Savage fired by MSNBC

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
Will someone please at least go to the link I posted?

It talks about that passage and 5 others used to argue that homosexuality is a sin. Here it is again:


http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

But that's too much like work.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Everybody sins, and nobody keeps all the laws set forth in the Old Testament. Christians readily admit this."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

(quoted so no has to go looking for it.)

Ok. So then the next question is why do christians retain the beleif in the first part of that sentance (both of them have commited an abomination) but not the second part (they shall surely be put to death)? What exactly has negated the meaning of the second part?

Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior.
Read Romans, chapter 3 (I could quote the whole thing here - but really, it could take a month to thoroughly examine it).

[sabotai]

John, I realize that a lot of christians do not follow (or at least should not follow) the laws in Leviticus anymore (as the article says). But some christians do take out what they want.

My question is aimed at those who still use this passage to justify their beleif that homosexuality is morally wrong. For those who use this passage, why is it you only use the first part?

[sabotai]

dola,

"Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior."

Ok...so you are saying that the homosexuals who do accept Jesus as their lord and blah blah blah should not be put to death for being homosexual because Jesus already did?

What about the ones who are not christians?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
dola,

"Christ's death on the cross was a one-time sacrifice and payment for all the sins of those who accept him as Lord and savior."

Ok...so you are saying that the homosexuals who do accept Jesus as their lord and blah blah blah should not be put to death for being homosexual because Jesus already did?

What about the ones who are not christians?

Ga:3:19: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Ga:3:20: Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Ga:3:21: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Ga:3:22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ga:3:23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Ga:3:24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga:3:25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Ga:3:26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[Franklinnoble]

Sorry... didn't finish my post there...

You can't have salvation by following the law - it's impossible for any human being to adhere to the strict laws set forth in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean that they're not valid - it just proves that we are unworthy of salvation by our own means. As Christians, we have salvation despite our inability to adhere to the law. This does not mean we are now granted license to disobey God; we are called to live righteously and repent humbly should we commit a sin. We are also no longer responsible for enforcing the laws of the old testament. (Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Sorry... didn't finish my post there...

You can't have salvation by following the law - it's impossible for any human being to adhere to the strict laws set forth in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean that they're not valid - it just proves that we are unworthy of salvation by our own means.

Which begs the question of why he gave us the laws in the first place and why he waited so long to remedy the situation. An all powerful deity should be able to do more timely and thorough work.

And free will doesn't answer this if the laws are truly impossible not merely unfollowed. I don't get this. What was he thinking.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by clintl
Axxon, it sounds like are now a Deist.

No, if www.deism.com is any indication and it surely must be then I'm no deist. They are VERY anti religion and the bible and I'm simply not that. Shame though, because I agree with alot of their basic concepts but they make the mistake of being too smug and sure of themselves.

I'm pretty sure I'll never be an anything but me but I keep looking nonetheless.

[sabotai]

Franklin, you're not even coming to close to answering my question.

Again, why do christians use Leviticus 20:13 to support their claim that homosexuality is immoral, yet do not beleive the second part of the sentance which states that they should be put to death?

I'm not asking about salvation or Jesus or getting into heavan or any of that stuff. I'm not asking if Leviticus is still valid. The christians who use this line to say that homosexuality is wrong are opening the door. Why do they not beleive homosexuals should be put to death when the line that _they_ are using clearly states so?

[sabotai]

deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by sabotai
deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

From their official FAQ:

Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs. For example, when George Washington was faced with either a very risky evacuation of the American troops from Long Island or surrendering them he chose the more risky evacuation. When questioned about the possibility of having them annihilated he said it was the best he could do and the rest is up to Providence.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by sabotai
Franklin, you're not even coming to close to answering my question.

Again, why do christians use Leviticus 20:13 to support their claim that homosexuality is immoral, yet do not beleive the second part of the sentance which states that they should be put to death?

I'm not asking about salvation or Jesus or getting into heavan or any of that stuff. I'm not asking if Leviticus is still valid. The christians who use this line to say that homosexuality is wrong are opening the door. Why do they not beleive homosexuals should be put to death when the line that _they_ are using clearly states so?

