A pro-gay evangelical leader spoke at Wheaton College Tuesday evening, drawing criticism from Christian groups that oppose the homosexual agenda.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Higher edu
Anti-Gay Group Criticizes Wheaton College Speaker
By
Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Feb. 20 2008 10:36 AM EST
[-] Text [+]
Comments
QT, I'm not much of a debator (too time-consuming) but I would like to make some comments. Please don't deluge me with replies like you did Chris. I don't have the time or desire for that. But I did want to give you some things to consider. Ok?
You said that the early church would view the idea of Jesus being God as idolatry. The challenge in the New Testament is that the early Christians were repeatedly told by Jesus that He was God. Jesus even took the divine name upon Himself. Then after the resurrection, even doubting Thomas was willing to state categorically to Jesus "My Lord and My God" - knowing full well as a Jew what that meant.
However, they wouldn't see it as Idolatry, for two reasons: First, Jesus didn't claim to be ANOTHER God, but to be Yahway in flesh. So it wasn't turning to a new God, but recognizing their already-accepted God.
That would fit with the Old Testament concept of God coming in other forms - in the Old Testament, it was not idolatry to state that God came in the form of an angel several times. (Jews even had a special name for when God took angelic form.) Idolatry is with another God, not the SAME God revealing Himself differently.
Whether God came as an angel in the Old Testament, or as a human in the New, as long as they were convinced that it was the same God, no idolatry would exist in their minds.
Secondly, once they understood Yahway better, they did change many of their customs and ways. The New Testament gives a lot of info about the clash, and how hard it was for some Jews to make the transition. But Jews did change, accepting the New covenant as better than the Old (Hebrews) because it fulfilled the Old.
I guess I've changed on this issue. More and more I see wisdom in a more libertarian viewpoint. It's not about whether it's a sin, it's about whether God gave humanity the ability to make choices, good or bad. You can be absolutely against sin, but not believe it is right to pass laws against it. Nowhere do I see Jesus pointing his followers toward controlling others in such a way.
Just because something is sinful does NOT mean God want's us to force others to not do it.
The day in which Christians make the laws is gone. Sadly, instead of insisting on laws that were open for disagreement, we pushed for a "we are right, so let's legislate it" type of self-centered governance. Now that we are no longer in power and receeding, that attitude has been passed to others to use against us!
Case in point: Christian marriage. It USED to be that we could marry, and the laws would support a Christian marriage viewpoint (very hard to divorce, for example). But those days are gone. We will probably never have a legal version of a Christian marriage again. But this could have been avoided had we allowed people to choose in the first place. We could have had a marriage legal system where I could CHOOSE to be in a Christian-based marriage, while someone else choose a no-fault divorce style of marriage. Not either-or, but both. Then you could choose God's way, or not God's way.
But now, I DO NOT have a choice!! It doesn't exist. You can not choose a Godly marriage covenant legally in the USA. All or nothing thinking eventually means you get ... nothing.
Freedom for OTHERS to choose is the only way to protect OUR freedon to choose. Freedom for others to do it ANOTHER way is the only way we can be free to do it GOD'S way.
But it's probably too late for that now.
It's like saying that the model for civilization will continue throughout history to be based on the curse G-d pronounces on Adam(man) and Eve(woman)- in other words,not all men toil by the sweat of their face to earn a living and put bread on their table, and not all women will face the pain of childbirth as it says in Genesis 3.
<<<Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way.>>>
Proves nothing; God includes the story of Adam and Eve in the Genesis historical record because God intended to populate the earth, not because God intended to forbid every marriage model different from the Adam and Eve model.
<<<The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal.>>>
The position which you choose to ignore, is that the book of Genesis is an explanation of origins. It is not a dissertation on marriage relationships. God asserts the importance of human relationships, and Genesis is not making a statement for or against the one man, one woman "model."
<<It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! >>>
I'm not saying that. I didn't say that. I never said that. What I did accomplish provided legitimate sources which were the basis of my argument- men who were polygamous and that it was culturally and religiously acceptible by Biblical standards.
PART 1
<<<First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.>>>
Where do I state in my argument," Paul is not relevant because he doesn’t talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT?" A good portion of Paul's message is lifted from the OT and reinterpreted- need I remind you, that it's what the Jews have as a point of REFERENCE. The Bible comes from TAKANH. Christianity is the off-shoot of Judaism, not the other way around!
And furthermore, where did I state "Paul was not against idolatry?" If you’re going to make accusations like that about my points, please show me the proof that that is what I said.
