Abstinence Criticized

[Drake]

and yet another dola...

Cam -

As a side point, I would like to point out that I think a great number of individual Xians and even churches have the right approach to this issue. It's the vocal, bigoted minority who are more concerned about politics than saving souls who muck things up.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

LOL, is my excersize of free speech making lil Butter-boy unhappy?

Not especially, but that spelling of "Exercise" is. Yikes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I'll tackle this one.

I believe there is an absolute moral standard, and that God is that standard...but that with some issues (like homosexuality), God was less explicit than He might have been. I think God intentionally left those issues obscure as Exercises for the Reader.

[Bubba Wheels]

Canadians in this thread should start identifying themselves, since as I understand it quoting the Bible in Canada may soon be illegal and interpreted as "hate speech', like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Not especially, but that spelling of "Exercise" is. Yikes.

Yes, thankyou for being the spelling police!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'd agree with that assessment, Cam, and would also go so far as to say that this would apply to any sin in any church.



Agree here also, at least if the church is doing their job.

My concern is that when the church decides to be so vocally anti-homosexual that they practice an intimidating exclusion that doesn't even let people in the doors. That's the part that seems wrong to me. By today's church logic, Jesus should have excluded Matthew the Tax Collector from his circle of disciples -- and I fully suspect that Tax Collectors (as agents of Rome, essentially) were just as reviled in first century Palestine as homosexuals are by right-wing Xians today. Notice that the Bible doesn't state Tax Collecting was a sin, but I'm positive that most of the Jews would have told you that it was.

I think Jesus picked Matthew specifically as an argument for inclusion. The fact of the matter is that no one is worthy of salvation. I spend every day of my life screwing up and living within myself and generally doing things that God doesn't want me to do. I'm a sinner, and no matter how hard I try not to be, I still sin. I'm terribly thankful that even though I'm weak, Grace still abounds. It just sort of makes me feel foolish that I should ever attempt to deny that Grace to anyone else because I dare to deem them unworthy.

I'm glad we agree.

I think ultimately where the two sides diverge is in the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Those that believe it is should still love the person and work with them to lead a life that is as "godly" as possible.

Those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin aren't under that same obligation, but I would think that those same people would also have no religious objections to gay marriage, and would therefore still want homosexuals to have sex within the bounds of a religious marriage.

And then, of course, if you have religious people that don't believe pre-marital sex is a sin that's an entirely different argument.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I actually find this sort of debate to be interesting. I find that when both sides know their stuff and stick to relevant arguments, I can learn a lot even though I may not agree with everything that's said. On that note... man, this has been a disappointing thread.

Two questions, one for each side:

To the relgious: could you go into more detail about how you'd answer the claim that Christians are selective in their interpretation of the bible, condeming homesexuality at every opportunity but ignoring other "sins"?

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I don't think the option is an either or choice. I do not believe in absolutes and I don't believe in moral relativity either. One can always approach a situation with tolerance and understanding while still rendering judgment and opinion. I believe both extremes are horrible choices, so I choose to try to understand the "other" while reaching my own value determinations.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Drake

and yet another dola...

Cam -

As a side point, I would like to point out that I think a great number of individual Xians and even churches have the right approach to this issue. It's the vocal, bigoted minority who are more concerned about politics than saving souls who muck things up.

well, people do all kinds of things in the name of religion. I'd say anybody who says "God Hates Fags" a la Fred Phelps needs to go back and read the Bible. I don't believe God hates anyone, although He certainly frowns on bad behavior.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, thankyou for being the spelling police!

Well, thank you for being the thought police.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

Am I missing something here? I thought I read that spanking your kid was allowed?

[Bubba Wheels]

Salvation makes you a child of God, a member of the family. Sin then will break your fellowship with God (thru the presence of His Holy Spirit) but will not get you cast out of the family. And not being saved by grace thru Christ at all means your out of the Kingdom regardless of how 'moral' a life you lead on your own. Isaiah 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Am I missing something here? I thought I read that spanking your kid was allowed?