I did try to answer your question:

Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

The law is clear, but we are no longer tasked with enforcing it.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
Which begs the question of why he gave us the laws in the first place and why he waited so long to remedy the situation. An all powerful deity should be able to do more timely and thorough work.

And free will doesn't answer this if the laws are truly impossible not merely unfollowed. I don't get this. What was he thinking.

Well, I'm only playing amateur Biblical scholar here, but I'm pretty sure the scripture I quoted from Galatians, chapter 3, answers that question. I'm sorry I'm not able to explain it any more clearly - I freely admit I'm not really qualified to teach on the subject.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
I did try to answer your question:

Heb:10:30: For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

The law is clear, but we are no longer tasked with enforcing it.

So do you believe that God enforces it by killing homosexuals. Do you believe that is what AIDS is all about?

Again, I'd like to point out one of my favorite points. We see here who should be doing the judging, the Lord. Yet again another reference to what many christians see as a very entertaining past time. It's not a wise thing to do folks.

[Axxon]

I'll confess I'm too tired to try and comprehend the Galatians reference right now. I'll have to look at it later when I'm more rested.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
So do you believe that God enforces it by killing homosexuals. Do you believe that is what AIDS is all about?

No, I think we stand to be judged after we're dead.

Again, I'd like to point out one of my favorite points. We see here who should be doing the judging, the Lord. Yet again another reference to what many christians see as a very entertaining past time. It's not a wise thing to do folks.

I think we agree for the most part on this point - although I will maintain that while we are not meant to pass judgement on others, that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge a sinful activity for what it is. We should not endorse sin, but likewise we are not called to persecute the sinful.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
No, I think we stand to be judged after we're dead.



I think we agree for the most part on this point - although I will maintain that while we are not meant to pass judgement on others, that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge a sinful activity for what it is. We should not endorse sin, but likewise we are not called to persecute the sinful.

I believe we should acknowledge what is a sinful act for us and not practice it. I don't think we should judge it's sinfulness in others. We're so close to agreeing and yet so far at the same time.

You'll be in trouble though when they eventually definitively prove it's genetic though.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon

You'll be in trouble though when they eventually definitively prove it's genetic though.

Not really. People can have a genetic propensity for obesity, and gluttony is still a sin. People can be born with hormonal imbalances that make them more inclined to nymphomania, and adultury is still a sin. People have chemical problems that make them more angry and violent, but rage is still a sin.

We're all born with inherent weaknesses. That doesn't give us permission to indulge them.

[ice4277]

Still, nobody has answered why so many Christians 'pick and choose' the laws they follow from the Old Testament. Why all the focus on the line about homosexuals when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other rules in there that are never paid any attention to?



Just so people know where I stand, I am nominally Catholic but my views tend to fall into line with Axxon's. He probably stated the way I feel about things much better than I ever could.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Not really. People can have a genetic propensity for obesity, and gluttony is still a sin. People can be born with hormonal imbalances that make them more inclined to nymphomania, and adultury is still a sin. People have chemical problems that make them more angry and violent, but rage is still a sin.

We're all born with inherent weaknesses. That doesn't give us permission to indulge them.

Ah, but there are obese who aren't gluttons, celibate nympho's and non cheating adulterers ( not really this last one but I don't know how else to say it ) so there well may be celibate homosexuals therefore you won't be able to say that they are sinners anymore unless you catch one in the act.

What the hell am I even saying? You can't say that now unless you catch them in the act or they admit the act. Simply saying that they are homosexuals doesn't necessary mean they act on anything at all, merely they have a preference should they choose to act and even Leviticus doesn't say THAT's a sin.

Screw it, my head hurts. I'm going to bed. It's been fun talking to everybody on this topic. I'm out.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Axxon
Ah, but there are obese who aren't gluttons, celibate nympho's and non cheating adulterers ( not really this last one but I don't know how else to say it ) so there well may be celibate homosexuals therefore you won't be able to say that they are sinners anymore unless you catch one in the act.

What the hell am I even saying? You can't say that now unless you catch them in the act or they admit the act. Simply saying that they are homosexuals doesn't necessary mean they act on anything at all, merely they have a preference should they choose to act and even Leviticus doesn't say THAT's a sin.

Screw it, my head hurts. I'm going to bed. It's been fun talking to everybody on this topic. I'm out.

