart, because it is about changing your attitude and choosing NOT to sin. Yes, we can fall back into sin, but ultimately, someone who has truly repented will try to correct their ways.
Again, I am not advocating the practice of sin, nor am I saying that sin does not exist (I have said repeatedly that it does, which you and Delight both seem to glaze over). What I -am- talking about is the definition of sin, and whether or not homosexuality falls into that category.
I do not feel that there is Scriptural support for a global condemnation of homosexuality - there is only traditional belief. You seem to be searching for Scripture that supports your traditional belief while ignoring all of Scripture that contradicts your belief. I have pointed out several Scriptures that do contradict your belief, and you ignore them. So far, I have had no problems defending what I believe. You seem to be unable to defend against what I am pointing out, and instead try to attack my belief. At some point, hopefully you realize that my belief is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, because there is no single piece of Scripture that has not agreed with what I have said already.
PART 1:
Delight - "I think I was right on the very first post I wrote to you...'you do not know the Author'."
Attacking my relationship with God does not make your belief any stronger.
"that all the Christians here vehemently oppose you"
All the Christians as in steiner and yourself? There are some that disagree with me, but you and steiner are the only ones that "vehemently opposing" me, and both of you do not seem to be able to defend your beliefs very well, and instead of thinking about all the other Scripture I point out, you choose to attack me instead.
"You don't know what sin is"
Like I said, I'm quoting Jesus and Paul in my definitions. You're choosing to ignore them.
"attempting to build a case against God and His people"
I am not building a case against Christians, MUCH less God. Why would I build a case against the One that I serve? Talk about nonsensical! :)
No, I am building a case against a specific, traditional, NON-SCRIPTURAL idea that you insist on defending. If you feel like you can judge the whole of me, my heart, and my relationship to God based on my belief about one specific idea, and completely ignore the rest of what I say, go ahead.
"What is even more puzzling, searching out the Scripture to defend someone else's sin."
It is puzzling because you have hardened your heart to the point where you do not see yourself searching out Scripture and pulling it out of context in order to support a traditional belief. Because I have no personal stake in this specific topic, it's easier for me to put aside the need to be right. When a particular belief becomes so strong, people have personal stake in being right. You are trying to be right. I am trying to be Scriptural.
"What are your motives in seeking out the unbelievers here and making your case for their sin so they will not be able to repent?"
Seeking out the unbelievers? Did I miss something? Did I post an advertisement in a magazine: "Unbelievers, come to this Christian discussion forum so I can absolve you of all your sins, no matter WHAT they are, for I am God!"
Come on, be realistic. We are Christians having a discussion about doctrine. It is an Internet forum open to everyone, but is probably frequented most by Christians. I have no say in who gets to read, nor have I ever invited anyone to this forum, or even linked to it.
What is my motive? My motive is to prevent other Christians from preaching condemnation based solely on traditional belief and supporting that belief by cherry-picking the Bible.
PART 2: (for Delight)
What am I supposed to say to God when I get to heaven?
GOD: "Why didn't you say anything?"
ME: "I tried, but so many Christians already believed it."
GOD: "Why do you think they call it TRADITIONAL belief?"
ME: "They didn't like what I had to say."
GOD: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."
What is your motive for ignoring so much Scripture and believing in this specific myth?
What is your motive for ignoring what Paul says about not judging others?
What is your motive for ignoring how Jesus defines sin?
What is your motive for ignoring how Paul echoes Jesus' definition of sin?
What is your motive for ignoring context?
"Not separate, included also in unbelief are all the other sins commited in unrighteousness"
That's interesting. I don't see homosexuality mentioned in the verses you quoted. It's almost like it SHOULD be in that list, but instead, it is separated out, as if it were in some other context. If you want to quote all of Romans 1, go ahead - it only supports what I've said. The only way you can support your belief with Romans 1 is to take the homosexual acts out of the context of idolatry and then try to tie them to the list of other evils that they performed in their idol worship.
jh-"If you want to separate out the homosexual behavior from its rightful context, again, that's your call."
Not separate, included also in unbelief are all the other sins commited in unrighteousnes:
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, [fn] unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY IN IT'S "RIGHTFUL" CONTEXT?????
"godly motivations that are in our hearts"
What are your motives for questioning God's Word?
What are your motives to have your hand against every Christian here on these boards?
What are your motives in seeking out the unbelievers here and making your case for their sin so they will not be able to repent?
Something other than Godly.
Godly motives agree with God, His Nature, His word and His people to be of one mind. YOU may think you have godly motives but from the evidence of all the words you have written, your motives are highly suspect.
You certainly have a motivation, but it has nothing to do with defending the Gospel.
I always get a suspicious of folks who search out the Scriptures as you do, jh, trying to find the loophole for sin. What is even more puzzling, searching out the Scripture to defend someone else's sin.
Jesus said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind..."
These are the avenues through which the Holy Spirit works through man to convict him of sin, not the fleshly heart alone. All these must be renewed through the power of the Holy Spirit.
"...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
Of equal importance in Scripture, is that Christians be of one mind and that is the Mind of christ: "For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ."
From what is written here, it is clear to me that you do not have the mind of Christ. You do not know the Nature of God through the Holy Spirit; all it appears is you have a head knowledge and no personal experience of the Holy Spirit to know God as He has revealed Himself. You don't know what sin is and you slander the nature of God through your suppositions and foolish argument. You would think it would be a warning flag to you that all the Christians here vehemently oppose you as you present yourself as a Christian but malign the Word of God. But you blithely ignore and continue with your nonsensical arguments, attempting to build a case against God and His people.
I think I was right on the very first post I wrote to you...'you do not know the Author'.
"matucon and bryan90 - where did you go? "
Lol Jhil.
Well I was doing some thinking. And my conscience said to "act more and preach less". Everybody here has a strong relationship with their inner conscience (some clal it God), which means that most of the times they'd listen to no one but themselves, which is good! So I realized that the only way for people like us to change our point of view, is not for others to preach to us but for we ourselves to experience things, to feel things.
I am still reading intermittently. Just posting less.. :P
Happy New Year!
Those outside the church will ultimately be drawn to the church as they become desperate in their sin..but if the church has made their sin sacrosant...what hope have they?..indeed what hope is there left for that church!
Your approach to scripture is very much like those early Corinthians. Having believed in Christ through faith, they arrogantly thought that they were free to continue sinning, as their great faith was advocated as a defence to their vices:
All things are lawful!
Jhilgeman,
In Romans 1:32, Paul concludes with: and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them...
How explicit must scripture be? It is plain.
As regards to judging... Paul is talking to the Hebrew, who is proud of having been given the law....yet is breaking it as well, and fails to see that he is just as condemned by the law, which he is so proud of.
Paul points out in 3:21 that through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
This is extremely interesting, because if you read further in 1 Corinthinas 5:10-13, Paul makes it very clear as to how we are to judge and whom.
Having already established that the law has made us knowledgeable of sin, on this basis Paul then explains that therefore we are not to judge outsiders (which is what the Hebrew was doing)5.12 - for what have I to do with judging outsiders? ( if they wish to be in union outside the church..fine)
But those who are outside, God judges (leave it to God).
But...Do you not judge those who are within the church?
Of course we must judge! and Paul explicitly commands:
REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES...
Jhilgeman,
I am not aware of any scripture that mentions that Jesus did not uphold the law regarding unclean foods. As a Hebrew He fulfilled the Old Testament requirement in its entirety.
There were rules/interpretations established by the Pharisees which he broke, but these were not the law, they were theological iterations made by the Pharisees based on the food laws. Yet, if there are examples of breaking the law, please point out.
Jhilgeman,
Delight - "Sin cannot be based soley on man's intent from his finite senses; the human heart"
Hey, I'm just repeating back what Paul and Jesus have said. If you disagree with Paul and Jesus, that's your call. -shrug-
"Either the heart reigns or the Spirit guides."
I think it's more accurate to say "Either the FLESH reigns or the Spirit guides." The Spirit gives direction to the heart. Technically speaking, we all follow our hearts. When we spread the gospel, we're following the godly motivations that are in our hearts. If we let the flesh rule and turn us away from God, then that's a problem.
"...homosexuals walk in darkness following the rule of the heart."
That is a judgment that you are in no position to make. You do not know anyone's heart but your own. There's a reason that Paul specifically tells us not to judge others.
"That is why I read Roman 1 that UNBELIEF comes before homosexual behavior, this being just one one of the things God gives them over to."
If you want to separate out the homosexual behavior from its rightful context, again, that's your call. Hopefully you will someday recognize that you are putting the cart before the horse and ignoring large portions of the Bible in your attempts to justify your existing belief.
matucon and bryan90 - where did you go?
jh-"what they felt was godly and that was every bit as good as the old law."
The truth;"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts".
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise".
Sin cannot be based soley on man's intent from his finite senses; the human heart but on an External God who judges sin, through the Holy Spirit.
Scroll down to Stiener's last post where it reads; "To claim that there is no sin in homosexuality is to have died to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human
depravity."
Either the heart reigns or the Spirit guides.
We walk in lawfulness when we walk in the Holy Spirit and homosexuals walk in darkness following the rule of the heart.
That is why I read Roman 1 that UNBELIEF comes before homosexual behavior, this being just one one of the things God gives them over to.
Homsexuals are in unbelief not just sin.
This is beyond the law written on their hearts because they don't believe.
PART 1:
steiner - "to put it bluntly: you are lying"
Personal attacks don't really help your case.
I think I understand where you're coming from. Just for context and to establish common ground, here are some thoughts that we hopefully agree on:
1. Paul is speaking to Jews (among others), who are familiar with the OT law (which I'll refer to as just "the law").
2. Sin exists outside of the law. (Romans 5:13)
3. Prior to Jesus Christ, sin outside the law still resulted in death. (Romans 5:13-14)
4. The law exists to bring forth the realization of sin. (Romans 7:7 and a few others)
5. We are dead to the law (Romans 7:6), no longer under the law. (Romans 6:14).
6. The law is not nullified by faith in Jesus, but upheld. (Romans 3:31)
7. There is a deeper understanding of the law, not just literal. (Matthew 15:10,16-20 / Mark 7:18-23)
8. Everything is permissible, but not beneficial. (1 Corinthians 6:12)
Here is my understanding:
I used to get hung up on #6. What I was unable to do was correlate that with #7 and #8. If we are to uphold the law, then that means we need to uphold the laws about unclean foods, but per #7 and #8 which BOTH used unclean foods as examples, Jesus and Paul were both not upholding the law.
This is where practical purpose is introduced as a facet of the law. Per #4, law brought about a realization to the heart. In Romans, Paul talks about coveting, and says that after the law prohibiting coveting was known, his sinful nature brought about that sin of coveting. I'll go out on a non-Scriptural limb here and say that Paul probably coveted before he knew the law, but once he was made aware that it was wrong, it made him think of WHY coveting was wrong. Per Jesus' quotes in #7's verses, what made a man unclean was what came from the heart. There are actions that are almost always wrong because the heart has selfish/ungodly motives.
Now consider #5. Why would we uphold the law that that we are no longer bound to? I believe that it's because the practical, BENEFICIAL purpose of the law lends itself to godliness. To further that point, in Romans 2, Paul talks about the Gentiles not being exposed to the law like the Jews, but they still had the law written on their hearts. They may not have been following the letter of the law, but they were following what they felt was godly, and that was every bit as good as the old law.
So to me, the combination of all of these points (and all of the rest of the Bible, for that matter) points to the idea that the law is about godly intent and practical purpose. When you have evil intentions, then it doesn't matter if you're skirting around something that hasn't been specifically outlawed, it's still sinful. Similarly, when you do something with godly intentions, but it has not been specifically approved, it is like following the law that the Gentiles had on their hearts.
PART 2:
To further the subjective nature of the law, consider Romans 14. Two men, one whose faith is weak in its strictness, and another whose faith is (implied) stronger in its permissiveness (keeping #8 in mind). However, God accepts them both.
Another example - I've come across Christians who are arrogant in their belief that church must be on Sundays, or that Saturday or Sunday must be a day of rest. Romans 14:6 says that God doesn't care about the name of the day - if someone has a strange work schedule that makes them work on weekends and Wednesday is their day off, well, then that person's Sabbath can easily be Wednesday.
SO, with all the subjectivity in mind, WE need to look at the law and extract the benefits as we see them. The law is not dead, because there are some things that still hold practical value today.
I have no problem eating shellfish. Another Christian once told me that shellfish are bottom-feeders so eating them would bring all the "trash" and germs into our bodies along with that meat (paraphrased - it was a long time ago). Part of me wanted to just argue against it because of my own belief (not to mention that the introduction of some germs/bacteria is beneficial to the wondrously crazy way our immune system was design). I smiled and stayed silent because it really didn't matter (plus there were non-believers in the room and arguing about it would not have been good for their perception of Christianity). If part of her faith included not eating shellfish for a specific reason, then at least she was doing it with godly intentions.
Personally, I believe that the Israelites would have no concept of how to preserve shellfish as they were carried days over hot open desert, so God gave them a law that would protect them from getting food poisoning. Keeping in mind that a growing and constantly-moving tribe of people depended on HEALTHY population to be successful, it made quite a bit of practical, beneficial sense at the time.
To me, it seems like a lot of laws were about population control (especially increase in population). Example: the story of Onan talks about coitus interruptus, and that God killed him for it (probably for not following the instructions of Levirate marriage). So that is why I see Lev. 18:22 as a law that had great practical value in its time, and no longer holding the same practical, beneficial purpose today.
One last note - in Romans, Paul says to not pass judgment on others, and repeatedly reinforces the idea by talking about God's judgment superceding ours. If sin IS subjective to the person's heart, then judging others makes no sense, because what we consider to be a sin may not be a sin to them. If a homosexual reads the Bible and interprets the old law to be applicable to his/her actions today, then their choice to go against what they believe to be right is sinful. If they interpret the law not to be applicable, then they MIGHT not be sinning (it all depends on their heart).
Jh,
This is what I have said:
In Romans (1-8), Paul points out that the Old Testament Law had a purpose. Its purpose was to make known what is sin, and to pass judgment on the sinner.
In Leviticus 18.22 the law is clear that a man shall not have sexual intercourse with another man.
How does the New Testament deal with the law? Paul notes that because of Jesus we are dead to the demands/penalty of the law when one sins...which in this case is death.
Yet, Paul points out that we are saved from the demands/judgments of the law because Christ has met, by his death, those demands.
Paul clearly notes that those who live by his Spirit will not continue in this sin, but as they grow in His Spirit, they will die to the demands of human nature...
Romans 8.13 - For if you live according to your human nature, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death your sinful actions, you will live.
Yet, there are regulation that are not observed in Christianity any longer. These are regulations on dress, food, and treatment of animals... In these cases, there is still typical(presenting a type) uses for them.
Paul for example uses the regulation on the ox that is allowed to graze on the grain as it works...and uses this regulation to point out that Christian missionaries have just as much a right to ask of those in the field they are working in to help them financially or by other means.
Hence, the law of the OT is for Christians an indicator of where they are in Christ. If they are sinning sexually, then they are allowing their Spiritual union with Christ to be overcome by the demands of human depravity...and must seek Christs Spirit and turn away from their sin.
To claim that there is no sin in homosexuality is to have died to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human depravity.
Jh
Previously Ive pointed out that you wish to obfuscate often, but to put it bluntly: you are lying.
Hi all. Hope everyone had a good Christmas!
believer - "no we can fall back on Jesus words that define God's original and only design for marriage, Matthew 19:4-7."
I understand your viewpoint, but it's difficult for me to look at that entire passage and see anything BEYOND a severe condemnation of casual divorce. Expand that verse selection to Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus was approached with a very specific question that related to a cultural practice (casual divorce - men would marry for selfish/sexual purposes, divorce and remarry multiple times, literally leaving "used" women in the dust).
Here are a couple details that COULD have been left out, but their inclusion supports what this passage is really about:
Verse 3: The Pharisees could have asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" but they tack on the "for any and every reason."
Verse 4-5: Jesus talks about equal importance - God created both genders, not just man.
Verse 6: "let man not separate" - another reference to cultural acceptance of the practice.
Verse 9: Another reason to believe that it's just about this practice - Jesus doesn't just stop at verse 8. He specifically refers to the practice itself - "ANYONE who divorces his wife...and marries another woman commits adultery."
Jesus is pretty specific with details here - this passage is about divorce. God doesn't separate married people if they are married in His sight, so casual divorce/remarriage is the same as cheating. That said, I don't see this passage as simply being about a definition of the only type of marriage.
steiner - I've said this a couple times before. We disagree on a more fundamental level. You think the O.T. law is still applicable today and should be followed - I think it was practical law for that time and for that group of people. If you want to debate that, then that's fine (there may be a better forum for it, though), but until we find common ground there, debating homosexuality is pointless.
je, please remember that it was not only Christians who voted in favor of Proposition 8 in California and also remember that California voted overwhelmingly for Obama. But the bottomline is that God's original and only design for marriage and sexual intimacy clearly says that marriage is for one man and one woman united as one for life in the sight of God and that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one for life in the sight of God through marriage, so as a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God we are compelled to oppose any laws that would change those designs. Plus if same-sex marriage were to become the law of the land then what would be the new definition of marriage or could their even be a definition?
Whew!
Although the article I believe can be viewed as equally "cherry picking" as those who use the bible to condem...in the end this is a democracy and not a theocracy. The argument is for legal status based on basic human rights, not what one group believes or another.
With that in mind, denial of rights to another American who is breaking no laws or harming anyone comes from a very un-Christian place.
Jh:-- do you not agree that the wages of all sin is death?..
Yes I do, yet you condone what Leviticus clearly states is sin that was not reparable by sacrifice, but required the death on the one who practices such act.
Jh:-- pagans were idol worshippers and very much into homosexuality, and Paedophilia and ...they were doing the actions to worship an idol...
No, it is written that God gave them over to SUCH ACTS as A FORM OF PUNISHMENT...what makes you think that they are now sacrosant or condoned by GOD?
Were not the Gentile pagans far more honest than you? At least they were not arrogant enough to call them marriage!
Jh:--- Im not sure what your point is. Nobody here is approving of perastry.....and Im nt taking my lead from Greek philosophers.--
Yes, you are not taking a lead from Greek philosophers. As I noted, they were decent enough not to call their acts a form of marriage. But you are obfuscating again, and your twisted arguments would instantly make these sins sacrosant by tying them to marriage! Hence, bestiality is a sin, but if the man and the beast are married, than those are sacred acts. Paedophelia is a sin...but if the child and the man are married, then those acts are sacred..Rubbish!
Have you no shame!? As Paul points out...even the gentiles are not so arrogant..
.
mike22685, historians acknowledge homosexuality was very much a part of both Greek and Roman society, so even if it was not called homosexuality the sexual practices were very much known to the people of Christ's day and yet we find absolutely no where in the Bible where those practices are condoned or endosed by God or Christ, so why would we not be in agreement with what we read in the Word of God with regards to marriage and sexual intimacy as opposed to not only what we don't read, but views that willfully violate God's original and only design for both marriage and sexual intimacy. And in fact there appears to be scripture that very much speaks against the sexual practices of sexual intimacy.