And I have read the epistles. Is it because I disagree with your interpretation of the epistles that you assume I haven’t read them, or are you just trying to bully me off this discussion because I have presented some truth and properly defended my points?
PART 2
And another thing, why do you keep making assumptions about me and the things I have written? You haven't actually made a point against anything I've said- you have merely talked around them and closed with, "one man one woman," "God said it therefore it's ordained and if he wanted it any other way he would have done so."
You know Chris333, that doesn't settle it, because if G-d ordained just Adam and Eve as the one man one woman model you've just limited G-d to an understanding that is human in design. But worse still, you are ignoring that you are deferring this matter to "SILENCE" in the same manner those who support that Jesus wasn't anti-gay unions because he was "silent" on the issue.
QT,
First of all, Paul was very closely related to Peter and the apostles and even confronted them to their faces about the things you mentioned. In any case, you cannot just say, "Oh well Paul is not relevant because he doesn't talk EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD TESTAMENT" Paul was against idolatry as well, you should read the epistles.
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that many of the ancient hebrews were polygamous. Solomon had a great many wives. The point is, every time a polygamous relationship is listed in the Bible, there are definite problems associated with it. God made only one man and one woman (which is clearly the ideal, otherwise He would have made more wives for Adam), and it is a bit difficult for a husband and several wives to become one person. Paul called for deacons to be the husband of one wife, there is no mention of polygamy in the NT, and Paul addresses husbands and wives in the singular. Polygamy only came after the fall, and it can be seen as a corruption of what was good (a corruption that God tolerated, much like the institution of kings over the Israelites, but a corruption nonetheless).
In any case, I could care less with what cultural groups throughout history decide is right. The SBC could come out with a decree tomorrow that polygamy is ok and it would not make a lick of difference to me. The position in the Bible is abundantly clear, and just because some men did it, and God allowed it, doesn't make it right or ideal. It is disengenuous to simply say, well Abraham did it, so that means God says it is right for him and all men forever!!!! Possibly the strongest evidence is that God only made one man and one woman, if He wanted it another way, He would have made it another way. (You seem to be stuck on Jewish and OT customs, and while I find it interesting I do not understand how it is relevant to the discussion)
You realize Chris333, The Jews who followed Jesus and became what is commonly or traditionally understood to be the "Early Church" ie. The Jesus Movement, The Jerusalem Church and The Nazarenes did not abandon their Jewish religious traditions, religious customs, feasts, dietary laws or their devotion to Torah. The mainstream Jewish community(and yes, even those who subsequently followed Jesus after his death) held that acceptance of Jesus as a DIETY(which was a completely Pauline point of view) is antithetical to the principles of Judaism, because it would involve the abolition of the Jewish law and customs and would be considered IDOLATRY.
PART 1
<<<However, QT is dead wrong if he/she thinks that marriage was not considered a covenant fully binding, only between man and woman, and considered much more sacred than we consider it today. The early church was clearly pro one man/ one woman marriage, and the Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman. God originally instituted it as such, every marriage with more than one woman had many and often serious problems, and the entire idea that man and woman become one does not allow for polygamous relationships. Two men or two women is not a possibility either. >>>
Pretty presumptive of you Chris333. How can I be dead wrong about something which seemingly exists or is merely an assumption on <<your>>part.
You said, "The Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman..." How do you deal with this statement?
"Scriptural evidence indicates that polygamy among the ancient Hebrews, though not extremely common, was not particularly unusual and was certainly not prohibited or discouraged. The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and David, with little or no further remark on their polygamy as such. The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife; Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
<<<QT, would you pleae provide reputable, and respectable historical sources for the claims you just made? These claims almost sound like the absurdity of the debunked Davinci Code that said Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children linked to the French Royal family, and was primarily based on the gnostic false gospels of the day...>>>
Dan Brown state that his book the Da Vinci Code is FICTION. How is anything you have said in the above paragraphs relevant to the discussion of marriage?
Jesus4me,
Amen to the Davinci Code post. I am not sure how many people are stupid enough to fall for it, but if they do, then that is their own fault. The best we can do is show anyone who believes in it the obvious factual errors. Of course, it almost doesn't deserve an answer, the average 10 year old could find out that it is clearly wrong. I have to stop from laughing when someone actually tries to support their world view with it. To think, it was a world wide bestseller... I might try my hand at selling ice to the eskimos.
