They want to worship their own image of God, they have painted a false conception of who God is, so in essence, they are not worshiping the same God because they have defined their god's rules by their standards.
The reason everything is about sex, is because it's the most intimate action, the line stops there, holding hands doesn't just end with holding hands.
And I'm not arguing about homosexuals being evil, but part of homosexuality is the basis on your "openness" or acceptance of it. I think of it as a perversion, but you know what ? I'm not better than them, I'm not even close to being perfect. However, there is something wrong with them warping who God is, biblically.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Originally I was going to just check through this topic for flamebait. However, there *is* a marked bit that no one has touched on just yet.
Which translation of the bible are we working from? The King James edition, or a more recent version... perhaps done by people who could achieve a more accurate translation? King James is the obvious choice, but is rife with errors. The one that most immediately comes to mind being the 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', where 'witch' was mistranslated. The original word in Hebrew was the one for 'poisoner' in the context given.
Before this even has a chance of spawning a new tangent, I ask you this. Is the word of the Christian God still immaculate and perfect, after being filtered through the hands, eyes, and mind of an imperfect being? Much less many, after so many rewrites? Who is to say authoratatively that the bible today still constitutes even a remote likeness to its original intent? Because the bookbinder on my copy of King James reads 'Random House', not 'God'.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 4 2003, 10:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 4 2003, 10:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is the word of the Christian God still immaculate and perfect, after being filtered through the hands, eyes, and mind of an imperfect being? Much less many, after so many rewrites? Who is to say authoratatively that the bible today still constitutes even a remote likeness to its original intent? Because the bookbinder on my copy of King James reads 'Random House', not 'God'. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I have many translations that I read, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, Recovery, Amplified, I have them all and then some (it helps that I run the recieving department of the world's 6th largest Christian Bookstore as well, but hey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I read them all because if I read 3 or 4 translations, you have a better understanding of what was most likely said. Everyone seems to use the "humans are imperfect, so the Bible isn't perfect" logic, but to me it doesn't make sense. I personally don't believe that a God who takes the time to sit John down and give him a whole entire revelation of the end of mankind and the second coming of Jesus would allow His word to be tainted beyond reason. I read multiple translations so that I can help make this relevant, and so I can be sure to myself that there aren't any mistranslations (if 3/4 or 4/4 say the same thing, chances are it's that way in the original text. BTW, I also have a few hebrew and greek translations, interlinear Bibles with literal word for word translations in them).
I think that the nail has been hit on the head a few times in here. The problem is not with G-ays or Lesbians worshipping God, it's really with them pushing for acceptance instead of trying to change. God calls us to strive to be holy, so if we are participating in something we know is wrong, that's bad enough. To push to get your view accepted by Christianity when it's in direct contradiction to the Bible is just wrong. This church has every right to say that this group can't meet there. It's the group and their political agenda that is the problem, not the fact that they are **** or lesbian. As I've said a few times throughout this post, we are all sinners, whether it's in this politically hot-topic area known as homosexuality, or just plain lusting after another. The difference is that most Christians are repentant, whereas this group is not. They are striving not for equality in worship, but for the church to stand up and say "homosexuality is right, and there's nothing wrong at all with it." I'm sorry, but I honestly hope we never see the day when this is said.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 4 2003, 07:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 4 2003, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Once again, oversimplifying the issue (I'm back btw). This is not discriminating against anyone by the government, it's the church. Private property. They should be allowed to throw out whomever they wish. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Cool. Let's get rid of the racial minorities next!
Nobody's debating whether they have the legal right to do whatever stupid anti-Christian thing they want to do.
The issue was (and still is) - having said initially that this was going to be okay, was it hypocritical for them to flipflop as a result of church politics? Presumably, if there were a timeless moral compunction against allowing this, it wouldn't have been okayed in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+Sep 4 2003, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 4 2003, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm saying, once your dead, the time to make the decision is over. Do you think God is going to forgive you and allow you into heaven AFTER you've seen His face? Nuh uh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...
/edit I'm still upset with the neutral stance the church had during WW2. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's annoying that people want to be treated equally?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But homosexuals <b>are</b> being treated equally. Nobody has the right to pursue sinful desires just because it's fun. Where is the discrimination?
Likewise, everyone who thinks that the mere strength of a sinful desire he has absolves him from his responsibility to resist it deserves to be reprimanded.