Homosexual activity is definitely an abomination. Moreover, marriage will not remove the abomination of its unseemly work. "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev 21:8).
Today is the day of salvation. Do you hear the call to humble yourself, repent, and turn from your wicked ways, receiving forgiveness, deliverance, and new life in Christ?
You're right delight, it would be easier to just accept the scriptural interpretations as you do, but JH chooses to use the brilliant mind God gave him. God said marriage as one man and one woman, but you need to keep in mind who Jesus was speaking to. Talking about gay marriage would have been like talking about the internet. Your case is weak.
Amen, Believer...
jh-Did God goof up His intention for gays to marry by remaining Silent?
What does this say for the nature of God...He intended homosexuality, He just didn't say?
No way of getting around this one:
Homosexual acts are sinful outside of marriage but God is Silent in regards to same sex marriage, but not silent on marriage between one man and one woman. No win.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Isn't it just easier to believe God on this issue rather than to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to believe your argument for same-sex marriage.
jh, no we can fall back on Jesus words that define God's original and only design for marriage, Matthew 19:4-7.
(Also, the 90% was a playful jab.)
Delight -
"I don't need to put words in your mouth, jh, you have many words. :)"
Touche.
"Have you not said homosexual sin outside marriage is the same sin for both homo/heterosexuals?"
Yes.
"Do we both agree that Scripture is absolutely ... SILENT on homosexual marriage?"
Yes. (I think this is the most we've ever agreed.)
"Do you support same-sex marriage by Government mandate?"
Government legality is not what I'm debating.
There was even heterosexual marriage before there was government-required paperwork - the government does not take the place of God in any way. It can simply insert paperwork into the process. If gay marriage were truly wrong per Scripture, then it wouldn't matter what the government allowed.
My concern is regarding the teaching that gay marriage (and thus homosexual acts) is forbidden by Scripture, when in fact Scripture is just silent on the matter, but we've developed doctrine on that silence and called it Scriptural. Where the Scriptures are silent, we can only fall back on Jesus's words that define sin.
I have to go run some more errands and we have company coming over tomorrow, so I may not be on for a while unless I can squeeze in some time. Just in case, I hope every one of you has a blessed and merry Christmas! Take care!
I don't need to put words in your mouth, jh, you have many words. :)
Have you not said homosexual sin outside marriage is the same sin for both homo/heterosexuals?
Do we both agree that Scripture is absolutely (where it doesn't need to be) SILENT on homosexual marriage?
Do you support same-sex marriage by Government mandate? Yes?
Isn't this how your argument ends?
I'm just using the 90% rational thought you credit me with to come to the conclusion by the words you say:
God cannot save the homosexual from sin but Government can. Essentially, that's what you are saying and I find that thought harder to wrap my mind around than God condemning homosexuality in the first place.
Your support of same-sex marriage says that the God you know is negligent and unjust to the homosexual in excluding his "right to marriage" from the Scripture. That this is God judges unrighteously and now powerless and needs Government to make the marriage covernant FOR God?
Delight - Since you seem to feel comfortable putting words in my mouth, I'll let you argue this one with yourself.
bryan, it appears you believe that heaven is more of a state of mind as opposed to a real place, if I'm correct let me ask you this. Where do you believe Christ went when He ascended from the earth in Acts? Plus, with regards to the second death, this term is used in the Word of God to talk about those who reject Christ being eternally separated from God for eternity in hell. So both heaven and hell are real places. Plus the only thing that sends a person to hell is their decision to not repent of their sins by turning from their sin and putting their complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone. And this is one of those issues where God said it and that settles it and the only part we have in this is to either accept it or we can reject it, but it's not up for debate.
Bryan - I just read that post and another one a couple posts above it. I skimmed upwards for a while but didn't see anything further.
Out of curiousity, what parts of the Bible do you believe? And what parts do you take literally?
jh- Now our Government has the power to what God could not by defining marriage 'correctly'?
If or when our Government (and all the rest of the world governments) allow for same-sex marriage, THEN this would save thousands of homosexuals from eternity apart from God?
Really?
This is where your argument leads; only government can save the souls of the homosexual from God's judgment doesn't that give governments more power than God?
steiner -
"As regards to other abominations...that are less serious in degree"
Do you not agree that the wages of all sin are death?
"We are all sinners and all need Christ. "
Agreed.
"The worst sin, is not to hear God s Word, nor His Spirit."
Not according to Jesus.
"For when one hears, they will turn to Christ."
Not always, according to Paul.
"pagans were idol worshippers and very much into homosexuality, and Paedophilia"
And heterosexuality / fornication as well. I'm sure they were into eating and sleeping, too, but what makes ALL actions inside idolatry wrong is that they were doing the actions to worship an idol.
"MAny of the Greek philosophers, with all their wisdom, approved of Paedophelia"
I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody here is approving of pederastry/pedophilia, and I'm CERTAINLY not taking my lead from Greek philosophers.
Jhil,
No worries. If i were easily offended, then i would be a bigger hypocrite than I already am, considering that I talk about love and acceptance.
"It sounds like you're talking about "heaven" and "hell" as states that one is in during everyday life."
Kind of. I just think the word "heaven" in the bible acts as a symbolism to happiness in life.
And yeah, I was describing a point in time (hopefully we'd reach it), where every human being can be truly happy. And when that happens, I believe that God's work with human beings would be done. And yes, "descend" is symbolic as well. It's kind of like, I would imagine that when everybody reaches the point when we can live together in perfect harmony, we would lose purpose of our existence. :P (not too sure myself)
Well again, I believe that the bible is symbolic. When the author wrote 12,000 furlongs, he was having an image of 12,000 furlongs. But the value of the message lies not in the physical aspect of his image but in the emotional aspect of his image. When the author pictures gold and diamonds, he feels harmony and peace, and the emotional value is what I look for when I interprete the bible.
Oh dear, I think I wrote a very long post on Jesus somewhere here and it was rather contentious. check "Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:00 pm".
You're right jhil, we ought to be very careful of what the little voices in our head tells us. And obviously God does not speak to us like a voice descending from the sky. At least he hasn't done so to me. He teaches us and talks to us through the experience we go through, the people around us, and the human rationality.
Someone needs to invent a heated keyboard for cold days like today.
Bryan - "Oh.. Sorry if I was vague,"
No worries. I've heard a few theories on heaven/hell, and your initial description sounded like a theory about heaven/hell being mental states, similar to the Buddhist idea of reaching nirvana, so I was assuming you were referring to that theory. (Also, please don't feel that I'm picking on you or anything - I'm just trying to understand what you believe and figure out how it correlates to the Bible. Delight can confirm that I can be unintentionally irritating sometimes.)
So I'm not quite sure what you mean now. Let me read back what I'm hearing you say to see if I'm misunderstanding. It sounds like you're talking about "heaven" and "hell" as states that one is in during everyday life. Once everyone reaches "heaven" in their personal life, then we've reached some state (collective heaven?). But then God descends down (not sure if you mean literally or symbolically?), and the dimensions of New Jerusalem are just examples of vastness?
If the point of the dimensions is to illustrate vastness, then is there a particular reason you think that 12,000 furlongs were chosen instead of something like 120,000 furlongs (a number that the audience of Revelation would still be familiar with) ?
A side note - you referenced a phrase, "If you believe in God, you go to heaven," but that phrase isn't really anywhere in the Bible. I think people came up with it as a soundbite summary of the popular version of the process, but it leaves out a lot of things.
"I wouldn't call Hell "second death" but perhaps some others might"
Those are the author's words in Revelation 21.
Do you believe in the literal stories of Jesus - in particular the ones that reference death and resurrection? If not, what is your interpretation of them?
"I once prayed and spoke to God (supposing that he was listening)"
I think He probably was, and I'm not going to say that your conscience wasn't God talking. I will say that every Christian should always be cautious when dealing with their conscience. There are lots of Christians today who at one point claimed that God had told them McCain would win the last election. It's sometimes easy to hear what you want to hear. I've found that God does not always respond immediately via how we've chosen to listen.
"I am not too adverse to the idea that there is an afterlife"
I'm not sure I see Scriptural support for saying there is an afterlife, but it's not the one referenced throughout the Scriptures. The idea of an afterlife (at least for Chrsitians) comes from the references you're using to say that heaven/hell are states during life. Can you entertain the idea that it can only be one or the other (if you're basing it solely on Scripture) ?
jh-Homosexuality has been around throughout all of history; not so with modern things such as computers, the modern age does not make Scripture warning obsolete. If homosexual acts were sanctioned at all, then it would've been recorded in Scripture as a form of legitimate love. You are reaching beyond Scripture and seeing the absense of same sex- relationships or marriage as Scripture reads, then as permission for homosexual 'marriage'.
Saying as you do, that homosexuals who are (in only 5 countries to date) allowed to marry then God has mislead these poor folks all these centuries and giving them no remedy to love legitimately through an illustration of marriage for them in the bible.
He needs our Government to sanction same sex marriage? He will now save all the homosexuals He condemned when our Government approves same sex marriage? Are you kidding me?
This is not within in the nature of the God of the Bible.
What an oversight, if marriage would remedy the sin of homosexuality just as He shows us with heterosexual love, (obviously approving that) then God is negligent for the sin of those unmarried homosexuals who sin. God didn't sanction marriage for them in Scripture, leaving them without an outlet to be right in His eyes, can He righteously judge their sin?
Do you believe God to be negligent since He overlooked a form of marriage as an expression of their legitimate love? Why do you suppose there is no mention of a homosexual marriage example in Scripture if it is as legitimate as a heterosexual marriage?
By the way, I meant the Triune God. Not some insular and impersonal god/idol; but the Triune God, to whom it truly can be exclaimed and praised as the the God who is one.
For ultimately, although in Three Persons, He is the perfect Unity. What would there be to exclaim about if god, an insular god wished us to know him as one?
But, being created in His image, he wishes us to reflect His Unity. This only possible in Christ, who prays that we be one with Him. And Pauls exclaims: who can separate us from Christ?! United in Christ...a union that ultimately gives rise to communion with the Almighty.
There is much to be written on this subject. For man, reflecting God s image has always wished for union..in our states, in our places of work (companies where people work in harmony)...and yet rejecting the Triune God, forces mankind into some atrocious and unholy unions...Take care, and remain in Christ.
Jh,
I think you are obfuscating again in regards to genetics.
As regards Leviticus...It is a whole chapter of sins that require the death penalty.
As regards to other abominations...that are less serious in degree, the penalty is different. I am not just picking and choosing.
Yet, I thank God for His mercy in Christ. We are all sinners and all need Christ.
The worst sin, is not to hear God s Word, nor His Spirit. For when one hears, they will turn to Christ.
And this is the problem with those that wish to make homosexuality sacrosant...they are in fact damning the sinners to remain in unbelief, and as Delight pointed out, to become what Paul speaks of in Romans 1...Idol worshippers. Remember, pagans were idol worshippers and very much into homosexuality, and Paedophilia. MAny of the Greek philosophers, with all their wisdom, approved of Paedophelia.
As regards to Hell...I appreciate Bryan s thoughts and wishes to send no one there. I too wish for the same.
But, hell begins to occur when people reject Christ. They reject mercy and consequently begin to create their own systems outside of God. The hell that Hitler created (a follower of the prophet Nietzsce, who declared that God is dead) was quite a brutal one.
The hell that Stalin created was just as bad...He killed over 20million of his own people, because he feared them...
Ultimately, the hell of the after life is one where those that did not wish for Christ s mercy will get their way. Where the presence of God will not habitate, and hence where mercy, kindness...true relationship will be replaced by great fear, insularity(desolation) and hopelessness. I pray that we remain in Christ...who rescued us. Take Care, and I pray for Christ s Spirit and Word to establish and maintain you in good cheer and righteousness.
Delight - "Even you ... must know that these acts are confined outside of the marriage bed, making them fornication at best"
Which is why we've been arguing about gay marriage before. I don't see homosexual acts as sinful per Romans 1 or 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, and I've fully explained my reasoning behind those verses. I would agree that if gay marriage were NOT an option, then all homosexual acts would be considered fornication.
"For homosexuality to be endorsed by the God of Scripture, we would have to have at least one example..."
So we can do nothing beyond what has already been explicitly done in the Bible? That is a really weak, non-Scriptural idea and I'll prove it with a simple example: I don't see anyone in the Bible using a computer. Yet, I believe that there are people who use the computer for godly purposes.
Actions are simply elements of life. As society grows more and more modern, so do the types of "actions" - driving cars, using computers, buying stock, building a shelter for victims of domestic abuse. What defines those actions as godly or sinful are our motives. Are we driving a car to rush someone to an emergency room, or are we running over someone?
Jesus was pretty clear that actions were not sinful but that the heart was the source of sin. Every action is driven by motive. You have yet to explain how someone that is entering a same-sex marriage for love, commitment, and allowance of sexual activity (their true motives can ONLY be known by God and that person) is sinning.
"Idolatry is the result of Unbelief, jh. True?"
True.
It's just not true that homosexuality is the result of idolatry. :)
You're trying to turn a real-world example of the fruitlessness of idolatry into Scriptural law about homosexuality.
By that rationale, you could say that it is Scriptural that it is sinful to bury money in the ground, which is ridiculous and missing the point of the parable of the talents.
Jhil,
Oh.. Sorry if I was vague, I did not interprete the verses as description of heaven. I interpreted it as "the end of the world" as in the state in which the world would be when all human beings learn to live in harmony. During that time, all human beings would have already reached "heaven" since to live in harmony with all other human beings, one must first accept God, and hence would attain true happiness. And the descriptions were about how since everybody was already in Heaven, it is God that "descends" down. And the description was just about the vastness of the harmony that is present.
Well before talking about hell, I need to clear something up. I mentioned that "heaven" represents the attainment of true happiness. I didn't exactly thought it to be a "mental state". To me it's just more symbolisms used in the bible. The phrase "If you believe in God, you go to heaven" is like saying "If you believe in God, you would gain true happiness." I dont' know if you would call that mental state, but it's just a matter of semantics.
Well I wouldn't call Hell "second death" but perhaps some others might, and I could only guess their intentions. Perhaps this is what they meant: When you're still alive, even if you go astray, and live a life of vengeance, you'd have a chance to let the negative emotions go, and attain true happiness.. But if you bring the vengeance to your grave, then at the point of death, you'd realize that your life was for nothing but vengeance, and the remorse felt then is seen as "hell", the "second death".
I once prayed and spoke to God (supposing that he was listening) that it is unfair for these people to just die without attaining true happiness; that since God gave living beings a second chance, God should give the dead too. My conscience answered, "Live your life, care about the living, and let God care about the dead."
So, Jhil, I am not too adverse to the idea that there is an afterlife. But I dont' see it as a place where God punish people, but see it as a chance for a second salvation.
jh, excellent point on the second death and it's relationship to a literal hell!
Bryan - I know what you're referring to, and I can see how you're interpreting those things. That's why I didn't bring up the materials involved (gold, diamonds, etc), or the numbers of gates or walls or whatever. Those can all be read as symbolic.
What I was trying to specifically ask was about the width/height measurements (12,000 furlongs wide, long, and high and the wall being 144 cubits). I just have trouble reconciling physical dimensions back to a mental state. If John were trying to illustrate how massive the mental state was, then there's no reason he should have limited it with physical dimensions. Just something to think about.
Another couple thoughts:
1. In surrounding verses John seems to make reference to moral concepts as if he were speaking literally. It seems odd that he would suddenly deviate from how he had been speaking.
2. Hell is referred to as the second death. If it were a mental state while you were alive, wouldn't it be the first "death" ?
bryan, I heard several noted Bible teachers say that heaven is beyond human comprehension and considering were told the streets in heaven are paved in gold, we can only imagine how awesome heaven will be, but initially we'll be so busy focusing on and worshipping God we won't even have time to notice our surroundings, but the main thing we need to focus on now is making sure we have a genuine relationship with God through Christ alone and if we do to allow God to use us in sharing His plan of salvation with whoever He would have us, to ensure as many people as possible can hear His plan and as many who hear would come to Christ and know that one day we'll all be together in God's kingdom for eternity.
delight, two good questions, as far as internet posting goes our hands are tied and as best as I can see we can only show our Christian friends what we believe God's Word has to say in these matters and allow God's Holy Spirit to take it from there and we also mighr share our concerns for the spiritual well being of that person if they continue to hold and promote those views, but I also realize some of the most lively interactions we have are on issues that are not totally black and white and/or God's Word does not appear to speak directly to it and in some cases I believe we should allow for wiggle room. Plus, I am convinced in several cases that there are some posters who claim to be Christians, but as I watch their posts it becomes very evident that they may be a Christian in name and affiliation only and have never had a genuine conversion experience which brings us to your second question on repentance. Henry Blackby in either "Experiencing God" or "Fresh Encounter" shared the best explanation of repentance I've ever heard and I use it quite often. Repentance is a change of mind/additude, we agree with God about the sin in our life, a change of heart/affection, we see how are sin hurts God and our relationship with God and for a non-believer how it keeps them from having a relationship with God, which leads to a change of behavior/action, our upmost desire becomes to do what pleases God so He can see how much we love Him and desire to have a personal, growing, and intimate relationship with Him.
Idolatry is the result of Unbelief, jh. True?
I read Romans 1 as an indictment against all unrigheousness that comes about through unbelief or disbelief of God's attributes and Nature which is evident within His creation. What is evident in creation is the Design and Order.
Idolatry along with all of the other sins listed in the following verses stem from turning from what God has shown and causing them to disbelieve God (as in unbelief).
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge (UNBELIEF), God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,unmerciful;
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
You can only change the meaning of this chapter by restricting these sins to idolatry and not unbelief. I believe that homosexuality is both idolatry and unbelief. Because they choose "not to retain God in their knowledge"--a denial of God's obvious design of the human body and His desire for both nature and man to procreate, they disbelieve. Because they did not believe in the attributes of God through His Creation, they "exchanged the truth of God for the lie".
The lie is rejection of God's ways of his attributes revealed. Having dismissed God and His design for order they saw fit to (lust in their hearts) and indulge the creature over the worship of the Creator, mocking the design of God in their idolatry from their unbelief in God.
For homosexuality to be endorsed by the God of Scripture, we would have to have at least one example of a homosexual union and in all the mention of marriage in Scripture, NOT ONE story recounts this as an example to us. Oversight by God, then if it so important to know we could use His design this way? You would have to see at least some voice in Scripture condoning homosexual acts but mention of these acts are always in a bad light: shameful passions, vile passions, unnatural; Sodom, the list of the above sins in Roman 1 and lastly in 1 Cor6:9-10. That is the context; homosexuality is always shown as sin against God.
Even you, jh who give license to homosexual acts must know that these acts are confined outside of the marriage bed, making them fornication at best, unbelief and idol worship as worst.
Why is it so important to you to continue condoning homosexual acts, in view of the less than flattering words used to describe the acts and with no approval for these acts shown in Scripture?