QT is correct that from around the time of Jesus until much later, marriage was broadly defined as two people who slept together. Jesus corroborated this whenever He said that the Samaritan had 5 husbands (no doubt there was not a ceremony for any of them, and certainly not a priest or pastor officiating it). There are some hints of a ceremony in the OT but, nothing binding, and certainly not enough to say that God mandates them. In fact, the Catholic church was the originator of a "wedding ceremony" as we know it. They initiated it mostly so that they could monitor the church and tax, basically for more control.
However, QT is dead wrong if he/she thinks that marriage was not considered a covenant fully binding, only between man and woman, and considered much more sacred than we consider it today. The early church was clearly pro one man/ one woman marriage, and the Bible is indisputably pro one man/ one woman. God originally instituted it as such, every marriage with more than one woman had many and often serious problems, and the entire idea that man and woman become one does not allow for polygamous relationships. Two men or two women is not a possibility either.
QT wrote:
">>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain. >>>
Exactly what I said, the term "marriage" in the Hebrew culture at the time Jesus was on Earth was innitiated by the sex act. Man takes woman, has sex bam! they're married.
We have several anti-gay posters on this board who believe traditional marriage as we understand the concept "today," existed in "Bible times." Only when one reads the Bible and accurate historical accounts, marriage was not understood as a sacrament or a partnership, it was a property venture and wealthy men controlled and defined it and created laws which best suit their need- like taking as many wives as they could afford. Jesus did not view marriage the way Christians view marriage because Jesus was a Jew and instructed in the thought and teaching of Judaism- remember, the time in history in which Jesus was on this Earth, Christianity did not exist, and neither did the modern Christian concept of "traditional marriage."
QT, would you pleae provide reputable, and respectable historical sources for the claims you just made? These claims almost sound like the absurdity of the debunked Davinci Code that said Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children linked to the French Royal family, and was primarily based on the gnostic false gospels of the day. Naturally, everything in the Davinci Code lie has been disproven, it is proven false, but as we know, the damage has been done for those who are young, ignorant and don't study up on biblical history for themselves. The same goes for the Farenheit 911 film. It is a fabrication of a lie but made out to make people believe it is true. Most if not everything in Michael Moore's film has been disproven; yet there are many ignorant young passionate people who would hold Michael Moore's flat out none factual lie as truth, just because it came out in a film, and he is anti Bush.
There is so much propaganda trying to blemish Christ, the Gospel and The Way (Christianity), that if we are to be good stewards of our faith, we are to study God's Word, so we are not swayed by "every wind of doctrine", and doctrine of demon that is out there.
Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds a good thing,And obtains favor from the LORD.
Proverbs 18:21-23 (in Context) Proverbs 18 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 19:6
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:9
Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10:8-10 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
QT -
I am not familiar with what the vast majority of people did during Jesus' time, but I do know that there were wedding ceremonies, as the Bible talks about some. Care to provide a link for me to see this information you're talking about?
But whatever the minority or majority did does not change what God set up originally when He first created Adam and Eve, nor what Jesus taught while He was here, which was one man/one woman also. I'm not aware of any particular "ceremony" dictated by God. Only that He declared a union as a covenant between man and woman.
Tom -
You are absolutely right. The "one woman one man joining" is given in multiple places, both OT and NT.
really what we believe is that the Bible says that homosexaulitiy is a sin and people need to repent, turn from thier sin and accept Jesus Christ as Lord, walking in His rightousness and Holiness. And I believe the Bible states as several, nay many have said, man and women were create by God to become one in Gods eye, as married to each other nobody else. Man has screwed it up for sure but the intent was one women one man. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
>>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain. >>>
Exactly what I said, the term "marriage" in the Hebrew culture at the time Jesus was on Earth was innitiated by the sex act. Man takes woman, has sex bam! they're married.
We have several anti-gay posters on this board who believe traditional marriage as we understand the concept "today," existed in "Bible times." Only when one reads the Bible and accurate historical accounts, marriage was not understood as a sacrament or a partnership, it was a property venture and wealthy men controlled and defined it and created laws which best suit their need- like taking as many wives as they could afford. Jesus did not view marriage the way Christians view marriage because Jesus was a Jew and instructed in the thought and teaching of Judaism- remember, the time in history in which Jesus was on this Earth, Christianity did not exist, and neither did the modern Christian concept of "traditional marriage.
QT
>>>To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act.<<<
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.
Continued Book of Jude:
Glory to God
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you[f] from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,
25 To God our Savior,[g]
Who alone is wise,[h]
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,[i]
Both now and forever.
Amen.