Christians don't single homosexuals out among the sinners, the homosexuals single themselves out. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are striving not for equality in worship, but for the church to stand up and say "homosexuality is right, and there's nothing wrong at all with it." I'm sorry, but I honestly hope we never see the day when this is said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm afraid many Protestant churches are already wavering. Their constant, private re-interpretation of the Scripture makes them vulnerable to fashion trends and populism. Fortunately, the one Church founded upon Peter the Rock will neither err nor falter. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which translation of the bible are we working from?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I personally like the KJV, and I wouldn't say it's really <i>rife</i> with translation errors. You can always cross-reference other versions or linguistic research if there's doubt... <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', where 'witch' was mistranslated. The original word in Hebrew was the one for 'poisoner' in the context given.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ... and this would be a good place to start with such references (but probably in a different thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
"makesofha" in Exod 22:18 clearly refers to female practioners of harmful magic. Even <a href='http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Suffer.htm' target='_blank'>this Wiccan</a> ultimately agrees with the "witch" translation. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Being just imposes an inherent limit on being forgiving.
Like most organizations I tend to feel the church has a huge interest in 1.)Cashflow 2.)Politics.
I find it odd that homosexual behavior is banished, yet many preists had homosexual relationships with CHILDREN. I say its because they can't marry, but I'd certainly like to hear a different reason. Also I think we need to change gears. It says "G*y Christians Banned From Cathedral" We've managed 7 pages of good discussion, and Its turning into "Is homosexuality really a sin" Sorta thing....just thought of it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Sep 5 2003, 02:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Sep 5 2003, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cool. Let's get rid of the racial minorities next!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Stop comparing racism and rejecting homosexuality. It's a terrible comparison, and you know it, but you still offer it even though it's non-sequitur. And by the way, AFAIK you can bar whomever you want from your private property as long as they don't have some sort of warrant against you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue was (and still is) - having said initially that this was going to be okay, was it hypocritical for them to flipflop as a result of church politics? Presumably, if there were a timeless moral compunction against allowing this, it wouldn't have been okayed in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypocritical? No. Going back on their word? Yes. IMO they should not have allowed it in the first place, as LGCM's agenda is acceptance of homosexual behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 5 2003, 02:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 5 2003, 02:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Like most organizations I tend to feel the church has a huge interest in 1.)Cashflow 2.)Politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I ask what churches you've been going to lately? Or are you just basing it off of assumptions and age-old misconceptions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
erm, he doesn't have to forgive you at all, it's His prerogative. At the end of our lives, He could just say "ok, screw you guys, you didn't believe in me, or follow what I said. So, you guys can just go sit on a hard rock for the rest of eternity." That he forgives us at all is amazing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Stop comparing racism and rejecting homosexuality. It's a terrible comparison, and you know it, but you still offer it even though it's non-sequitur. And by the way, AFAIK you can bar whomever you want from your private property as long as they don't have some sort of warrant against you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> True. You *can* bar anyone you like from private property. The problem arises when it is not an individual, nor an 'everyone but <specific person>' that you fall afoul of the realms of bigotry, sexism, and hate. Let's not forget that for the longest while, black people were oddly enough barred from a good portion of private property... businesses, churches, schools... while in some redneck, backwater parts of the USA, that apparently still happens, but very quietly as it'd be improper. However, they *are* sticking to the letter of the book.
Remember, the KJ bible tells you to not count anyone but white people (and few, select others) as 'full people'. But that's overlooked, as it's seen as bad form. Nowadays. After things have changed, and the former views held as commonplace are seen as horrendous.
In short, bigotry is still bigotry, regardless of what in particular it's aimed toward.
And this IS swerving a bit off-topic, given that the newspost article was geared that the permission to hold a service was granted, and only removed due to the current trends in debate among the leading caste. Perhaps we should bring it slightly further back in line with the abrupt change of heart, and possible reasoning behind it? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "It has done so in the light of sensitivities and timing in relation to the current debates in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Said debates were created due to the fact that a **** man was appointed as the Bishop of Reading.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 5 2003, 02:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 5 2003, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Sep 5 2003, 02:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 5 2003, 02:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Like most organizations I tend to feel the church has a huge interest in 1.)Cashflow 2.)Politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Might I ask what churches you've been going to lately? Or are you just basing it off of assumptions and age-old misconceptions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
erm, he doesn't have to forgive you at all, it's His prerogative. At the end of our lives, He could just say "ok, screw you guys, you didn't believe in me, or follow what I said. So, you guys can just go sit on a hard rock for the rest of eternity." That he forgives us at all is amazing.