Jhil,
After reading the passage from Gateway, this, in my opinion, is what I understood from it:
It tells the "end" of the world. I've always had the imagination that one day, if humanity does make it, we would end up in a world where human beings would all learn to love each other - no hatred, jealousy, persecution. It would be the day when our purpose would be fulfilled, and God's humanity project would end. The architecture descriptions - gold, diamonds, other jewels - to me, are symbolisms of happiness, peace, love etc.
I mean based on my wisdom, or the lack of it, it doesn't tie that a God who has always preached for humility, admonished extravagance would want to build His kingdom with literal diamons and gold. God is not that shallow?
Bryan - "I am not entirely convinced with/sure about my own sentiments of heaven and hell."
Well, we usually die at some point, so it could be a very important sentiment to nail down. :) I respect your thoughts, so here is some food for them:
If you believe in Revelation at all (I'm assuming you do, whether you interpret it as symbolic, literal, or a mix), then that should make a difference. Even if you believe Revelation to be fully symbolic, then use your same logic to ask yourself - if heaven is a state of mind, then why would John describe the architectural measurements of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21?
steiner - I am not going to continue the whole genetics/cloning/identical twin thing. We disagree and there's quite a bit more to say but it's getting way off-topic.
You are implying that "abominable things" refers specifically to a single verse in Leviticus, and further implying that there are major and minor violations (although I was under the impression that ALL unrepented sin resulted in death, which is God's punishment. Leviticus, to me, seems to talk about immediate local punishment from the community.). You also imply that the biggest sin of all ("the sin of all sins") is homosexual union. I don't see that as being in agreement with Mark 3:28-29.
Honestly, every time I read your posts, I have a "Wha...?" moment. There are terms that you seem to be throwing around as metaphors (e.g. "sexual cannibalism") which I am having a hard time reconciling with Scripture.
Delight - "that would be ZERO Scriptural Support for your assertion homosexuals don't need to repent for their activities. You are using other text to create your theory."
No, my theory remains the same even without outside text.
1. If I read Romans 1 with the idea that homosexuality is wrong, then I am going to find a condemnation of homosexual acts.
2. If I read Romans 1 without any existing prejudice, then I am finding a condemnation of all things done within idolatry.
3. If I read Romans 1 without any existing prejudice WITH outside text, then I am finding the same thing as #2, only with clearer context.
"How short sighted of God to only address that and not the whole of humanity throughout the rest of History."
Actually, Jesus gives a timeless description of sin in the gospels. It's quite clear, to me. We just seem to be understanding examples differently.
"...and not seeing this as an indictment of all idol worship"
Here's one of my own quotes from a few posts down:
"the passage is a warning about ALL idolatry with a reference to those specific cults as an example"
Think about it. Paul is talking to recent converts, many of them probably Jewish who believed idol worship was sinful because the law said so. Paul gives a real-world example of WHY idol worship is sinful and furthermore fruitless by pointing to two major cults that promoted fertility with rites that would never result in fertility.
"These also do not need to repent to your "rational" mind?"
I did not say that. Those other sins are mentioned throughout the rest of Scriptures and go hand-in-hand with evil/sinful intent. There is plenty of Scriptural support for condemning those types of intentions.
Let me ask you this, why do you think Paul goes to the trouble of writing out Romans 1:18-32 instead of just saying something like (I'm going to copy and paste parts from NIV for readability):
"The unrighteous are filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strifer, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; THEY COMMIT HOMOSEXUAL SIN; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless."
"Which is it for you, jh; the love of the argument or sheer, blinding pride and arrogance?"
The love of God and the need to call out a traditional belief as being non-Scriptural.
"I find it an indictment of your theories that you DO NOT quote Scripture with any authority"
I do quote Scripture, so why do you feel that I do not quote Scripture with any authority? Because my interpretation is not like yours?
Jhil,
I am not entirely convinced with/sure about my own sentiments of heaven and hell, but at present, this is what my wisdom tells me:
To me, the Kingdom of Heaven offers eternal happiness, which can be gained through the acceptance of God. I would imagine true happiness in life to be the eternal happiness that God promised us. Those who live with love, and abide by His teachings very often lead happy lives, irrespective of poverty, misery and persecution. On the other hand, those who are only fueld by anger, jealousy, hatred, would realize that they are caught in this vortex of negative energy and most of the times cannot attain true happiness and live in misery.
Sins prevent one from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Fair enough if you look at sins as described by scripture, they do. Carnal sex for example; if all I look for in a guy is sex and nothing but sex, 10 years later, when I am no longer sexually attracted to him, I would indeed not live very happily :S.
How do we deal with sins? "By repenting, and accepting Jesus Christ." Using the same example, once I accept the values conveyed by Christ, I would learn that sexual pleasure is but transient and would look for emotional compatibility and true love. Hence once I have found the right man for me, even if I engage in sodomy with him, I risk not my true happiness. So yes, Sodomy is a sin. But I can't see how homosexual love can be a sin.
Disclaimer: The above is my interpretation of scripture based on my wisdom and is subjected to errors.
Believer said; "And that's why we must make sure a person truly understands what true repentance is and that salvation is about.."
If I give license for sin how is this making sure a person understands what true repentance is?
What is my responsibility as a Christian in speaking to true repentance and making it understandable?
Believer,
I believe that you have stated correctly the local church's response to teachers and members.
If the Church is all believing Christians and not a physical locale, then in the context of internet posting, are you saying it is okay for a Christian to say things in opposition to God's Word acceptable if he is sure to give a disclaimer for his opinion?
delight, being a firm believer in the autonomy of the local church I first off believe it needs to be handled by the local church. My question would be is the person who is sharing this simply stating their own opinion or are they in a position of authority and it is either being declared by this person as God's truth or by virtue of their position does their opinion have an authoritative impact. If it's simply an opinion then the person needs to be told to make sure they emphasis the fact that it is just their personal opinion, but if it is the latter two then I would encourage the leadership of the church to pull that person aside and lovingly and tactfully confront the person and biblically show them where what they're teaching is contrary to the Word of God. If the person refuses to back down, then I feel the church needs to seriously consider removing that person from their teaching as well as any other leadership positions they might hold in the church. If they continue to persist in promoting their false teachings then the church should seriously consider bringing the person before the church body to be dealt with and possibly removed from the fellowship of the church. Several cautions I would give the church is to make sure they are responding to facts and not heresay and to make sure the issue is a black and white issue and not a gray area issue in the Bible and as with all church discipline ensure that the goal is always restoration of the person.
Believer,
You are in the pastorate, who are false teachers and what do you do with false teachers?
Do you continue the argument, if so, how long?
Do you expose their teachings?
Do you warn other brothers, the Church?
And when they will not hear; do you separate yourself from them?
Ps to jh; last sentence from last post meant to read;
"I find it an indictment of your theories that you DO NOT quote Scripture with any authority".
jh accuses Steiner; "and you're fitting Scripture to your belief by restricting your connection to one thing instead of all the different possibilities..."
Jhilgeman you are doing the EXACT thing, read my last post. The trouble with using so many of your own words is with tripping yourself up.
I find it an indictment of your theories that you not quote Scripture with any authority.
jh- that would be ZERO Scriptural Support for your assertion homosexuals don't need to repent for their activities.
You are using other text to create your theory. Since we are speaking Scripture here then I would ask again for a Scriptural basis for your assertion that homosexulaity is not a sin. Can you do this?
All I'm seeing is your reasonings and rationalizations and suppressing the truth by limiting this strong warning about a religious cult in Paul's day that has no influence now and not seeing God's Word as relevent to the audience of today. How short sighted of God to only address that and not the whole of humanity throughout the rest of History.
Then, by your rationalzation, these also have nothing to repent for as well?
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"
These also do not need to repent to your "rational" mind?
You do know,jh, that you cast yourself away from Orthodox Christianity and sound doctrine when you take so strong a warning in Scripture and rationalize it away as only applicable to a fertility cult in Paul's day, (not mentioned in the text of the book of Romans or the whole of Scripture) and not seeing this as an indictment of all idol worship (i.e., esteeming creation over the Creator) and all unrighteousness against God and unbelief.
You know that you are teaching the reasoning of men over the things of God and still you continue to teach; "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment...". You have no fear of God.
We are called to be of one mind and to have the Mind of Christ."Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." 1 Cor 1:10.
Every true brother here has tried to call you into account over your heretical teachings and you continue to argue these theories, unabated. Which is it for you, jh; the love of the argument or sheer, blinding pride and arrogance?
Jh
The word abomination is used in different places, but depending on the type, there are different penalties specified.
The penalty specified in Lev. 18 is death.
Hence, it is not a minor violation to be classed with food laws or dress laws...etc.
Therefore, my pointing out Lev 18 is perfectly consistent with the argument made regarding the purpose of the law, sin and the purpose of Christs death...
Please reread and do not obfuscate.
As regards to the clone...have we ever cloned....
We dont have to..
every time identical twins are born, their genetic make up is a clone of the other.
So, it is just as well to say that if I used the DNA of a homosexual to produce an identical twin, the probability of that twin being homosexual does not differ from the rest of the normal population
Jh,
Lets suppose I take one of the identical twins and feed it 10 times a day, and the other only 3 times a day, do you think they are going to look different?
Obviously, environment has something to do with it as well. And that is where I am getting at.
With fingerprints, it is the same thing. By definition they are identical twins because their DNA is the same. Yet, right after the cell splits, there are environmental factors that will differ for both of the twins as they are in the womb. Therefore, though they are similar, the look of the fingerprints are ultimately going to be affected by the environment immediately around them.
For example, when you look at your hands, will they have exactly the same creases? no...I hope not.
Same with your fingerprints...are they exactly the same when comparing thumb to thumb? if they are not the same, does it mean that you have 2 different genetic code for fingerprints...I hope not.
So, although identical twins may have the same DNA, because of environmental factors (differing) they dont have exactly the same fingerprints...
So what.!
My point ultimately is proven. Homosexuality is not a genetic trait.
steiner - Here are two quick questions:
1. Do identical twins have the same fingerprints?
2. Has a human being ever been cloned?
The intent of those 2 questions is not to get into a discussion about cloning and genetics. I am just saying that you've guessed something and then presented it as factual probabilities and such, as if you were an expert in the field. I find that to be intentionally deceitful.
I don't have any issues with you presenting theory and saying it is theory. That is why I responded to it. My first part calling you out on your deceit was arrogant, yes. My response to your theory was sincere.
"(for abominations..read Lev.18)"
Don't cherry-pick the Bible.
For abominations, read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deut., both Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Malachi, Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs, Ezra, and 2nd Chronicles. You have absolutely no way of knowing for sure which abominations Ezekiel was talking about, and you're fitting Scripture to your belief by restricting your connection to one thing instead of all the different possibilities from the O.T. (even the old eating-shellfish abomination). I confess I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I -have- studied this particular verse and "abomination" (To'ebah) is used well over 100 times in the O.T. to talk about breaking ritual or moral law.
As regards to Sodom and Gomorrah there are various points that Ezekiel makes:
1. Arrogance
2. Abundant food
3. Careless ease
4. Not help the poor and needy
5. Haughty
These led them to committed abominations before me...(for abominations..read Lev.18)
When vices become protected by the law of the land, then judgement can only follow.
We are seeing this in our western society also, as our governments are using the law to make sacrosant what it clearly an abomination.
Consequently, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, only arrogance and injustice rules...and ultimately man cannibalizes on man, till even privacy cannot be had, so that sexuality becomes a public thing, to be used by society in order for it to give communion to its members and establish itself.
Hence the sin of all sins; a union based on sexual cannibalism...and ultimately all other abominations follow and precede it.
Jh
It is quite obvious that you do not understand that identical twins and a clone are the same thing genetically.
Read up, you are confused.
As regards to my theory; I understand that it is only a theory...but it is conceivable and you should not be so arrogant.
Everyone - just a note, the part in my note to steiner about being deceived was not meant for anyone else but him because of the whole biochemistry/genetics/cloning thing.
steiner - Now you're an expert in cloning humans? Come on. It's bad enough pretending to be an expert in biochemistry and genetics. Now you're claiming to know the probable sexual orientation of a cloned human being...?
Several people on this forum and I disagree on the topic at hand, and I have great respect for their earnest discussion and explaining their beliefs in a rational fashion. Even if I don't feel like Delight is rational 100% of the time (maybe 90%, but that's just opinion), I have respect for her passion and honesty.
However, when I feel like people are trying to deceive me (I also regard intentional deceit as a sin), I lose respect for them quickly, and for all else they have to say.
"To place God first, takes all other fears away, and ultimately removes our society from the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah...where their fear drove them to seek union with all strangers setting foot on their land."
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying:
1. All humans need relationships, and God is the best relationship.
2. If they can't have relationships with God, then they'll have relationships with humans.
3. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't have relationships with God, so their sin was having sex with strangers.
I agree with #1.
In #2, you seem to imply that homosexuals cannot have relationships with God, which I disagree with. I completely disagree with
#3. Sodom and Gomorrah were about as cruel and ungodly as you can get (and this is even echoed from non-Biblical sources), and Ezekiel lists out their sins, and nice, loving sexual "union" with strangers was not among them. The mob was ready to rape the angels. I think there is a strong difference between rape and "seeking union" for communion.
PART 1:
Delight - "jh- you write so much I have to go back and read" LOL. :) Guilty as charged.
"my point here is that they cannot be Christians, disobedient or otherwise because they are in UNbelief. The sin of homosexuality in Romans chapter 1 is the result of unbelief,"
and
"the practice of homosexuality is the result of downright unbelief"
I'm thinking we cannot come to an agreement here. To me, the passage is clearly referring to the fertility cults of Cybele and Attis (quick summary of what I've said in previous posts):
1. The reference to those cults' imagery/icons in verse 23
2. The separate descriptions of the female and male homosexual acts (female being Cybelene priestesses and male being Attis priests)
3. The reference to the impotence of the actions (they were done to promote fertility, but were futile because they were "unnatural")
4. The extra measure of condemnation of the males who would castrate themselves as part of the rites
5. The ending of verse 27: "receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which was meet." meaning they reaped no rewards because their actions were in vain.
6. The people worshipped the creature more than the Creator, and for this cause, God gave them up to the vile affections (God was going to allow them to worship their false fertility goddess/god to show them that the creature they worshipped was impotent).
7. Those particular cults were growing extremely powerful around the same time that Paul was writing to the Romans, and had two huge temples (one for Cybele and one for Attis) in the same area.
I just find it hard to believe anything but that the passage is a warning about ALL idolatry with a reference to those specific cults as an example of the impotence of false idols.
People worshipped false idols because they felt more comfortable in seeing a physical THING there, but in verse 20, Paul says that God is evidenced in all things, so they have no excuse to worship false idols. Worshippers tried to ask their false goddess/god for children, and then they performed sexual acts to mimic what happened in the stories of Cybele/Attis as part of the rites. Paul is basically saying that instead of looking to God's natural design for procreation, they believed more in the fertility rites of the false idol.
I do not see that as a condemnation of homosexual activity - I see that as a very clear condemnation of idolatry and of ALL things done (heterosexual acts AND homosexual acts and ANYTHING else) for the sake of serving creature instead of Creator.
To say that the passage is about homosexuality and how all homosexuality stems from downright unbelief seems like you're throwing the rest of the verses out the window.
That said, we're still back at square one. I don't see Scriptural support for the condemnation of homosexual acts as being sinful, and you do. We both agree that one cannot be a Christian and be sure of their salvation if they do not repent.
PART 2:
"Seems like you want to hold onto your beliefs come hell or high water"
I want to hold onto what's right and what's Scriptural, and I do not want to hold onto anything that does not feel like it is firmly based in Scripture. I've held onto the beliefs that you're holding onto now, and made many of the same arguments you've made, so I can only assume that I went through some or most of the same logic.
That is why I feel like condemning homosexual practices is a practice in fitting Scriptures to the belief, not fitting the belief to the Scriptures.
At the time, I did not feel like I was fitting Scriptures to my belief, but I can see now that I was.
JH: "I'm not agreeing with you right now. I HAVE tested my beliefs with Scripture."
DE: "Okay, if these two statements are true, what Scripture supports supposition 1? "
Are you asking what Scripture supports the idea that I'm not agreeing with you? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking (and I'm not trying to be a smartaleck).
Forgiven - I do as well!
Bryan - I confess that I have not read through all of the posts - sometimes I have to skim and type quickly, so I apologize if I take something out of context. I did catch the phrase, "What is the Kingdom of Heaven? True happiness in life. (the last argument, I do not entirely believe myself)." I'm not sure if you're referencing the theory that heaven and hell are states of mind (which is a theory I've found to be more about poetry and flowery language than true theology when put to the test) or if you're acknowledging the theory and saying that you don't believe it...? Just curious.
CORRECTION
The Gospel speaks of our union with Christ. Christ prays that we may remain united in His SPIRIT(not just spirit).
Jh,
I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. In a sense, as we begin to lose trust in the Lord, we begin to fear others, and everything else.
If I am wrong regarding the genetics, I will still trust in the Lord, for my God is omnipotent and can do all things which He pleases to do.
Yet, this fear, the fear that comes and festers when one does not believe in the Triune God, leads to interesting conditions.
What we fail to see is that the West has become what it is because of the ability of Westerners to relate or to network. This has been a strength and at the same time when the relating becomes Christless, it becomes a great weakness.
The Gospel speaks of our union with Christ. Christ prays that we may remain united in spirit...and it is interesting to note that communion follows The implications are that only in union with Christ can we have communion with Him and His body.
Yet, for those who do not believe in the Triune God, communion is still extremely important.
In my opinion, it then follows, that in order to have true communion, people will find a need for a union, in order to find true acceptance...
Hence, homosexuality in this case derives from a need to be able to connect or commune with those around us...
To alleviate the fear, and therefore to have communion, sex is chosen, whether male or female.
To place God first, takes all other fears away, and ultimately removes our society from the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah...where their fear drove them to seek union with all strangers setting foot on their land.
This is my theory on some of the reasons for homosexual deeds/behaviour. Ultimately it is learned, and there may be other and better reasons.
delight, although I personally believe the Bible teaches eternal security I clearly hear where you're coming from with regards to so-called believers who continue to willfully live in sin be it sins of omission or sins of commission. But I question whether or not they were saved in the first place or have bought into the cheap grace salvation message which says all a person has to do is say this prayer, be sorry for their sins, walk an aisle, shake the preacher's hand, get baptized, and join the church and then you're free to live your life any way you want and when you die you show God either your get out of hell free card or your fire insurance policy and He has to let you in heaven. And that's why we must make sure a person truly understands what true repentance is and that salvation is about a personal intimate and growing relationship with God through Christ and not only or even primarily about a person going to heaven and not going to hell.
Rom 2:12 -
Whether they believe or not, it is still sin.
jh-"Homosexuals can repent of a lot of things, but I don't agree that their sexual activity is something they need to repent for."
Also this: "I'm not agreeing with you right now. I HAVE tested my beliefs with Scripture."
