Cause and effect v.2.0

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
Religious leader adopts anti-Bible stance

I am a Christian. I happen to align myself with the Baptist faith within that school of thought.

As such, I hold the belief that the Bible is the ordained inspired word of God written by His chosen mortals to be used by us until His return. I happen to believe that it means exactly, precisely, and literally what it says. This means it does not need to be "updated for modern times".

I realize others do not hold these beliefs. That's every person's choice.

The last time I checked, Episcopalians considered themselves Christians.

The last time I checked, the Bible considers homosexuality a sin.

The last time I checked, the Bible does not allow the ordination of women to preach.

And we wonder why others don't listen to our message.

Fire away.
 
The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear - there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today

Howcome the anti-homo bits are so intensely important but the food and the clothing and whatnot bits are not?

Christians as a whole are not really following the "ordained inspired word of God", but just the parts you wanna. The rules have been updated for modern times, or simply cause bacon is good.
 
Leslie said:
Howcome the anti-homo bits are so intensely important but the food and the clothing and whatnot bits are not?

Christians as a whole are not really following the "ordained inspired word of God", but just the parts you wanna. The rules have been updated for modern times, or simply cause bacon is good.

Sorry if it offends (okay, not so much ;) ), but exactly! As a group, you talk about the infallible word of god and then ignore the parts you don't like. :shrug:

Note that this doesn't even begin to discuss the clear, evident political history of the formation (and subsequent reformation) of the bible.
 
yep. it would be real interesting to watch if literalists became comprehensive literalists but then that ain't gonna happen. too inconvenient.
 
Leslie said:
Howcome the anti-homo bits are so intensely important but the food and the clothing and whatnot bits are not?

Read them. They vary for Jews and Gentiles. I'm not Jewish.


Christians as a whole are not really following the "ordained inspired word of God", but just the parts you wanna. The rules have been updated for modern times, or simply cause bacon is good.

As you wish. Not my place to judge or defend. It's right there in front of you. If you choose not to listen, it's on you.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
It's all over the New Testament, as you well know.

Point and set.

The New Testament was laid down by others, after Jesus's death. And the inconsistancy between the Books .... well, let's leave it at that.
 
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

The first paragraph is contradictory.
God loves the man and hates the sin.

IMO it does not matter who or what created the homosexual it's the act of the sin(other sins included in this statement) that is against the word of God. Going back to Genisis God created Adam and Eve not Bubba and Bruce or Sheila and Stephani..

How can there be propagation when there are only same sex unions?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
As such, I hold the belief that the Bible is the ordained inspired word of God written by His chosen mortals to be used by us until His return.

And we wonder why others don't listen to our message.

nuff said, Fred
 
Mark 7:18-19

[18] And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, [19] since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Colossians 2:16-17

[16] Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. [17] These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

There are three types of laws found in the Old Testament which are moral, liturgical, and dietary. Christians are only required to follow the moral laws. The other two were for the specific dispensation of the Old Testament worship which was abolished with the New Covenant.

Jesus fulfilled Mosaic Law. That is why we as Christians are no longer subject to it.
 
Neither of those would preclude believers from following the dietary/clothing/gayness/sleeping with other people's wives/daughter/dogs rules set out in Leviticus.

In your Mark citation, he's speaking to sinners (Pharisees) and mocking them for following the one rule (washing and cleanliness) and not following the actually important ones. He's saying something along the lines of it's not not washing that makes you dirty, not "you don't have to wash anymore". he's not declaring things unclean. He's only saying that having clean food doesn't make you not a sinner.

In the Colossians citation - The background there is Christians being berated/penalized/punished/mocked for having traditions and parties and foods on Sabbaths and Holy Holidays. Let no man pass judgement on you for (following your traditions). He's saying don't let them mock you because of your parties.

Is there a "Disregard everything God told you he wants you to do" statement by Jesus or God in the New Testament somewhere else? Or another "Disregard some of what God told you he wants you to do but don't disregard this one sentence here" statement that actually has merit and says that? Jesus's new law says nothing about teh ghey whatsoever, just blanket statements about immorality, drunkenness, envy, things like that.

Is there any mention at all besides the positive ones in the New Testament with regards to homosexuality?

As far as I can find, homosexuality in itself is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a positive thing. It is mentioned in Leviticus and Corinthians (only according to some translations) in speeches directed solely at Israelites, and excluding all other peoples in the world. Even taking that translation though, even though it's loose and unlikely, considering it's wrapped up amongst wearing wool-linen blends and eating pig, and not being able to find any reference whatsoever to entirely disregarding God's rules except for some of them...

It's hypocritical to hold up homosexuality as some evil sin and not follow the other basic rules he set out for the same peoples in the same speeches.
 
I am reading the entire thing, not just selected excerpts, maybe that's it. Go read Mark 7 again. I have it here in my lap. King James version, given to Avery by his Baptist Church.
 
if there is a god, s/he has better things to worry about than homersexuals. we'll leave that to winky.
 
Leslie said:
Neither of those would preclude believers from following the dietary/clothing/gayness/sleeping with other people's wives/daughter/dogs rules set out in Leviticus.