Footnotes:
a. Jude 1:1 NU-Text reads beloved.
b. Jude 1:4 NU-Text omits God.
c. Jude 1:12 NU-Text and M-Text read along.
d. Jude 1:22 NU-Text reads who are doubting (or making distinctions).
e. Jude 1:23 NU-Text adds and on some have mercy with fear and omits with fear in first clause.
f. Jude 1:24 M-Text reads them.
g. Jude 1:25 NU-Text reads To the only God our Savior.
h. Jude 1:25 NU-Text omits Who . . . is wise and adds Through Jesus Christ our Lord.
i. Jude 1:25 NU-Text adds Before all time.
Continued Book of Jude:
Apostates Depraved and Doomed
12 These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about[c] by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; 13 raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
Apostates Predicted
16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. 17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: 18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. 19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
Maintain Your Life with God
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;[d] 23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,[e] hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
Jude 1 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Jude 1
Greeting to the Called
1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
To those who are called, sanctified[a] by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
Contend for the Faith
3 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. 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[b] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Old and New Apostates
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah
continued to Newvoyage:
Newvoyage, I will continue to pray that the Lord will open your eyes to the truth, and that your earthly “intellect” and “wisdom” may not get in the way of God’s Holy and Eternal Truth and Wisdom for your life.
continued to Newvoyage:
If you were truly "wise" and "intellectual" as you imply that you are, you would accept God's Word for what it is, but Scripture twisters as well as those who live compromising lives will never be satisfied with the facts. They, like many who live in sin, and wish to use the Grace of God as a license to sin will twist, deconstruct, reconstruct, reinvent, reinterpret, and even question the validity of the Bible until all that they claim to have is "mush". Lastly, your statement: “…..Personally, my faith demands that I embrace all people, including those you would relegate to outcast status. That is what my faith does for me…..” My faith demands that I love everyone as well, but love will expose things that damage and hurt people. If you truly love and accept a person, you will tell them if they are heading in the wrong direction. Having said that, this is what repentance is all about. As Christians, we are exhorted in the Word to judge those inside the Church, as God will judge those outside.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Immorality Must Be Judged
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[a]
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 5:13 Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 22:21, 24; 24:7
Continued to Newvoyage:
Furthermore, for you to go so far as to say that the Gospel of John is a forgery is sheer liberal propaganda on your part, and you have no proof to base your allegations on. You may even be basing your statements on something you saw on some liberal documentary, or the Discovery Channel which loves to disprove Scripture. You have no proof behind your statements. This smear tactic you are using reminds me so much of the politicians that smear other politicians by using their pull with the news media, or liberal academia, but yet truly have no proof; however, once the venom is out there; the damage has been done, and the seed of doubt always splashes someone, even though it is not true.
You do realize that was Satan's tactic to Eve in the Garden of Eden when he said to the woman in Genesis 3:1(NKJV): “…..And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
I must say, rather than saying that the Bible has many "forgeries”,” interpolations", and seeming “contradictions”, which you claim to be so deeply informed about with your human intellect, why don't you go check out the true facts about the Scriptures we have. The facts are that they are true, they are real, they are inspired, infallible, and inherent in nature, and if the other "gospels" such as gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary, and others did not make it to canonical status, it had to do with their contradictions to the Word of God. In addition, if you are truly intellectually honest and not basing your findings on movies like the Davinci Code, and the Discovery Channel, you will find that the many "contradictions" you claim the true Scriptures have, are not true contradictions. Furthermore, former atheists who used to believe as you such as Leigh Stroebel have come to Christ and have even gone so far as to study this very subject. Being the very eloquent intellectual person which you so claim to be, and toot your own horm for several times on this site when responding to me, why don't you go study The Case for Christ by Leigh Stroebel, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, and The Truth War by John MacArthur.
newvoyage wrote:
"Jesus4me: The Bible you claim to believe every word of was reproduced, for the first 1,500 years (when there was no printing press) by scribes and copyists. They had agendas which dramatically changed the original texts, sometimes erasing some things, other times adding their own words. The copies of the original manuscripts disagree profoundly, revealing persistent and even massive interpolations and forgeries. It is believed by nearly all scholars that the Gospel of John, in fact, is a total forgery and a composite summary of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Books were thrown out and books were added by those in the early church who were given the authority to decide the canon of scripture. The Gospel of Mary, for example, was rejected because they could not accept a female as the author of scripture. Faith gives certain people license to stand in judgment of others and to assert their own morality. When it comes to gays and lesbians, the absurdity reaches incredible highs. Personally, my faith demands that I embrace all people, including those you would relegate to outcast status. That is what my faith does for me, and I would get no spiritual joy in killing my intellect to pretend that the collection of books we call the Bible today is anything but a highly flawed account that it is."