M't:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
M't:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
M't:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
M't:5:20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
M't:5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
M't:5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
M't:5:23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
M't:5:24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
M't:5:25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
M't:5:26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
M't:5:27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
M't:5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
M't:5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

I think the above is self explainatory.

Sleep well.

[lurker]

Originally posted by Leonidas
The whole purpose of the Koran was to right the wrongs committed by "Christians" who created an off-base, organized religion in the name of Jesus Christ (namely what would become Catholicism). The premise is that while Christ was a true prophet, and the son of God, he was not himself God and he was not here to create a new religion. The Koran was written to right the wrongs committed in God's and Christ's name.

The Quran doesn't actually say that Jesus is God's son (at least according to the version I read), but that he is a prophet.

Originally posted by Leonidas
Islam is actually a sort of anti-religion. Organized religion, in the Koran, is another means to push idolotry. Islam in itself is not supposed to be a religion. The Book (the Old Testament) is for all people's of faith and is not supposed to be the root of a religion unto itself.

Actually, it's supposed to be a continuation of the Old and New Testament (and therefore Judaism and Christianity). And I do believe most sects in Islam consider it to be an organized religion.

Originally posted by Leonidas
As you may well imagine, Islamic extremists have really F'd the whole thing up and aren't even remotely close to practicing what their own Book preaches.

Definitely have to agree with you there.

Originally posted by Leonidas

However, for all of the wonderful things the Koran does say it also has an awful lot of things that just make me go "huh?". Like the parts about getting virgins and wine that won't make you drunk (like what's the point of that) in paradise. Or the part where Mohammed is allowed special privileges with certain women denied to other men just because God said so (perhaps not so coincidentally through the hand of Mohammed himself). And especially the fact the Koran is a bold proponent of slavery.

A lot of that is misinterpretations (in my mind) and mistranslations from Arabic.

Sorry if it seemed like I was nitpicking. I thought your post was really interesting.

[sabotai]

EDIT: Bah, this has been a good convo, but I'm about to head out for the night. (By the time I check this forum again, this'll be on page 2 or 3, so thanks for the good non flame religious debate.)

Hmm, just thought of something. There have been a lot of recent nonflame threads that have in the past turned into flame wars. I really hope this positive trend continues.

[CamEdwards]

sabotai,

I believe in relation to what Franklin has said, most Christians would say that since we are no longer tasket with enforcing the law of God, we don't have to put homosexuals to death.

JohnGalt,

I visited the website you mentioned, and while interesting, I'd really like to see some sources cited on some of the interpretations and language. Some of it just came off as a little too self serving an interpretation.

And I'm left with this question: the author goes to great details to show that God loves homosexuals. I think most mainstream churces believe this. "love the sinner, hate the sin" and all that jazz. But I couldn't find where the author ever found that homosexuality isn't a sin.

I have no doubt God loves all of us. I also have no doubt that all of us are sinners. The question is, are we (speaking about Christians here, no need to get into a religious debate) repentant? Do we want His mercy and forgiveness or do we choose to flaunt our disobedience? This applies to many other things beyond homosexuality, of course, but I thought the website really failed to address that.

[John Galt]

Cam,

I appreciate you taking the time to read the link. There are a lot of other sources that say the same thing. Quite a few years ago there was a book on the subject that had much greater citation. There is a more recent book (I can't remember the title of the old one) called, "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality." From what I've read, that book isn't all that well regarded. For a better, scholarly review, there is a book titled, "The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships."

There are also a bunch of links on the same website I posted to an array of online resources.

As to your point that the text doesn't actually say homosexuality isn't a sin, I think that is true. From what I've read (and I'm very far from an expert), those who argue that the Bible doesn't condemn being gay believe that because they think the Bible doesn't say either way. I think it would be asking too much to find an affirmative reference that being gay is not a sin. Thus, there isn't a need for repentance if you have a loving, monogamous, same-sex relationship.

[CamEdwards]

I guess I could have been more coherent. When I talk about "homosexuality" in my last post, I wasn't talking about "being gay". I was talking about engaging in the actual act of homosexual sex.

Thanks for the info on the other books. I'll have to try and find the second one that you mentioned.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by lurker
The Quran doesn't actually say that Jesus is God's son (at least according to the version I read), but that he is a prophet.