Big court case in Toronto last year to determine this, missed the outcome. It is in Norway though, and Canada fancies itself as the North American Scandinavian Socialist Model.

[Butter]

Yes, BW, that supports what you said before. Spanking being outlawed in Norway! They might as well write it in our Constitution.

BTW, here's a little-known passage from The Book of Numbers:
"And they who bait without mercy on internet message boards will surely not be permitted entrance to the Kingdom of God."

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Big court case in Toronto last year to determine this, missed the outcome. It is in Norway though, and Canada fancies itself as the North American Scandinavian Socialist Model.

hxxp://www.canadianlawnews.com/news4.htm

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Yes, BW, that supports what you said before. Spanking being outlawed in Norway! They might as well write it in our Constitution.

BTW, here's a little-known passage from The Book of Numbers:
"And they who bait without mercy on internet message boards will surely not be permitted entrance to the Kingdom of God."

Ok Butter, I'm not going to continue answering someone like you that just flies up with feelings and emotions. Its a losing cause, I spend time coming up with Biblical sources to support my statements and you respond with a little 2 liner about your 'feelings' on the issue. Shame is, most reading this wouldn't see the difference. Opinions are like toenails, everyone has them, those that would like to learn a little should look at those with some basis in some sort of source (like the Bible).

And in closing Butter, read what the Bible says in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Bible in general. ( I know, you 'feel' different.)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Salvation makes you a child of God, a member of the family. Sin then will break your fellowship with God (thru the presence of His Holy Spirit) but will not get you cast out of the family. And not being saved by grace thru Christ at all means your out of the Kingdom regardless of how 'moral' a life you lead on your own. Isaiah 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Just to clarify this point: So, anyone who accepts the gift of salvation--whether a practicing homosexual or not--is saved. The only issue after that is the quality of their walk with God, not their salvation. Homosexuality (if a sin) is only a barrier to a fully realized Xian walk.

You're not saying that gays can't be saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here, because if what I've just said is your belief, I think some people--myself included--have made incorrect assumptions about your underlying arguments.

[RendeR]

Ahh, thank you for the clarification. I still feel the major initial response from the pro-gay was reacting from a legitimate marriage standpoint. Honestly, if religious ceremonies were worth anything without a legal recognition and documentation, I doubt we'd hear about this at all.

I know our local UU churches will not perform ceremonies without license, but perhaps the ones farther west will.

How is Oklahoma BTW? I haven't been there in over 20 years. I used to visit family out in the panhandle (Tyrone, OK and up into Liberal KS)

Good discussion though! keep up the good work.

Ren

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Drake

Just to clarify this point: So, anyone who accepts the gift of salvation--whether a practicing homosexual or not--is saved. The only issue after that is the quality of their walk with God, not their salvation. Homosexuality (if a sin) is only a barrier to a fully realized Xian walk.

You're not saying that gays can't be saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here, because if what I've just said is your belief, I think some people--myself included--have made incorrect assumptions about your underlying arguments.

Yes, anyone can receive the gift of salvation, but you won't receive it unless you first repent of a sinful lifestyle. If you sin after receiving salvation (and we all do) you have an advocate in Christ for forgiveness when you confess it to Him. But if you do receive salvation and sin habitually afterwards, you run many risks. As far as losing one's salvation, though, is a point of difference within the Christian community.

Some say 'once saved, always saved', some say habitual sin is a sign that initial salvation never really took place, some say you can turn your back on God and walk out on salvation...I would say better safe than sorry. The Bible does teach us as Christians that sin in unacceptable in any form and that we are Christians are tasked to call it for what it is, sin. And the Bible does categorize homosexual behavior as sin. Hope this helped, but I know it will still offend some.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, anyone can receive the gift of salvation, but you won't receive it unless you first repent of a sinful lifestyle. If you sin after receiving salvation (and we all do) you have an advocate in Christ for forgiveness when you confess it to Him. But if you do receive salvation and sin habitually afterwards, you run many risks. As far as losing one's salvation, though, is a point of difference within the Christian community.