Newvoyage, your twisting of the Biblical Scriptures is nothing new. The Gospel of Mary was not in and of itself excluded because a woman wrote it. The main reason it was rejected was the same as many of the other "gnostic" gospels were excluded – they taught a false gospel. The Apostle Paul which you have demonized and from your tone strongly dislike because he writes what the Lord Jesus Christ ordained him to write concerning the sin, grace, repentance, forgiveness, the church and Christian living had to deal with many of the gnostics who twisted the Scriptures such as you are doing (go study early church history based on the time he was alive). This is why he exhorted young Timothy to teach, rebuke, and exhort with all authority. Many in the church not only looked down on Timothy for being young, but there were many teaching that Jesus Christ was not deity; that He was not the Messiah, that He would not come again, or that His second coming had already taken place, etc.
"However, Jesus also dealt with those men and women who don't marry. And Paul expounded on the subject. As a matter of fact, the Bible is full of information expounding on the sinfulness of unions outside of a man and woman in covenant relationship."
To Jesus, in the context of his life and culture, (not what you perceive to be his times and culture, ) marriage was innitiated with the sexual act. Thus giving credence to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians, 6:16 "do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh." I find it hardly acceptible that Christians who have premarital sex, more than one marriage and who may have visited a prostitute before they "came to the knowledge of Christ" can get around ALL that. Besides, judging others is still judging others. And misusing scripture to do so is anti-Christ.
And BTW, actually read what Paul states, those of you who quote him instead of Jesus to defend your anti-gay prejudice:
1 Corinthians 6 9-11...
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
SODOMITES were not homosexuals, they were abominable people who lived in a city named Sodom. Read Ezekiel 16:46-50 "Your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed their ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it."
It is shameful to harm God's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people with lies and misperceptions claiming they come directly out of the Bible, while turning the truth around and claiming it as "God's principle." Admitting it is your personal prejudice and repenting will free you of YOUR sin today!
"Interesting how the title of the article is "ANTI GAY group criticiizes speaker" instead of "Bible Believers criticize speaker." The Bible says it is wrong. That does not make you "anti gay" it makes you "pro bible."
Interesting how the "Anti-Gay" crowd continuously defend their right to prejudice by claiming they are pro-Bible. I've been in churches (at least 10) where the pastors were divorced and remarried, something which the Bible calls ADULTERY, however I see no one "pro-Bible" quoting what the scriptures state about that ABOMINATION, nor the abomination of gluttony. Fat Christians sit in churches all over America with no revulsion or hatred directed at them as Gays do.
I'm thinking most Christians like the poster Billy Jack haven't really ever read the Bbile. How can a poster claim to be "pro-Bible" when they ignore the fact that the only prejudice they have is against Gays?
And BTW, God didn't write "The Bible" it's literature like any we have- if God had written the Bible do you actually think "he" would have put so many errors in it? After all wasn't God perfect and all knowing- how would a perfect and all knowing God state ERRORS like the sun revolved around the Earth, animals talked, and common illnesses were demon possessions. An ALL KNOWING GOD would certainly know... well... ALL things.
Jesus4me: The Bible you claim to believe every word of was reproduced, for the first 1,500 years (when there was no printing press) by scribes and copyists. They had agendas which dramatically changed the original texts, sometimes erasing some things, other times adding their own words. The copies of the original manuscripts disagree profoundly, revealing persistent and even massive interpolations and forgeries. It is believed by nearly all scholars that the Gospel of John, in fact, is a total forgery and a composite summary of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Books were thrown out and books were added by those in the early church who were given the authority to decide the canon of scripture. The Gospel of Mary, for example, was rejected because they could not accept a female as the author of scripture. Faith gives certain people license to stand in judgment of others and to assert their own morality. When it comes to gays and lesbians, the absurdity reaches incredible highs. Personally, my faith demands that I embrace all people, including those you would relegate to outcast status. That is what my faith does for me, and I would get no spiritual joy in killing my intellect to pretend that the collection of books we call the Bible today is anything but a highly flawed account that it is.
Nowire -
>>>No. But then by your logic, staying single and celibate is also against "God's plan." <<<
I'm not sure where you get that from that verse; the subject was joining. A union. God made Eve from a rib He took from Adam, so in essence a man and woman together returns them to completeness.
However, Jesus also dealt with those men and women who don't marry. And Paul expounded on the subject. As a matter of fact, the Bible is full of information expounding on the sinfulness of unions outside of a man and woman in covenant relationship.