Okay, if these two statements are true, what Scripture supports supposition 1?
jh- you write so much I have to go back and read so I'd like to address this:
" I'm not quite sure how to read your statement, though. "Merely" implies that they ARE disobedient Christians"..
my point here is that they cannot be Christians, disobedient or otherwise because they are in UNbelief. The sin of homosexuality in Romans chapter 1 is the result of unbelief, no longer just sinful but those who exchange the truth for a lie are not accepting John 3:16.
Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law
Rom 2:13 (for not the hearers of the law [are] just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
Rom 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them])
Rom 2:16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Steiner-Am I missing anything?
Hey Bryan, here's the Scripture that answers when you say for me to 'ask God' about eternal security, I know I am saved because of Romans 2:15. I remain saved by continued belief and holding tight to my confession of faith.
Not everyone who professes Christ has that kind of faith so I cannot address the "eternal security" of another. Like I said it is a faith issue and not a blanket rule one way or another. If one is looking for security in sin then I believe Romans 2:15 would address an honest inquiry.
Romans 2.28
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly....same idea with Christian
Delight,
Read
Romans 2.11 - 16
"tells me that I lack the experience as of now. But I believe that as long as you have the curiosity, God would answer your questions and help you understand His ways.. Just like Solomon"
Bryan, I like that, this curiousity speaks of God's drawing.
We cannot approach or conceive of God with our agendas of Who we wish Him to be. Our own ideas.
He is separate from His Creation and His ways are not our ways, so to conceive of Him using human logic would dictate a misunderstanding of God.
It's good you acknowledge your lack of experience but try not to lean upon your own understanding because his ways are not our ways.
Read scripture, please ask the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of your heart as you do. If you run into something that you feel is causing you conviction, stop and ask for a renewing of your mind through Christ Jesus, say these words out loud as you approach Scripture. Not necessarily to engage your logic too quickly but allow God's Word to settle in your heart.
Okay, jh-how about this; homosexuality is not sinful to the Homosexual who is given over in UNBELIEF. There is no way to say that homosexuality is not sinful to God because it is within the whole counsel of God's Word...the practice of homosexuality is the result of downright unbelief (as we see in Romans 1:18-32).
Homosexuality is not doing the Father's will. Matt 7:21-26
jh
the implications of the identical twins model, is that if we were to clone a homosexual, the probability of getting the clone to be a homosexual are as likely as getting a homosexual from a population. Hence homosexuality it is not genetic...
Jh
judging from what you write...it seems that you do not understand what identical twins are, nor do you wish to understand what Scripture says. Hence, what Paul writes
in Timothy 4.3 -
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth....
And Leviticus 18...
24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgements, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you
27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);
28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.
29 For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.
30 Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.
steiner,
How are you so sure that if it's not in the genes, it's not "natural"? A few centuries ago, we didn't even know of the genes. God gave us wisdom so that we could discover things and understand his "ways". There might be more than DNA that is being passed down from parents to children that we know not of. So I don't think it's fair to pass such quick judgments.
Secondly, (this is highly contentious), sins to me aren't things that God dislike. Sins are things that God doesn't recommend. Why? Because sins prohibit us from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. What is the Kingdom of Heaven? True happiness in life. (the last argument, I do not entirely believe myself). In my opinion, God wants us to all be happy, after all which father would not want that for their children. No father set rules to their children and say "Follow them, or else I'd not be pleased!" Most fathers just want their children to be happy! Now how would sins prevent us from attaining true happiness? Ever tried sinning? Lying perhaps? Feeling angry? Stealing even. How does it feel? It feels good for the first 5 seconds doesn't it? Lying keeps us from trouble, feeling angry makes us feel so GOOD.. and stealing allows us to attain things without working for it! But how about after like a week or two, or years to come? Lie too much, and we'd never have the courage to be honest with ourselves and hence true happiness unattainable. Feel angry too much, and you would let even the most trivial thing ruin your day, and ruin your chance of feeling happy for that day. Steal too much, and you'd never be able to taste the true gratification of earning something for yourself.
Unless one day, God can help me understand how loving a man would ruin my future happiness, I am not convinced that "loving the person of the same sex" is a sin to me.
Delight,
I don't expect revelations when I seek the help of my wisdom.
God gave us wisdom to figure things out; to piece things together. The parable of Solomon conveyed how much God valued wisdom. Use this wisdom to read the bible, to learn its value. I don't think god would wish that we abandoned our wisdom and take the bible for granted - to read it and not understand it; to not understand why God does such things.
Believe & Delight,
Your reasons behind sacrificial are all valid. But I cannot take that as an answer from God, at least not now. From my point of view as of now, and from my experience with my spirituality, God to me, is not one who cares about "rituals". I cannot conceive a God that would allow sins to be washed away by blood. Christ's shedding of Blood is seen as a metaphor to me. "For Christ sacrificed his own life and decided to devote it to changing our world, we were allowed to abide by his teachings and attain true happiness." Again this is my interpretation of scripture, it is not the absolute interpretation. Yes, I add my own thoughts and interpretation to the scripture, because I try to understand them, and I want logic from them. I understand that I would not be able to understand all the ways of God. And hence sometimes my wisdom tells me that I lack the experience as of now. But I believe that as long as you have the curiosity, God would answer your questions and help you understand His ways.. Just like Solomon
jh wrote: "Forgiven - No worries."
Thank you, jh, I do enjoy our discussions!
Bryan,
My understanding of sheep sacrifice was a foreshadowing of Jesus. God required blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins in the OT. When Jesus, the Lamb of God, sacrificed Himself once for all, His blood sacrifice fullfilled the OT requirement for sacrificing sheep and the like. Now Jesus is the propitiation for our sins.
Bryan, I agree if it is just one's interpretation of the Bible then yes there is certainly room for disagreement and our own personal interpretation as long as our interpretation does not contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God.
Delight - "If one will not repent then they are in UNbelief, so the shedding of blood for them means nothing. There is no contradiction. You got twisted up somewhere..."
No - I completely agree with you. Sinners need to repent to be sure of their salvation.
What I disagree with is the idea that same-sex marriage or homosexual activity is sinful in itself. Homosexuals can repent of a lot of things, but I don't agree that their sexual activity is something they need to repent for.
Delight - "You must test everything with Scripture before deciding it is true."
That's the reason I'm not agreeing with you right now. I HAVE tested my beliefs with Scripture. :)
jh-Seems like you want to hold onto your beliefs come hell or high water and I will not keep repeating these things to you if you will not take the warnings and concerns of your brothers to heart as has been voiced many times on this post. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.
In John 3:16 Jesus died for all that would receive Him; He died for those who would believe and repent. If one will not repent then they are in UNbelief, so the shedding of blood for them means nothing. There is no contradiction. You got twisted up somewhere, you need to rethink your new belief and stop criticizing Christians for taking God at His Word.
It's up to you.
steiner - Your arguments are equivalent to scare tactics that don't really have any foundation, even in the "pseudoscience" world that you dismiss.
The media that you're attacking will sometimes put up hype stories based on evidence that is beyond fragile. They simply gather buzzwords and throw them together to sound smart without being able to back up the story. Why are you doing the same thing?
Unless you've read up on brain dysfunction and genetics (judging by the language in your post, I am assuming you have not), I'd suggest staying away from those topics. Within the community of Christians, it's forgivable, but if you run into a non-believer and start throwing around terms like "biochemical" and they happen to be a biochemist, then they may incorrectly assume that you know just as little about your faith as you do about biochemistry.
You are a messenger with an important message for the world - don't jeopardize it.
Bryan,
The reason for the blood sacrifice for the Jews in the OT is found in; Hebrews 9:22 "And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (of sin) That is why God sacrificed an animal and clothed both Adam and Eve in animal skin; Without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sin.
Why not now? Because Christ fulfilled the law:"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:28
And Hebrews 9:12 "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."
The answer is found in Scripture and covered extensively in Hebrews Chapter 9. The answer you received from 'asking God' is wrong because it is already answered in Scripture...and, it was not the answer you received via your conscience.
You cannot expect to ask God for special revelation and expect to hear anything from Him if it is already in Scripture. God is not at our beck and call to answer personally for us what He has already said. If you are getting an answer when you ask God these things then please know, there are other spirits who will answer you, not God if you will not search out the answer in Scripture for yourself.
I talk to God all the time and ask Him many questions; I don't expect He will answer as a special revelation to me. I ask for wisdom and through Scripture He guides, not by talking to my conscience when it has been already written in Scripture. You must test everything with Scripture before deciding it is true.
This is also true for jh.
believer - "But I don't see him declaring what he believes as much as exploring what he has come and is coming to believe."
Hmmm... I think I can say that I believe my current stance as much as I CAN at this point. There are always things to learn (i.e. Forgiven's comparison of the Levirate marriage purpose to the purpose of the church), but my core fundamental beliefs on this topic have not changed in a while.
God led the Israelites through the desert, but they were still flawed human beings. Likewise I feel like God leads my understanding, but I also recognize that I am human and can be influenced by non-spiritual biases (including the bias to just feel right to avoid humiliation), so I always leave room for my own human error when dealing with interpretation. I believe any topic that the Bible is silent on is one of interpretation.
"what makes one a homosexual is that the only way they can have sexual gratification is through the sexual practices of homosexuality with a person of the same sex only"
(I realize this is a personal belief and am taking the previous paragraph into context.) I've thought about this before, too, and I knew I was a heterosexual before I ever had sex or had any sort of conscious, sexual gratification that involved someone of the opposite sex (I'm being vague because I'm including lust in here). I simply knew that I found girls to be attractive and not boys. I think sexuality is just about attraction.
Forgiven - No worries. It did come off like a warning, but I think I understand what you were trying to say. Maybe I just used the wrong wording in my response.
Just to be clear, my belief isn't supported by compassion. I feel compassion for a lot of people, even those who seem to intentionally sin and reap the consequences, so compassion isn't really a good justification for doctrine. We probably both agree there. :)
Merry Christmas to you and your family as well!
PART 1:
Delight - It's hard not to respond. :) (And my responses to you always seem to be long, but I assure you that I'm trying to keep them as short as I can.)
"May I be so bold to point out, that in your mind you set out to disprove God's stand on homosexuality due to the fact that you hated the person holding the sign."
Hmmm, I disagree, and you might be thinking that because you read the shorter version of the story:
1. I didn't hate the person holding the sign. Sure, the word is insulting to some homosexuals, but I wasn't the one being directly attacked. I strongly disagreed with their attitudes because I felt like they were in direct opposition to what the Scriptures seem to say (that God does not hate anyone).
2. I did not set out to disprove God's stand on homosexuality. This requires a little story, so bear with me. At the time I saw that sign, I believed that homosexuality was wrong, just like many Christians, but I found it interesting that some people were SO against the concept that they twisted Scripture to fit their purpose. On another web site forum where I was trying to talk to a homosexual and convince him that his acts were wrong, a fellow Christian came to my "aid" and repeated, "God hates fags." I replied to tell him/her that God hated homosexuality, not homosexuals, and they brought up that "homosexuals" would not inherit the kingdom of God.
That verse seemed at odds with John 3:16, which seemed to encompass all humans, not just heterosexuals. At the time, I believed that every verse in the Bible agreed with each other, so there must have been something I was missing. That's what inspired me to start studying the topic - to prove that those verses were not at odds, and that is what came out of my studies - that they were NOT at odds due to the original meanings of the words.
After studying more of the same topic, I began coming to the conclusion that maybe my stance against homosexuality wasn't as Scriptural as it once seemed. I had argued against gay marriage before because of the "clear" condemnation of homosexual behavior. Once I realized that the condemnation wasn't so "clear" and most likely there was no condemnation of it at all, I retreated to procreation being the reason to condemn homosexuality. Even if there wasn't Scripture that clearly said that homosexuality was wrong, I started coming up with non-Scriptural or very indirect support for it because I could not accept that everyone around me was wrong about this topic.
I still held a bit of belief that if a lot of Christians held an opinion about something, then it MUST be true. I didn't feel comfortable about letting go of that belief until I had studied the topic as much as possible. That's why the "classic" understanding argument doesn't really hold water - if I gambled, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Christians have not studied this topic and have relied on "classic" understanding.
PART 2:
"I would have to ask about the condition of that one's heart...do they truly love God?"
Just found this amusing after you implied that one could not know one's own heart (using a verse from Jeremiah). I just bring it up for consistency's sake - I agree with you that everything is largely about the heart.
"Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker."
These are not my arguments - just my responses to your arguments, which are no longer based on Scripture.
I stated a 2-point summary of my belief (regarding same-sex marriage) a few posts ago. All the talk about design of marriage, purpose, form, homosexual animals, etc... - those are all just my responses to your attempts at proving that it is wrong.
Don't get me wrong - I respect the arguments, and some are well-thought out. It is just that they support the nuclear marriage model, which I also support, but there is no part of them that also condemns same-sex marriage.
"Romans chapter 1:18-32 tells us that homosexuals are not merely 'disobedient Christians' but in fact thay are in UNBELIEF."
Well, at least you're not restricting your quotes to 1:26-27 anymore. I'm not quite sure how to read your statement, though. "Merely" implies that they ARE disobedient Christians, but then you say they're "in unbelief," which I interpret to mean that they are non-believers (a Christian cannot be a non-believer by pure definition). I am not trying to be sarcastic - I am simply trying to figure out if I'm missing something you're saying.
2) With anorexics...can we show that it is genetic? again, using the idea of identical twins, you will find that just because one is anorexic, the other does not necessarily follow...
And with anorexics there is a particularity that should be noted. We see that although they are in every respect truly thin...they completely see themselves as fat...undermining every reality that is flung their way
Homosexuals are the same. Although their sexual parts are there and they can bear children on their own without any problems...many have gotten themselves in a predicament where they will not admit to their true gender, or their ability to have children...
And yet, what is society to do? Shall society condone as marriage the vices of necromancy?
shall society condone as marriage the vices of those practicing animal love?!..
Shall society legislate paedophilia as marriage?!
Shall society legislate anorexia to be normal human behaviour that ought to be supported by the public?!
A society that will not discriminate will eventually become lie Sodom and Gomorrah... indifferent to all the learn vices that ultimately destroy it...
Yes, ultimately God does judge these types of societies for their indifference, and their acceptance of human vice as a good thing.
1) The homosexual agenda has been driven by a pseudoscience that the media has used to brainwash most of society. Homosexuals cannot help themselves, we have been told, because homosexuality is genetic...
When asked whether paedophilia , bisexuality, multisexuality are genetic... or bestiality, or necromancy...many have taken this as an insult and simply not discussed it. The taboo that the breakers of taboo will not touch...
But is homosexuality genetic?
Identical twins by definition have the same DNA. Yet, it will be found that while one of the twins may be a homosexual the other is not necessarily one also.
Can homosexuality then, simply be a result of a biochemical/brain disfunction -
Drug addictions are able to affect the way the brain functions at the basic level.
This isnt limited to drugs; it applies to anything that we become sensitized to, dependent and attached to for a long period of time...
Repeated behaviour creates a path which our brain cannot do without. A path, much like a railway track to a train, or a road to a car...where our brain has an extremely difficult time leaving it once it is built.
How else then shall we explain bisexuality, or paedophilia, or numerous other behaviours...?
The mind has been trained through repetitive and continued use of that path to the point where it cannot do anything else but travel on that road.
How else can we explain drive? the drive of a millionaire to become a billionaire, unable to stop...but to keep on piling up more and more.
Or the collector of rubbish who keeps on collecting more and more rubbish till the house and the yard and everything owned is totally filled with it, but wont stop bringing more in..
Believer,
First of all, I hope that you have/would come to terms with your past, and I thank God that, from what it seems, from those experiences, you've gained strength and resilience.
By love, I meant the love you have towards females whom you want to get married with. Which cannot be described by words. I experience four kinds of love at present- love for my parents, love for my friends, love for my future partner, and love for my acquaintances.
You're right believer, God does not contradict himself. Though sometimes if you find that the Answer that God gives you differ from your current opinion based on other sources, it's most often our interpretation that is wrong. For example:
I could never understand why God, in the old testament wanted sacrifices of sheep and such. And so there was a period in my life where I deemed the bible to be utterly ridiculous and that those who wrote it have imbued their contemporary beliefs into it.
Until recently when I asked God: "Why does the bible contain such phrases when I know you care not about material sacrifices!"
And then my conscience told me (to be politically correct, I shall not say "God told me"): "God does not care about the skin-deep value of things, and neither does he care about the skin-deep value of the bible. The stories of sacrificial of sheep is meant to convey that human beings ought to care less about materiality. Say, don't you think that two close friends driving from NY to LA because they are too poor to take the airplane have a higher opportunity to attain happiness from that trip? "It is harder for the rich to enter God's kingdom than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" not because God dislike the rich. It is because the rich would have less opportunity to truly gain happiness in life - the real Kingdom of Heaven."
Bryan, as far as God speaking to us, He does through His Holy Spirit by means of His Word, prayer, circumstances, and the church, but if we think we hear something from God that contradicts, violates, or supersedes the Word of God then we are not hearing from the one true God.
Bryan, by love do you mean eros love as David had for Bathsheba or phileo love as David had for Jonathan?
Bryan, as a small boy I was sexually abused by a male relative and as a teen I was also raped by another male teen while I was drunk and because I looked very young for my age as a teen and used to hitchhike a lot I was constantly propositioned by perverts both homosexual and heterosexual and sometimes they were very aggressive about it and so if you think about it I have every reason to hate homosexuals, but I can honestly say that I don't and even though sometimes people think because of my biblical views on live that I would be opposed to fellowshipping with homosexuals I do not and in fact I find it ironic that some people who consider themselves to be open-minded appear to be very uncomfortable with a person of the same sex who is openly homosexual. My concern is that because I firmly believe God's Word teaches that the sexual practices of homosexuality are a sin that those who practice them may very well not be saved as a result and those that are saved will miss out on having the close intimate relationship that God desires to have with them as well as never being as effectively used of God as God intends for them. As for issues such as same-sex marriage as a Christian I am compelled to speak against any policy that would approve or endorse practices that I believe clearly violate the Word of God. And while there are for lack of a better term "Christian bigots" out there I don't believe I am one of them and I believe there will come a time when God will use me in a more intentional ministry with regards to ministering to people in this area, be it better educating Christians as to how to minister in a Christ-like way to people caught up in the sinful practices of homosexuality as well as to perhaps directly ministering to homosexuals who are struggling to break free of this sin in their life.
But God spoke to Samuel, David, Saul, etc etc (Too many to name!). You're not less special than any of them Delight, so why not believe that God would speak to you? If only you're willing to ask and listen.
that would be "revelation' not the word I mispelled.
There is no new revelation because any new revelation is a lie.
Got to go.
He will not tell you UNLESS you believe in NEW RELVELATION and any new relevation outside of Scripture would be a lie.
Oh and Delight, about "eternal security", if you can't find answers in the scriptures, why not ask God directly? I am sure he'd have an answer for you.
Delight,
Are we now so sure that God of the bible has condemned homosexuality? Or has our biases added connotation to his Words? God has spoken against carnal pleasure - he was disappointed with the people of sodom and gomorrah who engage in literal "rape"; he was not too happy with men who lie with men because it was merely carnal pleasure and not for procreational purposes; he has also spoken against straight couples who have sex for reasons other than procreation. (this was an issue when coitus interruptus were prohibited by the church).