I see what you're saying here, though I'd question the use of the term "sinful lifestyle". Most of us, when we repented and turned to God, didn't particularly understand the depths of our sin nature or what a sinful lifestyle fully entailed. We just knew something was wrong with our lives that only God could fix, received Grace and hammered out the details later.

I appreciate your clarifications. I may have unfairly characterized your position (in thought, if not in deed/writing), and I apologize for that.

Some say 'once saved, always saved', some say habitual sin is a sign that initial salvation never really took place, some say you can turn your back on God and walk out on salvation...I would say better safe than sorry.

I take it you're not Baptist, eh?

(I say this with great respect and affection for Baptists. I went to a Baptist high school for a couple of years, though my church background was Charismatic/Evangelical in the early to mid '80's...which meant all sorts of things that make even modern Evangelicals tend to get all squinchy. I make no excuse for that. The movement was young and excited and just wanted to get as close to God as possible, as well as combine their excitement about God with an agenda for social change. Mistakes were made, but I think their hearts were in the right place. On the other hand, it's the children of that movement that concern me. Organized religion has an obligation to be conservative in some ways, and to teach people who have a vibrant connection to the Ineffable how to live in a society of human relationships that are decidedly secular. When churches fail to address that issue, children develop a warped consciousness of what it means to be a Xian in the world, or a Stranger in a Strange Land. But that's completely a tangent.)

The Bible does teach us as Christians that sin in unacceptable in any form and that we are Christians are tasked to call it for what it is, sin. And the Bible does categorize homosexual behavior as sin. Hope this helped, but I know it will still offend some.

I don't think you should worry so much about offending people with your opinions. I've known too many Christians who were excited about offending people and reaping the subsequent "persecution" because they were determined to practice an aggressive or toxic faith. (I assume you recognize those buzzwords). Unfortunately, my experience has been that people craved the persecution because they needed the validation for their own walk, and really weren't attempting to reach others with the Gospel at all. In fact, if they'd taken a moment to practice some discernment (perhaps the most underused term in the modern Xian's lectionary) about their audience and presented the Gospel in love, they would do a better job of touching lives than merely exposing sin. I'm not saying that Xians should hide their beliefs, just that they should avoid getting caught up in an all too typically American apocalyptic, persecutorial fervor for their own self-gratification and try to remember that they're supposed to be the light in a darkling land.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I personally am considered a "seeker". I do not currently hold to any religious dogma, however I am intriguied by all of them. I feel, at this point in time, that all religions were spawned by a desire for a morally higher ground for all people. I also believe that if one studies all religions and takes the best and most acceptable items for yourself from each of them, you can create a most outstanding moral structure for yourself.

Above all else I believe that spirituality is the single more intimate, personal thing to a human being. Its your soul we're talking about. No matter how many preachers thump their pulpits, or how many other leaders promulgate their views, it always comes back down to wether you choose to believe the way they believe. That being the case I cannot sit back and take the bible or the Qur'an or any other text as a hard and firm way that I must achieve spiritual contentment/salvation, whatever term you wish to choose. Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.

As for your specific question regarding right and wrong, I'm not convinced one way or the other yet. Sometimes I want to believe the universe is a battle between good and evil and that right and wrong are the battlefields we face daily. Other times I tend to feel that what is right and wrong to one person isn't necessarily the same as for the next. I don't think anyone else has the right to make that decision for me, so I have to keep traveling along the path I feel is best and right for me.

[Noble_Platypus]

[quote=RendeR]Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.
That was my point, men ARE fallable. Thats why all of the web links where this guy thinks that and this guy thinks this is unimportant. The only man that should be listened to is the one who actually wrote the book, and was inspired by God. I am not willing to base my faith or fate on some guy who interprets the bible as to not offend anyone or to coincide with the lifestyle they want to live. As smart as some people on here claim to be it seems they need someone else to tell them what the bible means, and cant read the scripture and decide for themselves what it means.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Canadians in this thread should start identifying themselves, since as I understand it quoting the Bible in Canada may soon be illegal and interpreted as "hate speech', like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

Bubba, without getting this discussion too far off track, you should really stick to areas that you feel you have some expertise in. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of Canadian laws, you're out of your element.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the existing spanking laws just two weeks ago. Parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

As far as the hate speech issue, the idea of those laws being used against people quoting the bible is fairly transparent fear-mongering by those who are opposed to homosexuals being considered a protected group. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, but the chances of seeing someone thrown in jail for reading the bible in Canada is essentially zero.