In any case, the only "union" ever given God's blessing was a man-woman union; it was His design from the beginning of His creation.
"If you tell your child to tell the truth, do you then follow it up with all the things that child should not lie about? "
No. But then by your logic, staying single and celibate is also against "God's plan."
NoWire -
>>>Was that passage posted to refute the claim that Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Because it looks to me like he's discussing heterosexuality, and he doesn't follow it up by saying, "and that's your only option!" <<<
Passages referring to homosexuality have been discussed extensively. Everyone knows that we have no direct biblical quotes from Jesus specifically addressing homosexuality; this is true of a lot of subjects. But Jesus DOES make it clear what IS God's plan for unions.
If you tell your child to tell the truth, do you then follow it up with all the things that child should not lie about?
Aswell as these scriptures.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
9 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,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Leviticus 18:22 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
New Living Translation
Romans 24-27
24.So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading thngs with eachother's bodies. 25.They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshipped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise!Amen.26. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the woman turned against the natural way to have sex and indulged in sex with each other. 27. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned for lust for eachother. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
This clearly states that homosexuaity is absolutely wrong. There's no way of getting around it.
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'
Was that passage posted to refute the claim that Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Because it looks to me like he's discussing heterosexuality, and he doesn't follow it up by saying, "and that's your only option!"
newvoyage -
>>>...and Paul's letters do not indicate that he was getting his ideas from Christ,...<<<
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)...
Gal 1:11-12 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of JesusChrist.
>>>Of course, Jesus never said anything about gay people<<<
Matt 19:4-5 ...Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Continued to newvoyage:
Furthermore, it is not a "right wing" church agenda. It is the Word of God whether you want to agree with it or not. If you wish to continue in your post modern "man's wisdom" you may do so, but it will be God whom you will answer to. Yo should read the Book of Jude when you have a chance (not written by Paul) and maybe the Holy Spirit will impart some discernment to you on this issue. You may also want to read the book of leviticus (Old testament) on what God ordained the Jewish people as detestable practices in His sight, of which incest and homosexuality were named. Don't try distorting, and deconstructing the Word of God; you will lose in the end. I didn't write it, I just decide to follow God's whole counsel. and P.S.-I'm not picking and choosing; i think you need to read the title of this article which leads me to believe it is about homosexuality being immoral, and maybe you'll see why I've chose the Scriptures I quoted for you previously, although it is quite evident you like to pick and choose. Have a great day.
Interesting how the title of the article is "ANTI GAY group criticiizes speaker" instead of "Bible Believers criticize speaker." The Bible says it is wrong. That does not make you "anti gay" it makes you "pro bible."
Newvoyage wrote:
".......Of course, we all "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to follow, and I would guess that even you do, unless of course you own slaves or beat your chidlren with a rod, something that I doubt you do.
Of course, Jesus never said anything about gay people, and Paul's letters do not indicate that he was getting his ideas from Christ, so no intellectual dishonesty is present here. Paul, in fact, contradicted Jesus teaching on marriage and the equality of women, to name a couple. The Pauline approach to the faith is the problem here, and I suppose that folks like me probably wouldn't mind going back to the early church and being able to exhort those who decided the cannon, urging them to reexamine the decision to elevate the letters of an apostle to "true for all eternity" status.
The issue of gays and lesbians is the number one issue of embarrassment for the right-wing church. And yes, I say again, there has never been such a profound lack of intellectualism or failure to acknowledge reality as there is on this issue. Your calling gay people "unrepentant" ignores not only evidence, but simple reality, which is that gay people simply do not have the choice to "repent" of their naturally-given sexual orientation. On that note, I end with a phrase that Jesus Himself often used, which was "Let he who can accept it, accept it". ' "
Newvoyage, I am surprised that someone who has been reding the Bible for 2o plus years you think the Apostle Paul did not get his writings from Jesus:
Acts 9 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Acts 9
The Damascus Road: Saul Converted
1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Revelation 22:12-21 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Jesus Testifies to the Churches
12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”[a]
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[b] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But[c] outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
A Warning
18 For[d] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[e] to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[f] his part from the Book[g] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
I Am Coming Quickly
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.”
Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.[h] Amen.
Footnotes:
Revelation 22:13 NU-Text and M-Text read the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation 22:14 NU-Text reads wash their robes.
Revelation 22:15 NU-Text and M-Text omit But.
Revelation 22:18 NU-Text and M-Text omit For.
Revelation 22:18 M-Text reads may God add.
Revelation 22:19 M-Text reads may God take away.