But God did not speak against the pure love between two men. Remember in one of my earlier comments, I mentioned how carnal sex was perhaps not approved by God? This is what I meant. God might not encourage us to indulge in sexual pleasure but he said nothing of love! Hence obviuosly he would not approve of 2 men having sex since it is definitely not for procreation purposes. And this was interpreted as his "dislike" towards homosexuality. Interpreted by no other people than ourselves, our own connotations.
I'd like to stay and talk more to Bryan but I've got to go soon.
Bryan, I'd just like for you to contemplate the Scripture in Proverbs 3:7
"Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil."
This is a personal belief as you have begun in your post and the lense through which you view, sees your love as being a good thing because it is similar to what God intended for the marriage bed. It's similar, but not the same, it is a counterfeit love, one that looks at the experience itself and will not look at God's prohibition against sexual sin. I don't mean to sound offensive and it's not my intention to offend you, Bryan as I'm sure your experience feels real and true, but with that, please don't exclude the possibility of a delusion since God of the Bible has spoken against homosexuality.
Just a quick note about 'eternal security'.
This has been debated for centuries and there is no consensous that either position is true; one may find out too late. HOWEVER if one wants to believe in this doctrine
(as a justification for sin in any way) I would have to ask about the condition of that one's heart...do they truly love God?
For myself "eternal security" is a moot point, I know I am in a RACE, so I want to be sure to FINISH well.
I do not bring this up as an issue to debate here, since we can not know as it really is outside of God's revealed Will as written in the Bible. It is truly a faith issue.
"I have personally come to believe that even though these things can be found in the life of a homosexual, what makes one a homosexual is that the only way they can have sexual gratification is through the sexual practices of homosexuality with a person of the same sex only."
Let me add to that. Yes, gays and lesbians attain sexual pleasure from having sex with the same sex. But that is but one small characteristic. Most of us, are also only capable of devoting the love a straight man would devote to a straight women, to a person of the same sex.
Most of the times, people associate homosexuals with lust, decadence, and promiscuity. But that's just because once you have a bad impression on us, you would not want to see the good side of us.
We, like you, fall in love with other human beings. And falling in love, I believe most of you here have experienced, is one of the sweetest experiences a human being can experience. In fact every time I truly fall for someone, be it recipocrated or not, I would thank God for such an experience.
Hence saying that "homosexuality" is a sin, is like saying that this wholesome experience is condemnable, and we homosexuals are not allowed to attain this wonderful experience.
I concur with you Believer as well, I am of the personal belief that jh is a brother, but a brother in jeopardy. I am taking a page from you Believer and be 'stubbornly patient'.
I am hopeful over jh's attitude in sharing his beliefs in such an eloquent way. I too believe that jh has 'thought out well' his posts here, it's just that what he is saying is in opposition to the whole counsel of God as revealed in the LIVING Word of Christ (not a collection of stories) Bryan; btw, thanks for coming back.
Bryan, I don't believe in any way that God hates homosexuals, God hates sin. As for establishing laws, the issue is if we allow for same-sex marriage then what does the definition of marriage become or can there even be a definition? Plus, I have grown to highly respect jh, he is both open and honest and I find his posts well thought out. But I don't see him declaring what he believes as much as exploring what he has come and is coming to believe. But what I appreciate about him most is he has stuck around and he's willing to acknowledge he may be wrong on some issues. And I in no way question his salvation and personally consider him a brother in Christ. Plus, he has certainly caused me to dig deeper in the Word myself.
delight, I think that is one issue that is often overlooked in discussing homosexuality, that is what makes a person a homosexual. Is it because they prefer being with people of the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex, or they simply have an aversion to people of the opposite sex, or even that they participate in the sexual practices of homosexuality, or is it because as a male they have traits which are thought to be feminine or if they are a female they have traits that are considered to be masculine. I have personally come to believe that even though these things can be found in the life of a homosexual, what makes one a homosexual is that the only way they can have sexual gratification is through the sexual practices of homosexuality with a person of the same sex only. My concern is there are many people who have either convinced themselves or who have been convinced they are homosexual because of the earlier issues I listed and not the latter reason who very well might not be homosexual at all.
I am back! (btw, I was trying to re-read some of my comments, and I realized that they are all gone!)
It seems that jhil's slightly different approach to faith has caused him/her to be under fire.
First of all, I dont' think it's fair to say that jhil turned away from God. He (I am using "he" for convenience, sorry if I offend you with the masculilne-centric usaeg) just has a different interpretation of the Bible.
Psychological, many of us take our own God-given rationality for granted. The Bible is just a book containing stories of people who are influenced by God and hence resound God's words. When we read God's words, we use our wisdom to interpret it. Words are vague; most of the times we attach connotations to it. The word "homosexuality" in the bible can mean so many things - men who love men, men who have sex with men, men who are feminine, etc etc. Which is why God gave us wisdom.. to interprete his Words.
Can we not, take two steps back, shed some pride and acknowledge that perhaps, jhill was given such wisdom by God to interprete the scripture in such a way?
It is when everybody thinks that they are right, and IMPOSE their righteousness on everybody else, persecution and hatred occur.
Honestly, so what if homosexuals are allowed to marry? If God truly dislikes homosexuals, do you think God would be more appeased if they existed but were restrained from getting married? Jesus did not urge the Roman Empire to set laws against sins, he simply preached to the sinners. And he explained it to them, not through the word of some scripture, but through wisdom and rationality on why sins should not be practiced by mankind.
jh-don't feel you need to respond to my posts...I only ask for your consideration of what I wrote in these last few posts to you. Just one last thing to tie it up for you,please consider the truth in the following:
You once stated in a post your desire to study the homosexual issue came about because you saw a 'Christian' holding a sign that said, "God hates fags."
May I be so bold to point out, that in your mind you set out to disprove God's stand on homosexuality due to the fact that you hated the person holding the sign.
I don't know if the person was a Christian or not (I find it difficult to believe one who loves Christ would try to offend in this way)but nonetheless; can it be it was hate for your 'brother' that has caused you to do a 180 degree move against God. You have turned away from God and it is very easy to do in this age, as was earlier pointed out in these posts.
You do not have to hold up a sign to state a view on God's indictment against all unrighteousness, including homosexuality but you cannot disagree with God and remain in belief...you are on your way, from this turning away, of putting yourself in jeopardy of coming into a state of UNbelief (no matter what views on 'eternal security' you hold).
Do the will of the Father and believe and do His sayings so Jesus cannot say to you, "depart from me...".
Speaking of Romans 1, jh writes; "The entire passage is about rampant idolatry.."
The entire passage speaks of UNBELIEF.
jh also stated, "animals that engage in homosexual behavior"
As I mentioned to you in another thread here, there are no animals who are exclusively homosexual. Besides, we are above the animals, if no animals are exclusively homosexual, then why would any man be exclusively homosexual? He wouldn't, it would kills out the species.
"Do the animals mock God", what a stupid argument....animals do not have souls and therfore cannot be in unbelief.
jh- Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I think you need to smell the coffee here, you are wrong.
If you continue in this argument and ignore the Lord's chastisement here in the CP (thanks steiner) you will place yourself in a position of opposing God and being a false teacher by approving sin so many of your hearers cannot come to repentance. You need to reconsider.
Just a side note regarding the Church's common or classic understanding of homosexuality only coming about since the 1970's is simply the fact that homosexuals were coming out of the closet because of the Sexual Revolution that had begun in the 1960's. Christians began speaking out. God Word hasn't changed, not a jot not a tittle.
Popular Culture cannot determine the Truth of God, it stands for Eternity.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" Matt7:22,23
Who are these "many", jh?
The 'many' are those who Do NOT do the will of the Father.
"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock...(Doing the will of the Father).vs 24
"But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand...(Not Doing the will of the Father)26.
Romans chapter 1:18-32 tells us that homosexuals are not merely 'disobedient Christians' but in fact thay are in UNBELIEF. As you well know, a lot of people say they are Christians and from Matthew 7:22 we understand that they must look as if they are from outside appearance, perhaps they even have some spiritual gifting, these are not true as Christ does not know them. They do not know Christ either because they did not do the will of the Father, they are in unbelief. It's the tares growing amidst the wheat, these look the same for a while.
God will not turn away a repentant homosexual AND in no way He can save an UNrepentant (practicing) Homosexual, because they are in unbelief. It is very simple, you will either listen to God or you'll listen to the stories of the sinner and buy into his sin. No one who will truly seek after God will be turned away by a Christian pointing out his sin. God would not allow us to turn back the one whom HE draws to repentance; "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.
That Christian would be working in concert with the Holy Spirit Who will "convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment..." John 16:8.
On the other hand, if you stating you are a Christian and you approve of someone's sin in that they feel justified to continue in sin by what you told them YOU think God has said, then you cause that one to stumble; to live in sin and in unbelief from an unrepentant heart.
"For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives."
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons." Hebrews 12:6-8. If one refuses correction from God then he is not a son.
Jh
In Romans (1-8), Paul points out that the Old Testament Law had a purpose. Its purpose was to make known what is sin, and to pass judgement on the sinner.
..you have believed another gospel, but wish to divert the attention to this by wanting so called ...commom ground...
Repent is the only common ground you will get.
As regards to your belief on orientation...then it must follow that pedophiles, bestial, necromancy etc. are genetic....and all common ground to drag in the proverbial mud that your gospel would allow.
jh wrote: "So to me, it seems like the warning not to "inadvertantly give scriptural basis" should go to both sides of this issue."
It was not my intention to have that come off as a warning. I am sincerely concerned. Simply because Scripture does not mention same-sex marriage, Scripture does not then give liberty to it. Your concern is with the compassion you feel toward those struggling with same-sex attractions. Understandable. I am not without compassion, but I am equally full of sincere concern.
Merry Christmas, jh. God Bless you and your family.
PART 1:
Delight - Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I appreciate your patience with me - we're still unpacking at our new house and trying to get things set up for a visit from my mother-in-law.
I will take a look at your story - I haven't quite mastered the navigation on ChristianPost.com yet, but I'll find the article - I think I remember seeing a link to it somewhere.
I do fully understand that it's dangerous to read meaning into Scripture, and that is what I feel many people have done in order to come up with the belief that we're debating now. I think you and I probably have the same interest in protecting the meaning of the Scripture and we just disagree on who is reading into it.
My experience with weaker Christians is pretty much irrelevant now. At the time, I confess that it did jade me against all things in Christianity (although at the time, I still felt the Bible was inerrant). It's been many years since I came to realize that my beliefs do not depend on the examples of the Christians I come across in life.
"We all agree with each other and you come along and cast doubt on classic understanding"
I'm not sure I agree there. "Classic understanding" is not always correct understanding, and homosexuality has gone back and forth for centuries. Your "classic understanding" is actually pretty recent understanding, not "classic."
The negative view of homosexuality in the church has not always been there. The first person to actually introduce any sort of church-related stigma on same-sex marriage was a Roman emperor in the 4th century - about 300 years after the last book of our current canon was written. Then, about 50 years after that happened, another emperor came along and declared all homosexual sex to be illegal and that those who practiced it were to be burned alive in public. About 150 years after THAT, another emperor came along and started saying that homosexuality was the reason for famines and earthquakes.
Then there are Christian church documents from the 11th century that literally outline the procedures for same-sex marriages to be performed in the church.
Before the 1900s, the majority of Christians believed that the passages in 1st Corinthians were prohibiting masturbation, not homosexual acts. Homosexuality only became a big issue in the church starting around 1970, and that is around the same time that a lot of churches started preaching this doctrine. To me, 30 years is not classic understanding. That's not even one generation old.
Age doesn't have anything to do with being right, though. I fully agree with a lot of your beliefs because they have clear Scriptural support. I look to Scriptures to see what is Scriptural, not to tradition.
I don't debate to flaunt my knowledge. If I wanted to do that, then I wouldn't leave room for my being wrong. My intentions ARE to honor God and to honor what the Scriptures say and what they don't say.
PART 2:
"...when was it that you asked Christ into your heart..."
Which time? :) I did it at least a dozen times as a child, because I wasn't sure that I was doing it right the previous times. I probably didn't need to do it more than that, but I did it once more on the way into work once, just because I felt like I now fully appreciated the harm of sin and the necessity of salvation in a way that I didn't as a child.
"...clearly states the EVIDENT TRUTH starting in Romans 1:20-32. Homosexuality is undisireable to GOD; This isn't about the temple homosexuality, therefore not to be compartmentalized within that context...."
I'm not sure how else you can read it if you're reading the whole passage. The entire passage is about rampant idolatry. If Paul were simply condemning homosexual acts, there would be no reason to "confuse" the reader by putting the condemnation in the middle of a description of idol worship. There would be no reason to start the condemnation with "For this reason..." (the reason being idolatry)
"Just like hospitality was not the issue for Sodom"
Ezekiel 16:46-50 describes the issues for Sodom, and there are other non-Scriptural sources that detail how cruel and evil the city of Sodom was. The sexual sin of Sodom (the "abominable things") certainly includes rape, and that is reflected in what happened in the story in Genesis. There is 0% Scriptural support for the idea that it was homosexuality.
"...because the act itself MOCKS the INTENTION OF GOD AND HIS CREATED ORDER..."
God's created order includes the animal kingdom, where every known sexual species (according to zoologists) has animals that engage in homosexual behavior. Do the animals mock God?
steiner - I think we're both misunderstanding each other and we might disagree on opinions in respect to the O.T., so I don't think we're ever going to agree on the issue of homosexuality until we find a more basic common ground. It's nothing personal, I assure you - I respect your beliefs and I'm sure we share some of them. I'd be happy to talk about finding that common ground in another forum, but this forum just isn't really set up all that well for multiple, different in-depth discussions.
Forgiven - Like you, I am fully convinced that God created us male and female, as well. I am not trying to "bring down" heterosexual relationships, marriage, procreation, or anything like that. There is a purpose and intent behind the two genders, and I fully agree with you there.
I personally believe that just as there are God-created animals that exhibit homosexual behavior, God also created people with homosexual orientations. I believe there are probably SOME people that choose an orientation (a heterosexual choosing to be a homosexual or a homosexual choosing to be a heterosexual), but MOST homosexuals are simply born that way. Many homosexuals I've talked to have expressed a wish that they could have been born heterosexual to avoid discrimination, and if orientation were that easy of a choice, then there's no reason why they would not choose to simply become heterosexual.
On a side note, I've seen Christian programs that try to "convert" homosexuals into heterosexuals. For those who feel they've been converted and are happy about it, I am happy for them. In general, it seems like those programs are trying to say that God created some people wrong, which just does not sit right with me.
Back to the topic at hand, there are two beliefs that I'm seeing you hold:
#1. Same-sex marriage is wrong.
#2. Heterosexual marriage is right.
I think the creation of man/woman supports #2, but does not ALSO mean #1. I think that some people are ASSUMING it means #1, but they do not offer any Scriptural support (S.s.) for that assumption. When challenged, they offer S.s. that supports #2.
There is no S.s. for #1.
There IS S.s. for #2.
To be fully convinced of #1 is to believe in an opinion without any S.s..
There is no S.s. for mutual exclusivity of those two beliefs. It's like saying that 0+2=2 is NOT correct because 1+1=2. That logic just does not make sense to me.
So to me, it seems like the warning not to "inadvertantly give scriptural basis" should go to both sides of this issue. To answer Delight's last question (what is the purpose to argue about it), is precisely about that phrase. I feel like a lot of Christians believe in belief #1 using S.s. for #2, and then develop doctrine that does not have S.s., but preach it as though it did. Just like Delight, I am very concerned about false teaching, and when the church starts to embrace opinion and preach it as fact, I'm against that.
jh, I can honestly say my goal nor do I believe your goal is to keep others from getting away with sin, my goal is that sin not get them which in turn could keep them from being saved or if they are saved limit their usefulness and effectiveness for God and their relationship with God as well, plus to keep them from inadvertently giving others permission to sin which would cause the same results in their lives as well.
jh,
Please be careful to not inadvertantly give scriptural basis to this to someone when you are not completely convinced Scriptures supports it either way. I am fully convinced through Scripture God created us male and female intentionally and purposefully. This by no means means I believe same-sex attracted persons do not have the same access to eternal life through Jesus Christ.
PS My 1st, 2nd and 3rd car only had a radio.:)
In Romans (1-8), Paul points out that the Old Testament Law had a purpose. Its purpose was to make known what is sin, and to pass judgement on the sinner.
In Leviticus 18.22 the law is clear that a man shall not have sexual intercourse with another man.
How does the New Testament deal with the law? Paul notes that because of Jesus we are dead to the demands/penalty of the law when one sins...which in this case is death.
Yet, Paul points out that we are saved from the demands/judgements of the law because Christ has met, by his death, those demands.
Paul clearly notes that those who live by his Spirit will not continue in this sin, but as they grow in His Spirit, they will die to the demands of human nature...
Romans 8.13 - For if you live according to your human nature, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death your sinful actions, you will live.
Yet, there are regulation that are not observed in Christianity any longer. These are regulations on dress, food, and treatment of animals... In these cases, there is still typical(presenting a type) uses for them.
Paul for example uses the regulation on the ox that is allowed to graze on the grain as it works...and uses this regulation to point out that Christian missionaries have just as much a right to ask of those in the field they are working in to help them financially or by other means.
Hence, the law of the OT is for Christians an indicator of where they are in Christ. If they are sinning sexually, then they are allowing their Spiritual union with Christ to be overcome by the demands of human depravity...and must seek Christs Spirit and turn away from their sin.
To claim that there is no sin, is to have died to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human depravity.
As regards to my use of the Triune God. I am not trying to be floral at all. I am tired of those who wish to water down the Gospel and claim that the Christian God is the same as that of other religions.
I therefore speak of the Triune God to make others aware that I will challenge those and anyone who wishes to create the false notion that God is the same for all religions.
Thanks for the consideration on the silence, please know that I'd like to try for honest dialog with you and I appreciate your willingness too, to the same end.
I must challenge your supposition on this same-sex marriage argument that I feel has gone on way too long. The truth is; there are no examples in the bible for homosexual coupling, none. To have a leg to stand on you must have to see at least one recorded example, so you are adding to scripture YOUR SUPPOSTION! Adding intent to God when HE clearly states the EVIDENT TRUTH starting in Romans 1:20-32. Homosexuality is undisireable to GOD; This isn't about the temple homosexuality, therefore not to be compartmentalized within that context. Just like hospitality was not the issue for Sodom, temple sex isn't the THEY the UNRIGHTEOUS, rather this is an idicment against ALL outrigheousness listed later on in the chapter.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MEN (THEM) unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in THEM (THE UNRIGHTEOUS); for God hath shewed it unto THEM (THE UNRIGHTEOUS).
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power and Godhead; so that THEY THE UNRIGHTEOUS are without excuse:" Then it goes into homosexuality, et al.