[Bubba Wheels]

Drake, I appreciate your input. Reading your early-mid 80's experience with the Charismatics, you basically just described my own path to salvation. I can appreciate the 'cringe' element to the word 'Charismatic' today, but I think your right on target about the sincere desire to get close to God and feel His presence. I would call myself a 'conservative Christian' today, and while I believe in the gifts of the spirit, I think the past movement put too much emphasis on them to the expense of the underlying message.

Again, the reason I got involved in this thread (and others like them) is I did not see anyone really putting forth a calm, rational (Maybe I fall short, but I try) Bible-based point of view to these subjects. The fact that we now live in a post-modernist society where the faith-based and the secular are diverging into extreme opposite courses shows that if we are to really get along then both sides will need to be respected ( and I mean not having sin legislated or enacted by activist judges into the lives of Christians under the guise of 'tolerance', ect...).

Again, its the double standards I'm going after, like the ones in public schools that allow teachers/administrators to push things like 'safe sex' onto kids under the justification that 'they all do it', and then ridicule the abstinence position as 'unrealistic'. I mean, just who in the firey inferno do they think they are to make those kind of judgements on kids from all walks/backgrounds/religious beliefs? Its just social engineering with a secular world view run amock. But glad to see your involvement.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Bubba, without getting this discussion too far off track, you should really stick to areas that you feel you have some expertise in. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of Canadian laws, you're out of your element.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the existing spanking laws just two weeks ago. Parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

As far as the hate speech issue, the idea of those laws being used against people quoting the bible is fairly transparent fear-mongering by those who are opposed to homosexuals being considered a protected group. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, but the chances of seeing someone thrown in jail for reading the bible in Canada is essentially zero.

Oddly enough, Maple Leafs, this is the third time the pending illegality of reading the Bible out loud in Canada has flashed across my radar in the last month (and in a widely, widely disparate variety of environments). It's creating that much of a ripple down here, even if none of us bother to read Canadian newspapers to get the real scoop. Americans aren't particularly interested in Canadian news in general, I think, or at least not enough to properly educate ourselves on your political issues. Most of us just assume we'll get those things straightened out when you folks are invaded as part of the Axis of Ice Cream.

[RendeR]

[quote=Noble_Platypus]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.
That was my point, men ARE fallable. Thats why all of the web links where this guy thinks that and this guy thinks this is unimportant. The only man that should be listened to is the one who actually wrote the book, and was inspired by God. I am not willing to base my faith or fate on some guy who interprets the bible as to not offend anyone or to coincide with the lifestyle they want to live. As smart as some people on here claim to be it seems they need someone else to tell them what the bible means, and cant read the scripture and decide for themselves what it means.

But my point is noble, that the bible and all holy tomes were and are written by men. God never lifted pen to parchment, jesus, depending on your belief, barely knew how to write at all. It was the followers and believers who wrote what "God spoke" and "God intended" and thus it is not God's will, but those men's perception and interpretation of those things that you are reading in the bible, making the bible as fallable and untrustworthy as any other tome. This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

I guess this is the part I don't like. I can understand the argument that men are fallible, but that doesn't mean there is no right answer. It might mean that there's no easy answer, but I'm not comfortable with having everyone just choose whichever interpretation "works for them".

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by RendeR

But my point is noble, that the bible and all holy tomes were and are written by men. God never lifted pen to parchment, jesus, depending on your belief, barely knew how to write at all. It was the followers and believers who wrote what "God spoke" and "God intended" and thus it is not God's will, but those men's perception and interpretation of those things that you are reading in the bible, making the bible as fallable and untrustworthy as any other tome. This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

RendeR continues to insult those who believe that the creator of heaven and earth cannot through devine inspiration through men get written down what He actually means to say. Not to mention what RendeR must think of such a limited God Himself.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I guess this is the part I don't like. I can understand the argument that men are fallible, but that doesn't mean there is no right answer. It might mean that there's no easy answer, but I'm not comfortable with having everyone just choose whichever interpretation "works for them".