Actually, it's supposed to be a continuation of the Old and New Testament (and therefore Judaism and Christianity). And I do believe most sects in Islam consider it to be an organized religion.

Sorry if it seemed like I was nitpicking. I thought your post was really interesting.

Granted, a lot of what I said is based on my own study and interpretation of the Koran. The Koran may not come right out and say Jesus is the Son of God, but I make that interpretation based on the fact it does acknowledge the immaculate conception, ergo Jesus must be the son of God.

As for being an organized religion, yes many Islamic sects do consider it so. However, my interpretation of the Koran is that it implies organized religions by nature practice idolatry. Some would say, myself included, that the Koran was even written as God's way of denouncing organized religions (Catholicism in particular).

And no, you are not nitpicking, just offering your own reasoned thoughts onto what I said. It's nice to have an intelligent exchange of ideas every now and then. Even on a board devoted to a sim football game

[MylesKnight]

Damn.. I thought we were talking about the "Savage Nation".

I'm gonna see if I can get our soon to be newest President of the United States over here to respond to this thread. Just give me a moment.

Ahh, here he is now...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by MylesKnight
Damn.. I thought we were talking about the "Savage Nation".

I'm gonna see if I can get our soon to be newest President of the United States over here to respond to this thread. Just give me a moment.

Ahh, here he is now...

Any minute now, Tawana Brawley is going to accuse Michael Savage of sexual assault...

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Any minute now, Tawana Brawley is going to accuse Michael Savage of sexual assault...

with a sausage no less.

[Sharpieman]

Who watches MSNBC in the first place???

[Anrhydeddu]

SkyDog and Cam, keep up the good work.
Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?

[tucker342]

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Who watches MSNBC in the first place???

good point

[sabotai]

"Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?"

That's right, because when one translation of the bible doesn't suite your needs, just use another.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Franklin, you would be more effective, imo, if you use a more modern translation, you think?"

That's right, because when one translation of the bible doesn't suite your needs, just use another.

I always make sure to use the one that says "thou shalt be both cocky and funny; thusly, thou shall 'know' more women".

Wait, maybe that wasn't out of the Bible...

[Anrhydeddu]

sabotai, there are many ways to say and mean the exact same thing. All authorized IBS translations have not changed meanings from the original Greek Septuagent and NT canons, they just use different words that are more familiar to the reader (like getting rid of "thou" and using "you" or "y'all" in the case of Ben's bible). But if you wish, we can quote the original Greek text.

[sabotai]

"sabotai, there are many ways to say and mean the exact same thing."

And then there are same exact passages that different people interpret many different ways. Anyone can take something from the bible and make it mean what they want it to mean.

"(like getting rid of "thou" and using "you" or "y'all" in the case of Ben's bible)."

Exodus 20:13 Y'all best not be killin' nobody, ya'hear?

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by sabotai
Exodus 20:13 Y'all best not be killin' nobody, ya'hear?

Is this from the "King Cletus Bible" or the "Revised Tex Edition"?

SI

[sabotai]

King Cletus.

Revised Tex is:

Exodus 20:13 Y'all better not be killin' shit!

[CamEdwards]

Don't forget the response of Moses:

"Dew whaht?"

[timmynausea]

I think an important point has been missed in all of this debate. It is a little known fact that Michael "Savage" is not his real name. His name is Michael Weiner, which I believe could've been used to solve this whole situation as I imagine a show called "Weiner Nation" to be nothing less than a homo-erotic, cream dream thrill ride. See? Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by timmynausea
I think an important point has been missed in all of this debate. It is a little known fact that Michael "Savage" is not his real name. His name is Michael Weiner, which I believe could've been used to solve this whole situation as I imagine a show called "Weiner Nation" to be nothing less than a homo-erotic, cream dream thrill ride. See? Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

Dude, mad props to you for waiting seven months to make that your first post.

[timmynausea]

"Dude, mad props to you for waiting seven months to make that your first post."

Thanks. I thought of it back then, (Christmas Eve as I recall), but then nobody brought up ol' Michael Savage until recently so I was basically screwed. Just wait until someone brings up OJ. I have had a real doozy brewin' since about August of '94. See you all in a few months.

[vtbub]

Please enlighten us about Orenthal James