The UNRIGHTEOUS NONBELIEVER is easily given over to the homosexual behavior because of UNBELIEF. (Not just as a temple worshipper)
Why is homosexuality undesireable to GOD? Because the act itself MOCKS the INTENTION OF GOD AND HIS CREATED ORDER, through clear Biblical Counsel from Genesis to Revelation. He wants no one to have homosexual sex, therefore He would never want his creation to "commit" (YOKED, the ultimate in unequally yoked!) to one another in a mock marriage; FURTHER MOCKING GOD AND HIS INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. And kicking dirt on marital love in the process, this is Satanic doctrine.
What is the purpose to you, jh, to argue with Believer over this subject? To what benefit and to what end, please?
Delight - I just posted something for believer, and I try to address everyone at the same time, but I have to run out for a bit right now, so please do not take my silence to be anything except a temporary delay in my response.
believer - I think you're trying to figure out how I'm reading Scripture to allow same-sex marriage, but that's not how I'm approaching it. My approach is divided into two parts:
1. ADDING RESTRICTIONS WHERE NONE EXIST
I just don't see the Bible RESTRICTING marriage to one man and one woman. I see people taking passages like Matthew 19:4-6 and using that to restrict marriage to heterosexual marriage. If the context of that passage was a story where Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to get married to a man (since same-sex unions were fairly common during that time period), and Mattew 19:4-6 was Jesus's reply, then I would be sold, and I would completely agree with you.
I look at the context of all the verses used to add that restriction, and they do not seem to be about adding a restriction, but rather have different purposes. For example, the Matthew 19:4-6 is in the context of discussion of casual divorce.
2. DOES A LACK OF RESTRICTION INDICATE APPROVAL?
I think we agree here - the answer is no. I don't think that just because something wasn't specified as sinful does not mean that it cannot be sinful. There are plenty of situations where the Scriptures do not specifically restrict something, but almost all of us can agree that it is harmful.
Since the Scriptures are silent on same-sex union (neither approve nor restrict), I fall back to Jesus and Paul's combined attitudes on the law and sin.
Is same-sex marriage beneficial? Probably not to me or you, but if it helps two people commit to each other, then I can see how it would be beneficial.
Can one be mastered by same-sex marriage? Yes, and that is something that even heterosexuals have to avoid in their marriages. Anyone can be mastered by anything if they let it happen. However, I can see situations where two people are united in same-sex marriage and are not mastered by it.
Does same-sex marriage result FROM or result IN sinful intentions? Again, the answer is no more than heterosexual marriage. If a homosexual OR a heterosexual become married for the wrong reasons or give in to sin as a result from their marriage (I don't have an example handy), then it is wrong.
So I think it comes down to - just like heterosexual marriage, if same-sex marriage is approached properly with godly intentions, is same-sex marriage beneficial? My feeling right now is yes.
I think the hard part is that you and I see many homosexual people who look for those loopholes, and we don't want to feel like we're "allowing" them to get away with sin. That's simply not our call to make, though. God will judge the intentions of people, but what WE can do is make sure that we're not adding Scripture where none was before.
jh, but once again I can see where the issue is purpose and not form and yet at the same time I can see how you see it as well, but I still don't see your view of this leading to God allowing for same-sex marriage or anything other than one man and one woman.
jh- Absolutely, you do make more sense to me now and I appreciate your being candid...I know it is difficult to be transparent especially in this format and I appreciate you for trying.
My experience was opposite from yours and I tell a little bit about that on the recent story about the Atheist Soldier under society/ethics, perhaps you can take a look. Christ came to me and I had so little knowledge about the bible or Christians; I had no prejudices, no frame of reference other than Christ, alone.
Like you, I had trouble with the flowery Christians who have a verse for every occasion. I once thought; I get to spend eternity with these people? It troubled me that I had such a knee jerk reaction about Christians who seemed offensive but I think God worked that out in my spirit and impressed on me the need to love them anyway: "And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also."
It's taken a long while but I can now say I do love my brother and I can be at peace and not of a bitter spirit; not trying to expect the worst from them.
As you may be able to tell, I am concerned very much with false teaching; especially in this day and age. I feel it's a very dangerous thing to read meaning into Scripture. It's a huge responsibility to share God's Truth with others and I don't take that lightly. To be honest, I believe your familiarity with the things of God and your experience with weaker Christians has put you in a position to be somewhat jaded with concern to the inerrancy of the Word. I take Jesus' Word that heaven and earth will pass away, but His word will never pass away (not one "jot or tittle") and I believe He wants us to have the same respect for it as He does. When one starts monkeying around with the Word of God with idea of 'did God really say' and try to refute God's intention, it doesn't honor God and can confuse the hearer. What good does it really do to refute God's meaning, that is clear to everyone on these boards? We all agree with each other and you come along and cast doubt on classic understanding and I just got to ask why; for what purpose? It comes across to me that you may be doing this to flaunt your knowledge. Whatever the reason is, handling scripture has to be to honor God alone. I don't mean to sound harsh with you but you do understand that there is a great delusion in these last days, that even the elect will falter. There are some in the body of Christ that will rake you over the coals on sound doctrine and I'm one of them, because it does honor God to be watchful and ready to give a defense of His Word.
One thing I may have missed in your narrative, when was it that you asked Christ into your heart and to be Lord of your life? Thanks again for sharing your experience, I hope you will come to a better understanding of where I am coming from and perhaps the gulf won't seem too wide between us.
PART 1:
Hi, Forgiven. :)
You bring up a good point about the bloodline and its comparison to growing the church. I had not thought about that before, although I see that as separate symbolism from the nuclear model. Still, it's one of those "grand scheme" things that you never realize and can then appreciate when you realize how God can work things sometimes.
I'm not really in favor of using symbolism to reverse-justify a type of marriage. Otherwise you could just say that gay marriage can be just as symbolic - there may be two men or two women, but they both have different roles, which could easily said to be one of sacrifice and one of obedience. Even in a successful, nuclear marriage, roles are sometimes not clearly defined and sometimes switch around from time to time.
Looking at the big picture, in SPIRITUAL applications, God seems not to care that much about gender. It's really only brought up in practical application (practical to time periods).
In the O.T. and N.T., they were living in a highly-patriarchal societies, where the men were often educated and women were often considered to be property (which is where the tradition of the father "giving away" the bride comes from), so it makes quite a bit of sense that there would be focus on the nuclear marriage, which was necessary for most women to survive.
It also explains why the only true condemnation of MALE homosexual activity in the O.T. says nothing about lesbian activity - two women would not be able to survive on their own back then - it just didn't happen (although God knew that it WOULD happen, and it WAS happening in the N.T. times' culture although there was still nothing condemning it).
It also explains things in the N.T., like 1st Corinthians 14:35. If men were educated and not women, then it would make sense for the women to ask spiritual questions of their husbands at home. (Although even the most conservative churches I've visited will still have women asking questions in church, because they are now educated, too.)
Looking at the practical application of marriage, men used it for economic purposes in O.T. times, so God put rules on it that protected the woman from bad cultural practices and gave value to her as a human being rather than just property. That culture was so full of bad practices that God even allowed Moses to make an exception for divorce ("because their hearts were hardened").
In N.T. times, people still lived in a society where women depended on marrying men for survival. It was an ideal model to show Christians how the church (the woman) depended on Christ (the man) for survival. Without Christ/the man, the church/woman was basically doomed in the world. Just like Jesus's parables, people could relate to this and it made much more sense to them than it probably does to most Christians today (because today a woman can survive without marrying, but the church can never survive without Christ).
PART 2:
Marriage still has spiritual and practical application today, though. I think we can extract spiritual lessons of devotion and commitment from it, and by studying the cultural context of N.T., I think we can still have a full appreciation for the symbolism and spiritual lessons that were made at that time.
What I don't see is any global condemnation of homosexual behavior in any of the places that list out sinful behaviors/attitudes in the N.T. (which seems odd if gay marriage were not allowed or if God were really adamantly against that type of behavior), nor a reason for not allowing gay marriage. To me, if I see a gay couple that wishes to be monogamous and commit to each other and to God, I see that as a good thing. They're choosing to leave behind the "option" of having multiple partners or treating sex as a casual thing. However, a lot of Christians seem to be trying to find as much Scripture as they can (even if it's irrelevant or if a connection is made that isn't really there) to prevent that commitment.
PART 1: (Cradle Christianity)
Delight - It's hard for me to take your requests to have honest intentions, but I'll indulge as long as you read through it all. I grew up as a fake, "cradle Christian" without feeling like I had any real choice in the matter. I had to go to church, even if I didn't want to. My parents were missionaries in a South American country so we went to a Spanish-speaking church, and I frequently didn't have a wide-enough vocabulary to understand what was being said. I also went to an English-speaking school for missionary kids, so I was pretty much flooded with Christianity on either side. I went through the motions, said all the right things, got baptized, and did whatever I could to APPEAR more Christian-like (it was what was expected of me, and it helped me to fit in with other Christian kids). My interest in the Bible was limited to whatever I could get away with to get passing grades in Bible class, or to be able to spout some important memorized verses.
My church believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (or at least heavily implied it), and I had conflicting stories of salvation from other Christians around me, many of whom were from different denominations / different missions. Some believed that baptism was required, others believed that you needed to walk to the front of a church in front of everyone, others felt like you needed to say a special prayer and invite Jesus into your heart (which didn't completely make sense to me since I wasn't sure what to say to do that). Ultimately, I ended up feeling frustrated and confused about it, although I had tried numerous times to become "saved" even if I didn't know exactly how. To add to my frustration, I discovered a "dirty secret" of a person that I trusted and looked up to as someone who understood Christianity and practiced holy behavior seemingly without any problems.
I occasionally tried to talk to acquaintances that were atheistic or agnostic and tried to "convert" them, believing that God would never let me lose an argument for Him, and I ended up realizing how much I did not know about my beliefs, and how much MORE they knew about them than I did (and they didn't believe). I can only imagine that my ineptitude, as sincere as my attempts were, led to further hardening of their own anti-Christian beliefs.
The final nail in the coffin was when I returned to the U.S. and began attending a large church that my family attended when on furlough (a mandatory, temporary return to the U.S. after every 4 years of being in the field). A lot of the congregation was spiritually dead - church was a social event for a lot of people, especially younger adults. I saw some people leading worship services on Sundays and during the week, they were really no different than non-believers. They occasionally said a Christian-like thing, but they were spiritually dead, and vomited back what they were told without ever thinking about it.
PART 2: (Practical Christianity)
In retrospect, I think I still recoil from people who say flowery Christian things (i.e. steiner's "Triune God"). I know I'm long-winded, but I try to make every word count and I cut out a lot of unnecessary adjectives. Flowery speech simply reminds me of those people trying to make themselves more Christian-like instead of more Christ-like.
Anyway, I moved to a different state and got married. My wife was going to a private Christian (Assemblies of God) university, so I started to attend it, too, but I couldn't keep up with paying the bills, so I eventually had to leave and was semi-homeless (I remember searching for lost change between sofa cushions in the common areas so we could eat). Married housing wasn't available yet, so my wife stayed in the women's dorm with her financial aid, and a friend offered to let me stay in his dorm rather than sleeping on the street.
Once word reached the ears of the dorm administrator, he basically tried to hunt me down to get me out of the building, even though I was only there to sleep (I was working during the day to try to pay the first bill from the university so I could get back in). My previous RA and the RA for my friend both talked to the man to ask him to make an exception so I could at least just sleep there until I could pay, but money trumped the Christian sympathy of his superiors. Several different people had come to know me, so they let me round-robin through the dorm using their rooms (sleeping on the floor) to evade the dorm admin. After a while, marriage housing opened up and my wife and we had enough money/loans to move in. I was able to get a job working at the university as a night-shift security guard so I could help support us.
Once the dorm admin found out about the job, he made some calls and had me fired, even though all the bills had been paid by now (he knew that I had been evading him in the dorms and apparently this was his revenge).
As beneficial the experience of being penniless was, it was amazing to me that fellow Christians in positions of power would choose money and revenge over Christian sympathy, and would go above and beyond for it. However, I -did- see that there were some people who would choose to shelter me at their own risk, so I had a split opinion of Christians at this point. Most Christians I had come to know were only Christians on the surface, so my wife and some of those people in the dorms gave me a little hope in what Christianity could be, although I was experiencing the practical application side of Christianity and not the spiritual side yet. Up until that point, I had grown into an atheist in Christian clothing and didn't really put much stock into "Christianity."
PART 3: (Coming Back Strong)
Shortly after being fired from the night-shift job, I was approached by a Christian internet company and offered a job. The job was nearly 2 hours away, and it was hard to get up that early, but I did it anyway. We had just financed a cheap car, which was so cheap that it didn't have any clock, tape player, or CD player (which were still not all that common yet, but the lack of a tape player was surprising). So all I had to listen to on my morning drives was radio, and the only station that was available the whole length of the drive was a Christian station that aired recordings of sermons.
So for about a year, I listened to 2 hours of sermons on the way in, and 2 hours on the way back - different pastors and different denominations. There weren't a lot of other cars on the road at that time of the morning, so it made it easier to focus on what was being said. There wasn't any one particular sermon that really "converted" me - it was a gradual thing. One thing I realized for certain - I was able to look back and see how empty my pretense had been when I was younger - I was worshipping the Christian image, not Christ. Now I was beginning to understand the differences in beliefs, appreciate the reasoning behind those differences, and actually find out what I believed.
Even if Christ had accepted my frustrated but sincere request for salvation when I was younger, I knew for SURE that I was saved now. I could look at the whole picture of a sinful nature leading to sinful life, the necessity for salvation, the PLAN for salvation, and how to take advantage of it. I also realized that the true Christian faith was not accurately represented by the empty Christians I had come across.
That was several years ago, and my faith in God has only grown. Nowadays, I look for whatever I can to learn more about what I believe. I've changed several of my beliefs after spending enough time analyzing them and trying to figure out if my beliefs are truly based on godly teachings or if they are based on traditional teachings (which are not ALWAYS mutually exclusive, but sometimes are). I've spent a lot of time reading and studying two topics in particular - evolution/creationism and the church's stance on homosexuality, which is why I'm on these posts.
I'm still very critical of other Christians who sound like the empty Christians I came across. I believe empty Christians are the kind that the media likes to poke fun at (because they don't know what they believe - they just memorize verses and repeat them as a substitute for Christ), and they are also the kind that fuel the idea that Christians are dumb, because they have no idea how to properly defend their faith. So when people come on and spout verses at me, part of me instantly sees the fake/empty Christians trying to prove themselves with their memory. However, I still try to respond nicely, just in I'm wrong. That's it - hope that maybe I make more sense to you now.
earthkicker - John 3:16 - "...that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him..." I said I believe salvation is AVAILABLE to everyone, not that everyone gets it / accepts it.
jhilgeman
You say "I believe that salvation is flexible enough to be available to anyone, so yes, it is about what a person believes to be godly." but it is written
Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide [is] the gate and broad [is] the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Mat 7:14 Because [fn] narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
jh-
Tell us about your born-again experience.
Hey, jh!
Let me see if I can get back in here...the symbolism of marriage is that of sacrifice and obedience. I'm not so sure there is inconsistency. In order to understand the spiritual meaining or the relationship we are to have with Jesus as His Bride, we need to exemplify that relationship in our own lives through the sacrifice and obedience in the marriage union. The practical purposes of marriage also helps us to understand. Your understanding of the practical purpose was that of to keep the bloodline going. Is this not the practical purpose of the church today? Are we not to preach, teach and baptize? The church is to build up itself in Jesus, we are to grow both spiritually and numerically.
Delight - I don't know what you feel you are gaining by trying to make light my prior declaration of Christian faith or comparing me to an agnostic. I still think you are a Christian, even if I disagree with your positions. If nothing else, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Now, it sounds like you feel that there is an absolute list of sinful actions in the Bible, regardless of a person's intents. I've brought up Jesus's quotes as Scriptural support, and you disregarded His words as only being meant to talk about food. I suppose you probably think that when he told the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath, that you believe he was ONLY talking about the Sabbath and there was no other implied meaning. If so, then I guess we simply interpret things differently. I believe Jesus used examples to demonstrate ideas, not to create new law out of those examples.
Regarding your terrorists' example, I can only imagine that if you were back in the times of the N.T., you would be among the Pharisees, trying to trap Jesus with extreme examples. I am not Jesus, so I don't know the answer, and I do not pretend to know the true intentions of people I've even spoken to, MUCH LESS the people I've never spoken to (e.g. terrorists). God will be their judge.
"It would appear "godly intent" is in the eye of the beholder and not found in reading and studying Scripture."
I disagree. Godly intent is something that is developed. When you read and study the Scripture, you make choices about what you believe to be godly. I believe that salvation is flexible enough to be available to anyone, so yes, it is about what a person believes to be godly. Otherwise, salvation would only be limited to those who could read and understand Scripture well enough to finally get to the point of understanding the whole list of sinful things so they can THEN choose not to do them.
If someone studies the Scripture and misinterprets something to be evil (nose-picking), but they choose to do it for their own reason instead of choosing to be godly, then they are sinning, even if nose-picking is not sinful in itself.
If you don't feel that this is the case, then you'd better hope you've chosen the right Christian denomination, because all the other ones are apparently going to hell for misinterpreting something and are probably unknowingly sinning.
believer - Okay, I understand what you're saying. I believe it's a form of marriage because of how it works. It's one man and one woman at a time, but that "at a time" is why it does not contain the same symbolism as the ideal marriage type. Levirate marriage is invoked because the husband dies - God does not die or go away. The only similarity between Levirate marriage and the nuclear marriage is really that it ends up being a man and a woman - everything else is different. And if you believe that marriage is more than just a man and a woman being together (that it is a prepared union that has symbolism), then you should see them as different marriage types.
If you see Levirate marriage as simply a reason to enter the nuclear marriage, then again, we're dealing with inconsistency in the symbolism of the ideal marriage. God does not enter the relationship with the church because another God died or went away somehow. There's spiritual meaning in the purpose behind the nuclear marriage.
steiner -
"There is nothing in the Biblical Levirate model that sanctions a coupling of one man with more than 1 wife."
Again, I'm not sure why you're bringing up "more than 1 wife." Nobody has said anything about sanctioning that idea.
From what I'm reading in your post, I think you're trying to simplify homosexuality down to a single concept that you can condemn as an immoral choice. There's really no Scriptural support for doing that, so I don't know if there's any common ground to discuss it further. If you feel differently, I'm open.
jh- You are sounding more like an Agnostic than a Christian. It appears you do not want anyone to find an absolute Truth in Scripture as it is written and presented to us; from the Creator to His creation.
"as long as it's serving godly intents"
Really? I'm sure the Islamic Pilots thought they were serving "godly intent" when they flew into the World Trade Center, demolishing it. Just because we didn't like it, does it mean they are less godly because we view them as evil?
It would appear "godly intent" is in the eye of the beholder and not found in reading and studying Scripture. Is this your stand?
jhilgman,
Sorry for the confusion. I failed to add an apostrophe in Triune God's.
As regards to there being other forms of marriage sanctioned by the Triune God that are different from the one man, one woman model....
There is nothing in the Biblical Levirate model that sanctions a coupling of one man with more than 1 wife.
As to the use of the word: orientation, to describe a choice of the same gender for marriage...I find this misleading.