Revelation 22:19 NU-Text and M-Text read tree of life.
Revelation 22:21 NU-Text reads with all; M-Text reads with all the saints.
"I would say it is just a natural outworking of their sexual behavior...."
So by your logic, are the natural outworking of heterosexual relations which produce NUMBERS of congenital defects, psychological and physiological defects God's punishment on children or the couples which produce these children? Parsing words is what it is... parsing words.
"Or would you make the common sense judgment that jumping off of a building at a certain height is likely to lead to death. Certainly God instituted the laws of gravity, and the nature of the human body, but it is our decision of how responsible we are in our actions."
A classic "Apples and oranges" response. And back to the heterosexual unions which produce numerous birth defects, deformities and both curable and incurable disease, is that what you'd consider what you are "calling" the natural outworking of their sexual behaviour?
Jesus4me: Thank you for the scriptures, but I've studied the Good Book for over 20 years and am quite familiar with the verses in question, but I have noted your apparent belief that you need to educate me about them. Of course, we all "pick and choose" what parts of the Bible to follow, and I would guess that even you do, unless of course you own slaves or beat your chidlren with a rod, something that I doubt you do.
Of course, Jesus never said anything about gay people, and Paul's letters do not indicate that he was getting his ideas from Christ, so no intellectual dishonesty is present here. Paul, in fact, contradicted Jesus teaching on marriage and the equality of women, to name a couple. The Pauline approach to the faith is the problem here, and I suppose that folks like me probably wouldn't mind going back to the early church and being able to exhort those who decided the cannon, urging them to reexamine the decision to elevate the letters of an apostle to "true for all eternity" status.
The issue of gays and lesbians is the number one issue of embarrassment for the right-wing church. And yes, I say again, there has never been such a profound lack of intellectualism or failure to acknowledge reality as there is on this issue. Your calling gay people "unrepentant" ignores not only evidence, but simple reality, which is that gay people simply do not have the choice to "repent" of their naturally-given sexual orientation. On that note, I end with a phrase that Jesus Himself often used, which was "Let he who can accept it, accept it".
"“Wallis and others seem to have lost sight of the fact that homosexual practice is always wrong..."
Just because Michael Brown calls it a fact does not make it so. Wallis didn't "lose sight." On the contrary, he opened his eyes.
Oh give me a break,
ifeelfine,
Your problem is not with me, it is with the former head of the gay and lesbian task force. To be fair I do believe he stated it was MSM (men who have sex with men) that were the problem, but in either case, you should go complain to him.
For that matter, I never once said anything about God punishing anyone. You people are really something else, you just jump the gun and put words in a persons mouth immediately as if you just want to hear them say it. It is really tiring. I would say it is just a natural outworking of their sexual behavior. Lets take a completely different and nonrelated example that might illustrate a similar principle. Lets say 85% of all people who jump off a 4 story building die, would you say God was PUNISHING the people for their actions!!!! Or would you make the common sense judgment that jumping off of a building at a certain height is likely to lead to death. Certainly God instituted the laws of gravity, and the nature of the human body, but it is our decision of how responsible we are in our actions.
QT
"An excellent point "ifeelfine72." I agree with your logic."
I am sorry but, your's and ifeelfine's logic is wrong. Please refer to the above.
<i>Chris: 70% of our HIV cases? Are you sure about that? You might want to look it up. If homosexual men are being punished by AIDS then lesbians must be God's chosen people as they have the lowest incidence of HIV / AIDS of any group (married heterosexuals included).</i>
An excellent point "ifeelfine72." I agree with your logic.
Why do some Christians consider that God is punishing homosexuals with AIDS/HIV? If that's the case, then is God punishing the elderly with Alzheimers? Is Breast Cancer God's punishment on women? And with a phenomenally recent and high percentage of Autism being diagnosed, clearly God is punishing children. What a ridiculously superstitious and evil perspective of GOD some "Christians" are presenting to the world.
Chris: 70% of our HIV cases? Are you sure about that? You might want to look it up. If homosexual men are being punished by AIDS then lesbians must be God's chosen people as they have the lowest incidence of HIV / AIDS of any group (married heterosexuals included).