Maple, read the Bible for yourself, get a good concordanance to help you tie the threads together. You'll see that despite being written over thousands of years through many different men of faith that there really are no contridictions in the Bible (this canard is always brought up by those looking for loopholes to justify a sin-loving lifestyle).

Matter-of-fact, computer programs today are amazing scientist with the mathmatical extactide in which the Books of the Bible are showing. But again, don't take my word for it, because unlike my critics here my opinions are based on multiple other sources including the Bible, not just my 'feelings'.

[RendeR]

Bubba, in deference to your obvious devotion to your faith, I am not going to retaliate. If you find my statements insulting, I'm sorry. My comments were, to myself, stating the obvious, men are fallable and simply not qualified, in MY opinion, to be trusted with translating "God's will" onto paper.

I would list off the thousands of times "God's will" have been revised, edited, changed, and completely redone to suit the needs of men in power(aka the King James bible and others) but the point is, you choose to ignore those things, and for you, that is fine.

I am not convinced there is a devine creator at this point, so my words and thoughts will probably continue to insult you. I in turn am insulted by your complete lack of interest in having an open mind to any other possibilities. There are no proof or facts either way that are conclusive.

I'm sorry you are insulted by my words, since they are simply another man's opinion they shouldn't be too damaging to you. I can only hope you elarn some day to have as open a mind about your world as I and others do, that is where you learn the most about yourself, by listening and accepting those arguements from others that make your blood boil. wether or not you choose to believe them and take them to heart. Acceptance of a view, and Faith in that view are two entirely different things.

[Drake]

Maple, read the Bible for yourself, get a good concordanance to help you tie the threads together. You'll see that despite being written over thousands of years through many different men of faith that there really are no contridictions in the Bible (this canard is always brought up by those looking for loopholes to justify a sin-loving lifestyle).

Matter-of-fact, computer programs today are amazing scientist with the mathmatical extactide in which the Books of the Bible are showing. But again, don't take my word for it, because unlike my critics here my opinions are based on multiple other sources including the Bible, not just my 'feelings'.

This is what I mean when I say that Xians need to learn better how to practice discernment. You can't insult people into heaven, BW. To the extent that you characterize all non-Xians as "sin-lov(ers)", they can fairly characterize Xians as close-minded, right-wing, irrational blowhards.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Ok Butter, I'm not going to continue answering someone like you that just flies up with feelings and emotions. Its a losing cause, I spend time coming up with Biblical sources to support my statements and you respond with a little 2 liner about your 'feelings' on the issue. Shame is, most reading this wouldn't see the difference. Opinions are like toenails, everyone has them, those that would like to learn a little should look at those with some basis in some sort of source (like the Bible).[/b]

The Bible being quoted as a source of fact is laughable. It is a source of fact insomuch as you believe in it. Many people do not believe in it. So, they'll burn for it (says you). Why not just let 'em go and STFU?

[b]And in closing Butter, read what the Bible says in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Bible in general. ( I know, you 'feel' different.)

I would read the Bible more carefully, but I pretty much can just get the gist of it from all of your rambling posts in this forum. Besides, you know exactly what God is trying to tell everyone at all times right? Why waste my energy when I can just ask you?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

RendeR continues to insult those who believe that the creator of heaven and earth cannot through devine inspiration through men get written down what He actually means to say. Not to mention what RendeR must think of such a limited God Himself.