It is simply an immoral choice. One is to be wary of the choices they make, and not simply be lead by their feelings.
jh, you see Levirate marriage as a different form of marriage and I'm saying I see it as a different reason for marriage but the same form, one man and one woman. You see it as Point 1 and possibly 2 and I see it as Point 2 only.
steiner - I'm not sure if we have similar definitions, so this is just meant for my own clarification. Just for the sake of typing less, I'm going to refer to "Triune Gods" as "God" because I'm assuming you're simply talking about God as a part of the trinity.
Homosexuality isn't a marriage model. Homosexuality is an orientation. A homosexual is a person who has that orientation. Homosexual acts are the sexual activity of a homosexual. Same-sex marriage is the marriage model.
Polygamy is a form of marriage, but nobody here is in support of polygamy (unless I missed something).
"in the light of the Triune Gods revealed Word."
I'm reading this as "my interpretation of Scripture" without the flowery phrasing.
"Homosexuality and polygamy are different marriage models that are sinful in the light of the Triune Gods revealed Word."
So I'm reading this as:
"Same-sex marriage and polygamy are sinful in my interpretation of Scripture."
"The problem here is not that we do not accept that sin is a rebellion against God."
Who is "we?" I fully accept that sin is the result of someone intentionally choosing something that is not godly.
"The problem is that homosexuals and polygamists do not admit that they are sinning. They in fact believe that their way of life is consistent with Gods nature, Hence it is important to point out that they may still worship, but their worship is tantamount to idol worship. "
I'm reading this as: "A homosexual who fully believes that he/she is a Christian and fully intends to worship the "Triune Gods" is actually worshipping a false idol."
Also, just for the sake of consistency in writing, usually people don't "admit" something if they don't "believe" they did anything wrong. Admission implies that they know they're doing something wrong. I only point this out because believer and I have talked about the difference of people who believe they are not being sinful and those who think it is sinful but are just looking for loopholes.
"From the beginning(Genesis) marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."
...ignoring the marriage models in the O.T...?
believer - sorry, I'm trying to scroll back and forth between our posts but I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
The statements i have made are meant to exclude other marriage types.
From the beginning(Genesis) marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.
Homosexuality and polygamy are different marriage models that are sinful in the light of the Triune Gods revealed Word.
The problem here is not that we do not accept that sin is a rebellion against God.
The problem is that homosexuals and polygamists do not admit that they are sinning. They in fact believe that their way of life is consistent with Gods nature,
Hence it is important to point out that they may still worship, but their worship is tantamount to idol worship.
jh, I should have said the Levirate marriage agrees with point 2 only, plus I would expand point 2 to include romantic and spiritual.
jh, I concur for the most part with points 2 and 3 at the end of your post, but I guess we disagree with the form issue. I see that the Levirate issue agrees with points 2 and 3, but does not differ from God's original design for one man and one woman.
Why does everyone keep bringing up polygamy?
"homosexual acts are sinful acts that parallel the sinfulness of idol worship."
Okay, that was out of the blue. Wouldn't ANY sinful act parallel the sinfulness of idol worship... or parallel the sinfulness of any other sinful act, for that matter? Isn't sin simply a choice of rebellion against God / godly things?
Polygamy is lopsided and forces a corrupt union.
There can be no marriage union between the two or more females in the relationship.
It does not reflect the Triune God, but it justifies inequality and ultimately justifies treatment of people as chattels and even slaves.
homosexual acts are sinful acts that parallel the sinfulness of idol worship.
In idol worship, one submits to a false god and in homosexuality one submits to a false union.
The Triune God is not to be confused with the idol, as much as union between a man and a woman ought to not be confused with homosexual acts.
Delight - my reason for bringing up marriage types that were sanctioned in the past is basically to point out that God doesn't have one sole design for marriage and that there's just no other valid marriage. We may not be able to reconcile our differences at this particular point, since we're both looking at Scripture and interpreting differently, but my belief is that there are different forms of marriage, and God was simply using one of them to make a great illustration of Christ's relationship with the church.
What I'm hearing from others is that simply because God chose to use one of the marriage types for that illustratoin, they believe that it's the ONLY valid marriage type. That's where I disagree. I don't think that just because God uses something for a spiritual lesson has any validation/invalidation on other types of marriages, which are all traditionally used for practical purposes.
As far as "it would mean He no longer does [approve of those marriage types] today" - who's to say that for sure? I'm just saying that they were sanctioned in the past. They might not be valid today for reasons of impracticality or maybe they ARE still valid. -shrug- Generally, I think that Scripture shows that the law adapts as long as it's serving godly intents. Law is made for man, not man for the law.
Yes, I know my examples are sometimes weird. I used the satanic church example because I figured you and I could easily agree that professing Christian faith isn't wrong just because a group of people disagree with it. I was just trying to guess at what type of example might be the clearest for you to understand. I wasn't equating you or this forum to the satanic church or anything like that.
Objective truth? Yes, but I think God is the only one who knows the complete objective truth. Since He only reveals certain parts to us, it becomes subjective truth for us because we have to interpret what is revealed. I think that goes hand-in-hand with Jesus's reasoning for saying that there's no specific action that is sinful - just sinful intentions - we interpret what is revealed to us in order to figure out what we believe to be sinful and what is beneficial to us. If we go against what we believe to be beneficial/godly, then we're being sinful, because we're choosing against godliness.
believer - I don't equate Levirate marriage with polygamy, nor am I trying to justify it. Polygamy was not okay, per God, and I think we're all in agreement on that.
Polygamy defined is one man with multiple wives at the same time (traditionally speaking). Levirate is not multiple wives simultaneously. It is one man and one wife, but:
1. ...there's no symbolic reference to the relationship between God and the church. In the ideal marriage type, the man is God and the woman is the church. Levirate marriage has the man being replaced by his brother(s) under certain circumstances.
2. ...the purpose of the union is not one of love or even of sexual desire. The purpose is solely to continue the family's bloodline. Sheer practical purpose marriage type.
Those two points separate it out from the normal "ideal" marriage type that is symbolic of Christ and the church. Not only did God sanction / approve of this marriage type, but he also enforced it, as the story of Onan shows. The story of Onan also supports the fact that it was a practical-purpose marriage type, given his actions and probable reasons.
All I'm trying to do at this point is to point out three things:
1. That there were other forms of marriage that were sanctioned by God.
2. That marriage existed for practical purposes.
3. That God used one type of marriage to illustrate a spiritual idea.
jh-So, if I'm getting your meaning here; you feel God has IN THE PAST "sactified" other forms of marriage.
What bearing does this have TODAY on your pro-homosexual marriage stance? Since you believe God okayed other forms of marriage in the past, it would mean He no longer does today and since we see no proof of any homosexual marriage in the Bible, what makes you think that He okays same sex marriage TODAY?
PS sometimes your examples are weird....we are not in a satanic church but in reality on a Christian website and there is such a thing as objective Truth, right?
jh, I've read about the Levirate marriage and I'm assuming you interpret that to justify polygamy, but I think when some read this they assume that the next brother in line is already married, but we can't substantiate if he was married or single. And unless you know some scripture that talks to that I'm not sure that's a valid argument with regards to God's design for marriage.
PART 1 of 3 (my first 3-part post!):
mat - I don't know about there cradle Christians far outweighing cradle atheists. That's a pretty hard case to make - lots of sociological bias (stigmas from being labeled either one, traditions vs true faith, observer bias, etc). Even the U.S. Census doesn't collect information on people's religious preferences. :)
I also don't necessarily agree that we're all born atheists. That would imply that babies would believe there's no God rather than simply not having made (or being able to make) a choice yet of what to believe.
At the risk of sounding like I'm just being argumentative, I'd also disagree with the phrase "give the acknowledged lack of proof." I think there are disagreements on what constitutes proof (even scientific proof), and as far as it being "acknowledged" - I'd ask you if the person (your mother?) who acknowledged it is qualified to speak for all of Christianity. Her role as a Sunday School teacher doesn't have a lot of bearing on that, since I know a lot of Christians (including Catholic Christians if you differentiate them) who disagree with the Pope.
You sound like someone who is familiar with fallacies in arguments and different concepts of communication, so you should be able to recognize these as weak, regardless of the topic being discussed.
Now, to your point, I think believer answered it quite well. There are some things that just don't work well without full commitment. Would you accept the job of being a lifeguard if you were always fearful that the water would magically vanish when you were diving in? There are pieces of the Christian life that are built upon each other, and if your base faith isn't solid, then you can't really function well.
On the other hand, I do understand what you're saying. How can we be sure about God existence if we refuse to scientifically test it? There's no easy answer that I've found for that question. The best I can do is offer another analogy and question, albeit a longer one. The short answer: Christians CAN entertain the idea that there's no God, but not for very long, because nothing makes much sense without Him. It's like asking a scientist to entertain the idea that there's no such thing as math. How can there be no such thing as math? You put one toothpick next to another toothpick and you have two toothpicks, right? Math is just... THERE - it doesn't require explanation in order to function.
To go back to your baby scenario - newborn babies have no concept of adding and subtracting (although it doesn't mean they don't believe in math - they seem to understand the concept of "MORE!") Later on, being taught addition and subtraction is really just being trained on how to SEE it in action. They've seen math being performed all their life - it's all around them, but without the training to recognize it, it goes unnoticed.
PART 2 of 3:
So yes, a Christian can entertain the idea, but once you begin to see God all around you, it's quite difficult to imagine how you ever saw differently. We see scientists trying to make heads or tails of certain dilemmas, like children who refuse to learn math but can't understand why taking away a toothpick isn't resulting in more toothpicks. However, since they've figured out that putting two toothpicks together is MORE, they think they're on to something and they don't need math class.
(I don't mean for that to sound arrogant - I just sort of blurt out analogies as they come to me and it's hard for me to re-word them without losing meaning.)
So that's my answer for your question. Let me propose some food for thought for you (fair is fair):
I know this sounds cliche, but bear with me. Do you test the wind every time it blows? Is there even such a thing as wind? No, there isn't. We can't measure the wind.
Sure, the weather channel might say we have wind gusts and will tell us how many mph it's going at, but they're not measuring the wind - they're measuring the effect of air movement. You might think that's just playing with semantics, and I'd agree 100%, but if you think about it, what I said is still true. Wind isn't a thing, it's a concept, a result, an effect. Air is a thing, and we have the scientific tools to measure air - the heat of it, the density, etc.... Scientists can see the effects of air movement, and they can link them together.
Scientists also believe in the existence of things SOLELY because of effect. For example, take dark materials/dark matter (for the sake of brevity, I'm going to take some shortcuts). The first time someone ever believed it existed was because someone saw the effect of it through a telescope. They said, "We know that objects are attracted to each other, and this cluster of stars seems to be attracted to some THING that we cannot see. But since we see the EFFECT, then there MUST be something there. It doesn't matter that we can't see it or measure it directly."
They are relying on faith based on visible effect.
Christians take that same leap of faith that scientists take. We see the EFFECT of God everywhere. The EFFECTS are often even measurable by science, but from this point, it's all semantics.
PART 3:
It's just a matter of whether you feel like everything in this world is simply coincidental (and if you believe in probabilities, then evolution should make less sense than intelligent design), or if there's someone that has the intelligent, genetic foresight to create (for example) a giraffe with a sponge in the back of his head to prevent his brains from being blown out by his ultra-strong heart (which is needed to pump blood all the way up that long neck) when the giraffe dips his head to take a drink. Technically, a giraffe should never have passed the evolutionary test, since it would have died long before it had time to create that sponge, or for that matter, the improved heart.
One last thought - if every creature has evolved as a matter of trial-and-error mutations, then shouldn't nearly every creature have tons of vestigial organs, extra body parts, etc...? Just because they're extra doesn't mean they hinder evolutionary progression (in fact, I could sometimes use an extra arm or two). I mean, if you took a million car parts and threw them together and they just happened to result in a running car (small probability, but entertain the idea that it actually happened), wouldn't you expect that car to have little pieces hanging off of it? You could argue that large deformations resulted in extinct species (a large chunk of metal kept the car from going fast enough to outrun predators), but we should at least have lots of SMALL deformities. Instead, most species are pretty fine-tuned to do what they do - not a lot of extra parts.
Delight - I find it slightly amusing that you separate "gay christians" from "Christians." This is a fairly controversial topic, so I'm not surprised that there's a number of people that "question" my ideas. Furthermore, the number of people who disagree with me has absolutely no bearing on whether my idea is right or wrong. I could go into a satanic church and profess my Christian faith and a lot of people would disagree with me, but that those people are right just because there's a group of similar-minded people there. Now, for someone who pretends that all of their reasoning comes from the Bible, you seem to be stretching outside of it a lot.
Regarding sanctioning the other types of marriage, I simply point to the different forms of marriage defined by God in the Old Testament for the Israelites. I've listed the verses before, and you can look up my posts and get those verses, but you should know these types of verses without me having to point them out.
believer - As I mentioned to Delight, when I talk about sanctioned (I emphasize the past-tense) marriage types, I am simply referring to those defined in the Pentateuch for the Israelites (e.g. since I've referred to the Levirate marriage so often before, it's defined in Deuteronomy 25:5-9).
mat, why can't Christians admit they might be wrong with regards to the existence of God? Because the moment one becomes a Christian they are indwelt by God's Holy Spirit and there is no doubt that not only is there a God but He lives in me. It is something that perhaps can't be explained rationally because it is a miraculous event in the life of every new believer and how does one rationally explain a miracle, but it is the miracle of becoming a child of God. Now there have been some who say they used to be Christians but then they wised up and came to realize not only is Christianity a fraud but so is this whole God thing. Personally I believe they never had a genuine encounter with God in the first place because while I can understand some having doubts at time or even being angry with God, but to completely turn your back on God and to basically tell God get out of ones life, I'm just don't believe a person who truly is a child of God can or would do that, but I could be wrong on that one.
matucon wrote: "why is it that many nonbelievers (such as myself) can admit the possibility of a god despite our beliefs, yet few Christians will admit even the remote possibility of being wrong?"
I see this as coming back to the fact that we are God created. Each of us has a desire to worship, we just have to choose what it is we're going to worship. God desires us to choose to worship Him.
Christians have already made the choice therefore the desire to worship God is filled.
jh, my point about adoption is that homosexual couples can adopt without having to violate God's original design for either marriage or sexual intimacy if the state in which they live in allows same-sex couples to adopt.
But I personally can find no specific scripture reference where God sanctions any other forms of mariage unless your and my definition of sanction are different so please show me what you use biblically to support your view, thanks believer.
jh- You keep referring to God "sanctioning" (i.e.,authoritative permission or approval, as for an action) other types of marriage?
Where are you getting this idea that God has approved, gave authoritive permission for any other form of marriage? From the Bible? If so, please find those Scriptures.
I find it slightly amusing that the non believers and the gay christians all like what you say...but the Christians here are questioning your ideas. Hmmm.
Can all the Christians here be wrong?
jhilgeman, I definitely agree with you regarding how these discussions usually start - and end. Unless someone is admittedly unsure, people are generally pretty well set in their conclusions and convictions on this topic, so trying to swing someone from one side to the polar opposite is an exercise in futility. I do also think that the people that get overly defensive and offended (on both sides) are simply reflecting their own insecurities about their own convictions.
I will say though that, especially in this country, "cradle Christians" far outweigh "cradle Atheist" from an upbringing perspective, though there's a school of thought that we're actually all born atheists and taught about various gods by our parents. But relating to both these concepts and the desire to at least present someone with a point that'll at least make them think "Hmm...never thought of that before", I had asked my mom (who teaches Sunday school) that given the acknowledged lack of "proof" and the dependence of faith, why is it that many nonbelievers (such as myself) can admit the possibility of a god despite our beliefs, yet few Christians will admit even the remote possibility of being wrong? Again, like you, I'm not trying or hoping to change anyone's mind completely, just maybe give people a bit of a different perspective; some food for thought if you will.
believer - sorry, I was not trying to say that adoption was only an option if they were married and sexually intimate.
You were talking about the marriage design and how procreation tied into it, and that for partially that reason (?), gay marriage wasn't approved by God. I was just trying to say that I don't see how God's approval of marriage depends on the ability to have children, but if a homosexual couple did want to have kids, they could adopt. It was sort of a tack-on to the first part. I guess I didn't word it quite well.
We may have come to a point where we have some fundamental disagreement. I believe I understand what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree with it. I do see other marriage types defined and previously sanctioned by God.
I guess what I get hung up on is the combination of timing (God's sanction of other marriage types AFTER the creation of Adam/Eve), what Jesus talked about regarding marriage, how Paul treated it differently in different verses, and the complete lack of condemnation of homosexual acts in the New Testament. It's hard for me to just ignore all those pieces together, and the way I'm interpreting those verses just seems to make more sense to me. I guess it's personal interpretation, and I don't see evidence that would lead me to interpret it differently. -shrug-
I can see how if I started by thinking homosexual acts were wrong, I could read into what was there and what wasn't in order to form the same opinion that God opposes same-sex marriage (not trying to say this is in an arrogant way), and I probably would have that opinion. I'm just trying to approach it as though the topic had not been judged yet so I can ask whether there's Scriptural support for condemning it or not.
(On an unrelated note - I think ifeelfine was proposing a rhetorical question to DP because DP had suggested that the O.T. law had not gone away.)
"do you avoid eating shellfish because that is sinful? What about eating other "unclean" animals? And when someone breaks the "law" should we also stone those people as required in the OT?"
2Pe 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pe 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
2Pe 2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, {returns} to wallowing in the mire."
Jesus fulfilled the law. All those who are unfulfilled still seek the flesh. I think that answers your question quite completely.
jh, but for me personally I don't find any scripture that says that God's design for marriage is anything other than one man and one woman united as one for life in the sight of God.
jh, but adoption doesn't require the couple to be either married in many if not all 50 states and certainly not sexually intimate.
ifeelfine, with regards to unclean foods please refer to Acts 10:9-16 where in a dream Peter is told those laws are no longer binding.
Delight - No, I didn't catch any intended humor in your post about being extreme. One of the downsides to forum posts - it's hard to convey tones. It was still funny to read, though.
Regarding the mentally ill - you basically were implying that someone who didn't know they were sinning (psychopathic killer) were still sinning by their actions. So if it's stated clearly what's in store for those who sin until death, then I'm making a connection that you would logically believe that a psychopathic killer would go to hell for his/her actions, even if they didn't realize that they were sinning. If you believe otherwise, then it feels like you're not being consistent (especially since you chided me on another earlier post for not believing in the "narrow gateway to Heaven" when I brought up a similar type of scenario).
I don't really know who Mike is beyond a few posts. If he wants to twitter or whatever about me or what I say, I can't really force him to stop. People quote each other all the time - although I suspect this bothers you more because you disagree with me and you don't like the idea of what I have to say spreading. I can only hope that Mike isn't just looking to "get away with" homosexual activities if he believes they are sinful. If he is, then God will be the judge of him. Whatever the case may be, I have no intention of tickling ears. I've stated my purpose on here pretty clearly.