Sportinlife,
Well isn't that nice. Just calling people names. Anyway, whether he is just a money grubber or not, he still raises some issues, and being a money grubber doesn't necessarily exclude those issues from being true. I mean tons of people spread factual information so they can grub money. Tons of people spread unfactual information to grub money as well, but we can judge their words ourselves. In any case, it is not a crime to grub money in the United States, as unfortunate as that might be. For instance, Labarbera cites the head of the gay and lesbian task force as stating that homosexuals make up 70% of HIV cases in America, he also said that it was the governments fault (hahahaha....) but oh well, blaming the government is always the best thing to do, the government is responsible for everything that is wrong in our lives and we can blame it for everything! (this is a joke)
Peter LaBarbera is one of the fake "christians" who is an embarrassment to the faith. He's a money grubber and hate peddler, nothing more. And he never said anything about his religious beliefs until quite recently, after he discovered that certain churches provide such a good market for his "product".
I am happy to see the corrections to this article. It seems that our protests about "sloppy journalism" was heard. We as Christians should demand higher standard from our journalists.
I was thankful to see the corrections to this artcile - it seems as if the protests of some of us about "sloppy journalism" paid off. They are listening - and we as Christians should demand a "higher standard" from our journalists
To newvoyage: Paul the Apostle was commissioned by Christ Jesus Himself. To say that Jesus never addresses homosexuality as being wrong is being factually as well as intellectually dishonest. Since the beginning God created man and woman as His order of things, just cause you live in a post modern society does not give you the right to pick and choose what you desire to hear in the Scriptures. Bottom line is the Bible condemns homosexuality like it condems all sin. Don't try to re-write it; accept it and take your questions up to God the Creator if you have a pet peeve with it.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
9 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,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites
Eph 5:3-7 "But FORNICATION, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
1Cr 5:9-13 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–
not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Accept the repentant sinner; Absolutely yes!!!!!!! Accept the unrepentant as a brother? God forbid! This goes against God's Word.
Dr. Brown's comment, that "and they appear to have forgotten that God’s ways (which, from creation, have included male-female unions only) are always best,” highlights the problem here. Gay and lesbian people simply don't have the capacity to enter into a male-female union. This isn't a competition about what's best. Sure, the good doctor can choose to wish that one day, he'll awaken to a world in which all the gay people have changed and have entered into opposite sex relationships, but that just isn't ever going to happen...ever. I thought we were done with the days in which the church encouraged gay men to lie and marry a straight woman. Look at Ted Haggard. Is that how a gay man should live according to the church, living a tortured, inauthentic life? Also, as for Jesus's changing people, yes, He certainly did, but there is no record of his saying anything against a gay person, nonetheless making one heterosexual. It is a shame that the church cannot accept gay people, but it is certainly not surprising that it must rely on wrong-headed beliefs in doing so. It is time for the church to change.
dawz: As a liberal, I can tell you that Jim Wallis not one of us. He's a centrist who enjoys talking about what people should be talking about, rather than just saying what he himself says people should be saying. If he looks like a liberal to you, that may be because of you are such a fringe reactionary, that centrists look like liberals, and real liberals look like radicals.
My favorite sermon on this subject, "Doing A New Thing," was preached eight years ago by Bishop Jack Tuell at the Des Moines United Methodist Church. Read it here:
http://www.prairiechurch.org/MINISTRIES/Reconciling/bishop.htm
Jim Wallis is NOT a solid evangelical Christian. I have also read his books and like how he paints all conservatives as money hungry, liars who cares nothing about the poor. Hes a def a liberal who doesn't give the right any credit. Just another one of them!
This is a great and thoughtful article by a Catholic theologian who supports gay marriage, that deserves to be read by everyone: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in themf; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; sog that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. Bellingham WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995, S. Ro 1:19-32
I would not apply the word "journalism" to this article at all. It is clearly simply a pulpit from which to preach. As a conservative Christian, I in no way support homosexuality as a lifestlye. But it is dishonest for a site such as this to produce these articles and then present them as impartial "news" reporting. I feel like I have been watching FOX News!
I have to say that this is sloppy journalism. This, for one, is misleading:
"Recent polls show that a growing number of evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals, are more accepting of same-sex unions."
The article then goes on to cite polls that indicate NOT that evangelicals are "more accepting of same-sex unions" but that evangelicals are more concerned about poverty and creation stewardship. The poll of the LCMS youth is indeed about the acceptance of same-sex unions, but the LCMS is hardly representative of "evangelicalism" as a whole. I would be much more impressed with a poll of Southern Baptist youth, or, better yet, all those who adhere to evangelical principles on scripture, salvation, personal conversion, et cetera.
As well, a better account of what Jim Wallis actually believes would have been more professional. I disagree with Wallis, but I don't believe that he thinks homosexual activity is proper or moral. He does seem to believe that the state should allow for gay unions, and this is where he is wrong.
This pro-gay liberalism is killing America.