Hey Bubba, how long are you going to ignore the posts pointing out all the other things in the bible that seem to prohibit many actions that nearly everyone today finds acceptable and others that, while not acceptable, are fairly common? To refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by Fonzie

Of course, there are those who would disagree with this logic, or even the whole premise of "reinterpretation grounded within a reasonable context" and argue that "if the Bible says its an abomination, then its an abomination, period." To them I'd say - hold onto your hat, for if you have:

- eaten clams ( Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you);

- worn polyblend fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together);

- told a lie of any kind (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight);

- committed adultery (Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her);

- trimmed your beard (Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.);

- gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD);

- charged interest on a loan (Psalms 15:5 [He that] putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things] shall never be moved);

- or paid interest on a loan (Jeremian 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; [yet] every one of them doth curse me)

...then you have committed an abominable act in God's eyes. If you have done any of these things you are in the same class of doomed souls as homosexuals, and are thus just as unviable a candidate for Christianity as they. Indeed, perhaps we should begin erecting laws to defend the pure morality of the non-polyblend-fabric-wearers from the encroachments of the heathen polyblend-fabricians. Unless, of course, it might just be worthwhile to revisit and reassess the utility of reinterpreting the intent of these behaviors prohibited by the Bible.

And one final thought - Jesus had this to say which might be relevant to this discussion, given the high probability that abomination-committers are among the those railing against the "abomination" of homosexuality:

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Well?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is what I mean when I say that Xians need to learn better how to practice discernment. You can't insult people into heaven, BW. To the extent that you characterize all non-Xians as "sin-lov(ers)", they can fairly characterize Xians as close-minded, right-wing, irrational blowhards.

Not what I was doing, Drake, simply pointing out that those who are quick to call the Bible 'fables' and 'fairy tales' almost always then go on to charactize believers in like-minded statements. To those I address the comments.

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Not what I was doing, Drake, simply pointing out that those who are quick to call the Bible 'fables' and 'fairy tales' almost always then go on to charactize believers in like-minded statements. To those I address the comments.

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

And my point is that Jesus went 33 years without bludgeoning anyone into believing anything or attacking those He was trying to save. I suspect He did that for a good reason.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have less interest in reaching people for God than you do in reaching people for the Church.

[Bubba Wheels]

RendeR, I appreciate your comments. Again, just asking for the same respect for Bible-based folks as you would expect for any others. May go a little overboard to make the point some times, don't think I have engaged in any outright personal attacks on anyone (unlike my critics) but that's for others to decide.

There will be conflict between those with a secular humanist view of the world and people of faith. The Bible says this will always be the case before Christ returns. There is a very self-righteous tone and attitude that these secularists use in addressing Christians like myself. Ironic, since this is what they most often accuse Christians of being, self-righteous I mean.

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

Why stop here? I'll grant you that the tone of these questions have been in the form of a challenge, but they appear like legitimate questions. If you can ignore the tone and provide a well-thought out answer supported by facts and logic, you will strengthen your position in the eyes of those who are open minded. You will also take the opportunity to spread God's word a little farther.

I can certainly understand stopping a debate when it becomes apparent that no one is listening. In this case, however, you continue to defend your position, but do not attempt to answer questions raised by that position.

Could you at least point someone who is interested in the proper direction?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Drake

And my point is that Jesus went 33 years without bludgeoning anyone into believing anything or attacking those He was trying to save. I suspect He did that for a good reason.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have less interest in reaching people for God than you do in reaching people for the Church.

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Why stop here? I'll grant you that the tone of these questions have been in the form of a challenge, but they appear like legitimate questions. If you can ignore the tone and provide a well-thought out answer supported by facts and logic, you will strengthen your position in the eyes of those who are open minded. You will also take the opportunity to spread God's word a little farther.

I can certainly understand stopping a debate when it becomes apparent that no one is listening. In this case, however, you continue to defend your position, but do not attempt to answer questions raised by that position.

Could you at least point someone who is interested in the proper direction?

I'll give you the best Bible teacher's name I ever heard, he studied under an associate of Smith Wigglesworth and is the Pastor of one of the largest churches in Tulsa. Check out his website, read his articles, if I can get a link I will. Google it, Bob Yandian

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

Isn't that for God to decide?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

I imagine your dog's gas is more coherent than you tend to be.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Isn't that for God to decide?