DP - Maybe it's just been a long day, but I'm not following what you're saying. I get the powerless car analogy, but the last 3 sentences are a bit confusing. Are you saying that we were NOT free to NOT do them before? If so, are you saying that they're still sinful, but the consequences are different? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding.
believer - while I would agree that heterosexual sexual intimacy can result in pro-creation, I don't see the Scriptural support that basically says, "Heterosexual sex is the only APPROVED kind because it is the only kind that leads to procreation." The joining of the fleshes is pretty open-ended (pun unintended if there is one there - I'm a little tired right now). You said that infertile couples are the exception, not the norm, but the Scripture doesn't seem to deal with norms and majorities in making cases for doctrine with the exception of Moses's allowance of divorce. (Regarding polygamy - Deut. 17:17 would have been applicable to the individuals you listed).
If we're talking about linking sexuality to practicality, then I'd point to all the kids needing adoption today. I know a lot of heterosexual couples who just want their own kids, so they won't adopt. Homosexual couples wanting children seem like they would fit the bill quite nicely and as long as they are stable and loving, they could give those children a nice home.
DP: Based on your response to OT law, do you avoid eating shellfish because that is sinful? What about eating other "unclean" animals? And when someone breaks the "law" should we also stone those people as required in the OT?
jh, God sanctioning other forms of marriage, God does not necessarily have to speak out against every sin there is, sometimes it appears He simply lets the consequences of those sins to speak for themselves and even Him. Case in point, polygamy, although we find no place where God speaks specifically speaks against it, the consequences of polygamy do it for Him. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all practiced polygamy and all their families reaped negative consequences as a result and Lamech, the first recorded bigamist, kills two people. As for same-sex marriage, God created sexual intimacy for both pleasure and pro-creation and the latter is not naturally possible without outside assistance for a homosexual couple and yes there are couples who are heterosexual who cannot have kids, but they are the exception to the rule and not the norm. So God gives His definition and design for marriage in Genesis 2:24 and Jesus affirms it in Matthew 19:4-6 and God is silent with regards to same-sex marriage and yet we see the consequences it leads to when it comes to pro-creation. To me it seems pretty obvious that God is opposed to same-sex marriage.
jh- you don't read my sarcasm back to you as far as your statement to me regarding "extreme circumstance" in return for your example?
As far as changing my argument; we don't know what God does for the mentally ill but He has stated clearly what's in store for them who sin unto death.
"people that believe that the O.T. law never went away and still applies today"
The law was powerless to save us from sin. This is why Christ had to die for us. Picture it as a car with no gas. It is powerless. When Jesus died HE is the power of God in salvation. He empowers us to change. We no longer have to do the things that are in the law. We are now free from the bondage of the law. What was that bondage? It was the fact that we were powerless to stop doing the sins which we did.
With that said...Jesus came to fulfill the law. We are free to NOT do the sins which are listed in the law. We are free to obey. So, those who simply want to things like be gay are still doing the things under the law. If they are, in fact, free from those things then why are they still doing them and even making a choice to do so?
jh- since we don't "know for sure" what is sin in the heart of another, would you say that as a Christian to advocate anything other than what God has clearly stated, (i.e. as in marriage and sexuality) to state otherwise or throw doubt on the meaning of what God has said and hasn't said outright (by reading into a lack of direct wording some kind of permission) a slippery slope that 'Teachers" dare not tread?
Is it honoring to God to trot out our human intellect and wisdom to teach a doctrine that can tickle the ears of those who no longer want to hear the truth and are looking for loopholes?
You've got Mike all a-twitter quoting you on other posts as advocating his homosexual activities even though he considers himself to be a christian. He just loves you.
Is that what you intend here on these posts, to tickle ears?
Delight - "Regarding your argument over the psychopaths and the mentally-ill, both rather extreme examples, wouldn't you think?"
LOL. I'm sorry, but that's just pretty funny. You come up with the psychopath and nose-picking examples, and you call my response extreme? :)
Honestly, I read through your posts a couple of times. I'm not sure what to make of them - you seem to change your beliefs when it is convenient to your argument. (e.g. God will save the mentally-ill because it's His call... even though you criticized me for making similar arguments before...)
I can't really say anything at this point to you. Feel free to think whatever you'd like of that.
believer - I do agree that only the person and God know for sure, since nobody can know the true heart of another.
I also agree in that I see a number of people who do come to these sites and do seem to be looking for loopholes. If they believe their actions are sinful, but are looking for loopholes, then they're sinning, in my opinion. There's only so much we can do for those people.
I think there are also people who come to the site because they don't believe their actions are sinful, and other people have said that they are, and they're looking for clarification. Depending on what they read here, they may feel relieved or they may feel condemned. God will be the judge of their sincerity.
I'm not saying all this to try to provide loopholes - anyone who looks hard enough for something will usually find it, even if I don't say anything. There are entire sites out there devoted to delivering justification to the Christian homosexual (although I think sometimes they go overboard and let their bias introduce weak evidence as being stronger than it is, which just lessens their overall credibility in the eyes of fellow Christians).
My purpose is to discuss the validity of "homosexual sin" with people that teach others about it. I mentioned to Delight once that we are all teachers here.
Regarding what I would need to see to convince me otherwise - if I believed that the O.T. law was still valid, spiritual law rather than specific, practical law for the Israelites, then that would make me strongly question my current stance, because of Leviticus 18:22. I believe that verse is quite specific - I haven't studied the Hebrew, but I've read in multiple places that it is what it sounds like.
(The only reason I even bring up the marriage types discussed in the O.T. law is to reference other marriage types still being practiced in New Testament times, which God at one point sanctioned, even after he created Adam and Eve. Technically speaking, I don't think any of those O.T. marriage types have any practical use today.)
I do know people that believe that the O.T. law never went away and still applies today, and I would completely respect them if they told me that they stopped engaging in homosexual acts because of that verse (even if I didn't think their reasoning was valid or felt that they were picking-and-choosing verses to follow).
Regarding your argument over the psychopaths and the mentally-ill, both rather extreme examples, wouldn't you think?
How many psychopaths are confessing Christians?
Is God able to save the mentally ill, yes, but it is His call to make. We are talking of normal people with faculties in tact, who desire to sin over what God has said is sin leading to death;
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1Cor6:9,10.
Not inherit mean sin unto death, just to be clear.
How does one equate the eating of foods that were previous mentioned in the ceremonial Jewish law to differentiate the Jews from the nations around them, with all out sexual sin that is condemned in both OT and NT? It is the "doubtful' things we are not to dispute over, not disputes over actual sin as declared by God. Romans 14 speaks about Christian liberty and how the strong in faith should consider that weak in faith may stumble over our liberty and that the weak in faith shall not be held in contempt by the strong. No mention here of actual sin that leads to death, only food and ceremonial days. To include the practice of homosexuality (or any other sin that leads to death) is stretching the meaning of the scripture.
In Mark 7 again we are speaking about the superiority of God's law over the traditions of men; the difference between ceremonial tradition and moral defilement. No one who reads that can read that one can reject the commandment of God over tradition.
In 1 Cor 6;12,13 says that our bodies are not for sexual immorality.
So, bring back the point if one feels something is not a sin then it is not; NON BELIEVERS do not believe they are sinning so they are not, I will let God judge them.
I thought we were talking about confessing Christians engaging in homosexual acts and it matters little if they believe it to be a sin or not, God determines that. If they are true Christians then the Holy Spirit will convict them of sin alongside the clear teaching of Scripture. No where do I read from the Scriptures that actual sin is not sin if one who professes Christ doesn't feel in their hearts that it is. God is the one who determines what is sin and what is not because He is the judge and not man's heart.
No twisting of Scripture when I quoted Jer 17...we don't always know what motives we have and just because we don't know our motives doesn't mean we are pure and without sin.
jh, but for you personally, what would you need to see to convince you God would not approve of same-sex marriage?
jh, about not knowing somethings a sin, I can agree to a point but ultimately only God and that person know for sure, because their are some people who as my Dad would say are as dumb as a fox. But what I also see is a number of people who profess to be Christians and who claim to be homosexuals who visit these sites appear to be doing all they can to convince themselves, others, and even God that the sexual practices of homosexuality are not a sin, its as if deep in their heart they know already but out of sheer frustration they're doing their best to find scripture to support them or saying because there is no specific scripture that calls it a sin to justify their behaviors and I know there are others who do the same things with sin issues they're struggling with in their own life. These struggles lead me personally to believe that they are Christians as opposed to those who in essence say I don't care what God or God's Word says I'm going to do it my way anyway.
"if one has heard that picking their nose is a sin and choose to believe it but pick their nose anyway, then it really is a sin?"
Yes. If you were brought up with the belief that every time you picked your nose, you were giving God the finger, then choosing to pick your nose anyway for your own selfish (?) reasons would be sinful, even if you didn't know any better.
I don't understand why you're trying to skirt around Scripture by coming up with extreme circumstances.
"are you then saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry legally that homosexuality is not then a sin in the sight of God?"
No. Homosexual (or heterosexual) acts can very well be a sin if the people engaged in those acts have ANY belief that what they are doing is wrong, but they are going to do it anyway. That's regardless of whether they're married legally, married illegally, or unmarried. Marriage is just the room where it takes place - sin comes the heart, and if you're choosing to do something you believe is wrong, then I believe your actions are sinful.
As for supporting verses:
Romans 14 (all of it)
Mark 7:1-23
1 Corinthians 6:12-13
"Are psychopaths then not in sin when they do bad things and feel no trouble from their actions?"
Do you claim to have the power and knowledge to say that psychopaths feel no trouble from their actions?
Let's extend that argument from a psychopathic killer to all severely-mentally-disabled. Do you believe that a severely-mentally-disabled person who has absolutely no realization that he/she is stealing when they take something that is not theirs is still sinning?
And if they ARE sinning and cannot grasp the concept that they are sinning (even if someone tries to explain it to them - maybe they don't have the capacity to understand the words), are they doomed to hell because they cannot repent for something that they do not know is sinful?
As to Jeremiah 17:9 - why are you twisting that to imply that nobody can know their own heart, so they cannot know when they intend to do something wrong?
Have you heard the theory of 'false guilt'? Wherein some people suffer guilt over some benign behavior because of a pshychosis or misbelief?
Say, if one has heard that picking their nose is a sin and choose to believe it but pick their nose anyway, then it really is a sin? Objectively?
If God condemns sin because sin originates from the heart (meaning what the heart believes) then is picking one's nose a reason to be condemned by God because somewhere, either by belief or pshychosis it is considered a sin, worthy of condemnation from God?
Wouldn't what one feels in their heart be considered a subjective belief? From my understanding of God is that He is the Object of faith and His truth is therefore objective. What I believe subjectively can have no influence on the objective truth of God, right?
Criteria for sin is all in what the heart considers sin to be, not God's Word but based only on our heart's motivations?
Are psychopaths then not in sin when they do bad things and feel no trouble from their actions?
What if someone keeps doing wrong and their conccience becomes seared, is their behavior not sinful as they consider it not to be so? Does God have a say?
"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; WHO CAN KNOW it?"
Jer 17:9.
If so, can the heart deceive me into believing that what I do is good and therefore since my heart is not condemning me, then God doesn't condemn me either?
Is the be-all and end-all depend on how men read their own hearts?
Delight - I'm not arguing for gay sex. I'm just saying that there's no Scriptural support AGAINST gay marriage and sex.
"Maybe, you can list for me some things that you think God considers sin, if there be such a thing?"
I've said before that I think sin comes from the heart, which means that ANYTHING can be a sin if you're doing it for the wrong reason.
jh- are you then saying that if homosexuals are allowed to marry legally that homosexuality is not then a sin in the sight of God?
"we love them, but we hate everything they stand for and wont let them into our buildings unless they hide their filthy habit and conform to our will."
You really need to come visit our church sometime! We have more groups for helping them become what Christ wants them to be than any church I've seen. We have programs to help support single parents, those going through divorce and separation, special needs Sunday School classes so that parents can get a break and sit in service without worrying about their kids and the list goes on.
We are just simplistic in our approach. Meet people where they are and give them support (which is far, far more then just throwing money at a problem).
To get an idea of what a church can be (and oh yes we have our faults) you can go to www.brookwoodchurch.org and watch some of the services on line.
A major problem we have is "younger Christians" (whose who are new to the faith) being immature towards other Christians in the behavior you've discribed. What you're saying is that many Christians behave like a bunch of adolesence, right? The Bible speaks about being mature in the faith. Lack of Spiritual maturity is the problem.
Specifically now the statement "we hate everything they stand for"...we dislike anything that is not Biblical. That should go without saying. Still, many of us understand that except for the grace of God go I. When a Christian really understands what God saved THEM from is when they treat the person as a person and the sin as sin. He who is without sin cast the first stone.
Delight - I thought you weren't ever going to speak to me again. :)
I thought that question was for ifeelfine. I assumed that it was obvious that I agreed with believer - otherwise it wouldn't make sense for me to argue for gay marriage if I thought that sex outside of marriage was okay... (I have a little more to say, but I know you like short answers.)
believer - I think God's creation of Adam and Eve is an example of timeless understanding. I think He knew that a 1-man/1-woman marriage would be an ideal representation for humans to understand. Again I bring up Levirate marriage - a marriage that God sanctioned, but it is not representative of God and the church (the church doesn't die and the church's brother comes in to save the day). Yet, God still viewed it as a valid marriage. If the "only design" for marriage is the nuclear marriage, then why would God sanction another type?
Another thought - in those times, women were practically pieces of property, and all it took to divorce your wife was basically a signature on a piece of paper - the wife had no say in the matter. Worse yet, women who were divorced were basically outcasts in society, so divorce was often a death sentence. In that same chapter in Matthew, in verse 3, the Pharisees were trying to catch him and make him look bad by giving him a loaded question (is it lawful to divorce for any reason). No matter if he said, "yes" or "no" - he was cornered and would lose credibility in front of the people he was trying to talk to.
Since Jesus knew that they were so centered on O.T. law, he throws it back at them by starting with, "Haven't you read [Genesis]?" He puts the burden on their understanding (smart guy, that Jesus), and condemns the common practice of casual divorce right then and there. He says that marriage isn't something to take lightly, and divorce isn't an option.
I think in saying this, he also reaffirms the symbolic relationship between God and church - they cannot be separated.
Later on, he gets another challenge about marriage - this one on the VALUE of marriage and the Levirate marriage law. I think the most interesting part of this story is that Jesus essentially places no value on the CONCEPT of marriage - He says that there is no marriage in heaven (implying that it's an earth-only thing - a practical concept for humans).
Putting that together with God's sanction of other non-nuclear marriage types, I feel like God took one form of marriage and used it like a parable to illustrate the importance of God's relationship with the church. I don't think He was necessarily saying, "There are no other marriage types, regardless of what I've sanctioned in the past - there is only one type of marriage that I will approve of, and that marriage type is something sacred here on earth, but has no meaning in Heaven."
If anything, I feel like He says, "You guys are missing the point - you're placing so much meaning on the IDEA of one form of marriage that you're forgetting that I was trying just to say how important and tight My relationship with the church is." Just my opinion, though.
"then would not a homosexual or heterosexual couple who aren't married be in sin if they enter into sexual intimacy either physical or mental since God declares that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed?"
A simple question from believer remains unanswered by jh on this post as well as on the other post. I'm still reading for an answer.
Seems every other question posed here has been answered but this one.
It's a great question, why no answer?
mat - by the way, I am REALLY long-winded, and this forum only lets me have 3,000 characters per post, which is why I often have Parts 1 and 2.
PART 1:
mat - I have not read "God: The Failed Hypotheses" but I have read "The God Delusion." Sorry to say I've never heard of Victor Stenger before, although I've heard of that book.
I do find it amusing that so many Christians practically worship major figures like James Dobson and Pat Robertson (they say they don't, but they treat every word the same as Scripture), and skeptics will make fun of the situation, and then turn around and use the words of people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as their own "bible." I could ask you to read "The Evolution of a Creationist" objectively, but we both know that it's just hard to read "opposing" material without looking for all of its problems.
So if you're looking for the truth or the answer to the universe, you're probably not going to find it in books that are heavily biased one way or another. Dawkins and Hitchens are just the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell of the atheists. Their logic sounds perfect to their followers, but others (even non-believers) often disregard much of what they have to say because it is so biased. Same story with the websites that you've mentioned so far - they are heavily biased and have no real purpose in reading the Scriptures other than to comb through for errors. When all you care about is errors, you miss a lot of the truth.
Just like there are cradle Christians, there are cradle atheists. (I was trying to think of a substitute for cradle that start with "ath" but I'm not a poet. Sorry.)
You say you enjoy the conversation. That's all fine and dandy. I know a LOT of people (even Christians) will argue with a lofty dream of having their opponents say, "I give up! Your logic is better." Realistically speaking, that never happens because people don't like to admit they are wrong, especially in front of other people. So both sides just become irritated and start on the personal attacks. I will honestly say that I enjoy the conversation because I like to learn abd exchange ideas and I hope that sometimes people will silently say to themselves, "Hmmm - never thought of that before," even if it doesn't completely change their minds (I know I do that). I hope you are the same way and aren't in this for personal pride or glory (there's none to be found).
Regarding your thoughts on God, the "ruling spirit" concept you have of God is a popular non-believer view of God, so I'm not surprised you referenced it. There's a certain amount of truth in it, as well as a certain amount of untruth, and it's important to know which is which. There are also different views within Christianity about what God does and how He feels about different people. Generalizing all those views into the most unflattering view of God just isn't really an accurate depiction of Christianity.
PART 2:
I think Bill Maher's Religulous did precisely that - he took the most extreme and unforgiving parts of the Bible and tried to present Christianity as just that. He essentially implied that because a widely-varying group of Christians believed different things and were unable to answer some questions with simple answers, that all or most of Christianity was like that, and then made the most illogical implication of all - that the unflattering view of Christianity somehow represented God, as if Christians were the ones responsible for COMPLETELY defining God - that He is somehow OUR puppet, rather than humans being His creations. I know some people feel like Christians created God to manipulate people, but if you're going to criticize the beliefs of a religion, you might as well get the beliefs right first, and THEN make your criticisms.
I also had issues with some of the editing in the film - sometimes he would pick out "choice" unflattering quotes from Christians (if you've seen the film, then think about the Christian church in the trailer), give a wisecrack about it, to which you could see the person attempt to respond, but then the scene would quickly be cut. I think that's precisely what a lot of non-believers do - they pay more attention to the unflattering parts and pay little/no attention to context or to anything else, because they're SEARCHING for the ugly.
So if you're searching for the ugly, then you've probably already found all there is to find on other sites. If you're looking for criticisms of evolution or other beliefs you might hold, for the purposes of discovering a bit more truth about what you believe, then I'm sure most of us will be happy to oblige. :)
Personally, at different times, I've believed in creationism, evolution, and evolutionary creationism, so I enjoy discussing the criticisms of all of them, although I admit I currently favor creationism because I think it requires less leaps of faith than the other two. Either way, I'll say right up front that I hope that if we keep the conversation going, that you'll at least re-think some of your current beliefs about Christianity and God, even if you don't change your mind.