Yes, they would. All except homosexualty and bestiality that you have mentioned.

Leslie said:
In your Mark citation, he's speaking to sinners (Pharisees) and mocking them for following the one rule (washing and cleanliness) and not following the actually important ones. He's saying something along the lines of it's not not washing that makes you dirty, not "you don't have to wash anymore". he's not declaring things unclean. He's only saying that having clean food doesn't make you not a sinner.

You're right, but Jesus goes further with the passage I have given.

Jesus is also referring to food in that passage (which should be quite obvious). Eating foods that were against Jewish dietary laws was thought to defile the person.

Leslie said:
In the Colossians citation - The background there is Christians being berated/penalized/punished/mocked for having traditions and parties and foods on Sabbaths and Holy Holidays. Let no man pass judgement on you for (following your traditions). He's saying don't let them mock you because of your parties.

You skipped the food and drink part, which the Jews had laws to follow on what to eat and drink.

Also, consider the following passages:

Acts 10:9-16

[9] The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
[10] And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
[11] and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
[12] In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
[14] But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
[15] And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
[16] This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Romans 14:1-4

[1] As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.
[2] One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.
[3] Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.
[4] Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

[1] Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
[2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,
[3] who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
[4] For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving;
[5] for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Leslie said:
Is there a "Disregard everything God told you he wants you to do" statement by Jesus or God in the New Testament somewhere else? Or another "Disregard some of what God told you he wants you to do but don't disregard this one sentence here" statement that actually has merit and says that? Jesus's new law says nothing about teh ghey whatsoever, just blanket statements about immorality, drunkenness, envy, things like that.

You have a misunderstanding here. First off, Jesus is God.

Now...

Matthew 5:17

[17] "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

Circumcision is fulfilled in baptism. The Passover is fulfilled in the Mass. The animal sacrifice for one's sin is no longer needed since Christ is the sacrifical lamb that died for all of our sins.

Also, although Jesus did not mention homosexuality he did not mention incest or beastiality either. But that doesn't mean He condoned it.

Leslie said:
Is there any mention at all besides the positive ones in the New Testament with regards to homosexuality?

There are no positive passages on homosexuality. However, there are negative ones:

Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

[8] Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
[11] in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Leslie said:
As far as I can find, homosexuality in itself is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a positive thing.

:lol:

There are none!

Leslie said:
It is mentioned in Leviticus and Corinthians (only according to some translations) in speeches directed solely at Israelites, and excluding all other peoples in the world. Even taking that translation though, even though it's loose and unlikely, considering it's wrapped up amongst wearing wool-linen blends and eating pig, and not being able to find any reference whatsoever to entirely disregarding God's rules except for some of them...

Some Bibles are very inaccurate - some purposely done too.

Don't forget the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Leslie said:
It's hypocritical to hold up homosexuality as some evil sin and not follow the other basic rules he set out for the same peoples in the same speeches.

You attack what you do not understand.

The laws were fulfilled through Jesus (read Hebrews for an extensive explanation). Moral laws always remain the same. The Old Covenant is replaced with the New Covenant. So the civil/cermonial laws no longer apply.

Note: Remember (or this just might be a news flash to you) Man was originally a vegetarian. It was later that God allowed man to eat meat then had regulations. These kinds of laws have changed but moral laws never do.
 
Genesis 19: 1-28

The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where certain sex acts have become referred to as "Sodomy". The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: "Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them." Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must accept the fact that the entire city consisted of homosexuals. If we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising "I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten" (verse 33). God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten "righteous men" could be found I the city. If we are to accept the Watchtower's logic, this would mean that the "righteous men" referred to were heterosexuals. At this point, we need to ask ourselves: What would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual? The obvious answer is: Impossible.
If homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words. When the mob cries out "Where are the men who came in to you tonight?", the Hebrew word translated men is 'enowsh which, literally translated, means "mortal".


This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were. The Hebrew word for "man" (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different.

One has to ask: Why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
The passage translated as "Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them" needs further examination as well. Other Bible translations read "so that we may know them". The Hebrew word herewith translated as "have intercourse", or "know" is yada.


This word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. In all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone. Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he would have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.

The correct translation, therefore, should be rendered something to the effect of: "Where are the mortals who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them."
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey? Two verses elsewhere in the Bible sum up the story this way: "Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]" - Ezekiel 16: 49, 50. It is commonly assumed that the "detestable thing" referred to in this passage is homosexuality. In fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow'ebah, which translated literally means "to commit idol worship".


This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: "Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes." One must ask: If Lot's house was surrounded by homosexuals, why would he offer the mob women? Note that these women were virgins. Note also that the Sodomites were pagans. Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice Sodom. Therefore, it can be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: "and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come". This corroborates Ezekiel's summation, once again showing that these were "ungodly persons", in other words, idolaters, not worshippers of the true God.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is a condemnation of idol worshippers, a greedy and inhospitable society. The judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!

so to start, it is questionable that the story of sodom and gamora had ANYTHING to do with gays
 
Back
Top