No, God delegated that power to Bubba last week. Didn't you get the memo?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by mckerney

No, God delegated that power to Bubba last week. Didn't you get the memo?

Son of a bitch! My fax was down Friday. I knew I'd miss something!

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Son of a bitch! My fax was down Friday. I knew I'd miss something!

Damn, you're always missing the important stuff.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

Nice way to dodge the question. And please, don't worry yourself on my account about me, God and the bible - that's for me to deal with.

[Bubba Wheels]

precepts.com

[Bubba Wheels]

Check out the above and investigate to your heart's content! Even saw a "Ask the Pastor ANY question about the Bible!!!! I couldn't attempt to carry a glass of water to this man's Bible knowledge.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Check out the above and investigate to your heart's content! Even saw a "Ask the Pastor ANY question about the Bible!!!! I couldn't attempt to carry a glass of water to this man's Bible knowledge.

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

Church attendance is not a salvation level issue, anymore than homosexuality is a salvation level issue. Paul said "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" as an encouragement to believers--a reminder that it's difficult to maintain your faith on your own, not as a precept that required observance. It's that guideline leeway that allows the Church to not disinherit the homebound, aged and ill. Once again, we see the value of not taking Scripture literally in all cases.

And yes, by the way, I do go to church. I was actually in the ministry when I was younger, though it was youth ministry (which is why I have so much respect for SkyDog. I know how hard it is to handle even Xian teens), and it was before I had children of my own to manage.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

*sigh*

In the interest of at least putting an answer out there for discussion, here's the theology in a nutshell (at least as I learned it):

Old Testament = Old Covenant
New Testament = New Covenant

New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Christian theologians have historically taught that anything having to do with the observance of Jewish Law (i.e. most of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, plus swaths of Exodus) was superceded by the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the Old Covenant, the only way to get to God and make repayment for human sin was through strict observance of the Law. Under the New Covenant, Jesus's death was the ultimate sacrifice that invalidated the Law and allowed all believers ready access to God. Most Xian theologians will tell you that it was actually impossible to observe the Law properly, and that God was using the Law as an extended metaphor to explain that without Jesus, there was no reconciliation possible between God and Man. (On the other hand, the Apostle Paul claims that he had blamelessly observed the Law his entire life and theoretically, at least, didn't need Jesus to save him...but theologians tend to treat that bit of scripture as hyperbole for the most part.)

Needless to say, this is part of what bugs the Jewish community. ("Oh, we're co-opting your history and your religious traditions and saying that you've had it wrong for the last two thousand years...and if you don't believe us, we'll kill you.) Anyway, the fallout is that the Church kept the bits that they wanted from the OT (stuff that seemed like good guidelines for buildng a Xian society) and tossed out all the rest. The bits that get reclaimed in various historic periods have to do with recursive theological justifications of current positions. I'm not saying this is good or bad--it's the same thing we do the the Constitution, part of the great niftiness of a Living Document.

Again, my argument is that it's tough to say on the one hand that the Divine Sacrifice obliterated the OT, and then on the other to say, "oh, except for the bits that we want to keep to bludgeon folks with". Either Jesus Saves, or Jesus Saves with Provisions. You can't have it both ways.

There are no easy answers here. This debate has been going on for a couple thousand years. The Apostles Peter and Paul actually squabbled over it for a good long time because Peter and the Church at Jerusalem wanted to make all Gentile converts also practice Judaism (because to them, early Christianity was Judaism). Paul, being shrewd, realized that most Gentiles were not going to go in for all the dietary restrictions, let alone the circumcision bit, and ultimately successfully argued that the Old Covenant (and Judaism) had been replaced by the message Jesus brought. The argument hasn't really ever gone away, though.

Please note, however, that one of the clever things Paul did was to actively amend early Christian theology to account for the culture and the mores of the society in which he lived. Since the Pauline letters made it into the Scriptures (i.e. God's Word) and the Scriptures are infallible, then we must assume (a posteriori, granted) that God that mandated scriptural interpretation should keep in step with social changes.

QED

[Butter]

Interesting, Drake. Thanks.