sorry for the double post <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Catholic church, haven't been to one in a few years but I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed that much in a good way
<!--QuoteBegin--Maus+Sep 5 2003, 01:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maus @ Sep 5 2003, 01:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are many things the bible deems wrong which to modern eyes clearly are acceptable. Sowing two different crops next to each other, and working on the Sabbath are two great examples - it seems ludicrous for these to be wrong. The Bible isn't the word of God - it's the word of God close to 2000 years ago. As a moral guidebook it is antiquated and sorely in need of either an update or at least leniant interpretation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> allow me to attempt to put you straight
you said it yourself, the bible is God's word 2000 years ago. I agree with you. God is eternal, unchanging and perfect, therefore, his word is eternal, unchanging and perfect, so it had just as much relevance today as it did 2000 years ago, and will still be relevant 2000 years in the furture.
@Talesin:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is the word of the Christian God still immaculate and perfect, after being filtered through the hands, eyes, and mind of an imperfect being? Much less many, after so many rewrites? Who is to say authoratatively that the bible today still constitutes even a remote likeness to its original intent?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?
didnt think so. A boy found some scrolls in some jars in a cave near the dead sea. they were dated to the time of jesus, and they were translated. What he had found were some of the very near original copies of the biblem and they were the same as the current version. not similar in some aspects, EXACTLY the same. Bible inaccurate after so many rewrites? I dont think so. The people writing it <b>beleived</b> they were dealing with the Word of God. They would have made sure each and every word was identical, even when it was translated.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Apparently you don't know the church too well.
As I recall, that particular myth about the Dead Sea scrolls had been debunked quite a while back... especially considering they have not been fully translated yet (if they ever will, given their sad state), and upon re-translation by another source gave significantly different wording to a number of passages. True, they did enhance knowledge of how the bible was retransmitted... but by *no* means were they even close to the current bible, other than when viewed with a down-soft eye. <a href='http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/' target='_blank'>Additional information on the DSS, from USC.</a>
As for the church's integrity, anyone remember 'indulgences'? You know... those things that were essentially a 'get into heaven free' card, forgiving you of ANY sin, no matter how heinous? You just went up and paid a Cardinal to write one up for you. You didn't even need to tell them what you did... just write (or have written for you) a description of your sin. You didn't even have to stop doing it with the early ones. A wording which changed as more and more nobles forgave themselves permanently through 'donations' for every sin you might imagine, and some which likely would not even come to the minds of most.
But of course, the church is infallible and pure. Standing unshakable for... as long as it takes for someone to toss cash at the wall.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Sep 5 2003, 05:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Sep 5 2003, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apparently you don't know the church too well.
As I recall, that particular myth about the Dead Sea scrolls had been debunked quite a while back... especially considering they have not been fully translated yet (if they ever will, given their sad state), and upon re-translation by another source gave significantly different wording to a number of passages. True, they did enhance knowledge of how the bible was retransmitted... but by *no* means were they even close to the current bible, other than when viewed with a down-soft eye. <a href='http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/' target='_blank'>Additional information on the DSS, from USC.</a>
As for the church's integrity, anyone remember 'indulgences'? You know... those things that were essentially a 'get into heaven free' card, forgiving you of ANY sin, no matter how heinous? You just went up and paid a Cardinal to write one up for you. You didn't even need to tell them what you did... just write (or have written for you) a description of your sin. You didn't even have to stop doing it with the early ones. A wording which changed as more and more nobles forgave themselves permanently through 'donations' for every sin you might imagine, and some which likely would not even come to the minds of most.
But of course, the church is infallible and pure. Standing unshakable for... as long as it takes for someone to toss cash at the wall. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
When I ask a christian why he doesn't follow every instruction in the Bible, he answers: "Times do change. Bible is just a pointer and the true meaning is in the subtext. It's not meant to be taken literally and it's up to people to decide what is important what is not" When I ask him why homosexuals can not be allowed to be priests, he answers: "It's forbidden in the Bible"
Okay I'm treading really carefully here cause I just got someone elses thread locked for the first time (sorry Samwise) so to begin...
Yeah I remember indulgences. Care to point out where in the Bible indulgences are mentioned? Or for that matter - free entry to heaven for fighting in Crusades?
While we are on that matter - anyone here remember anything in the Bible about the pope? Christian priests?
None of these things are in the Bible - and I think its a bit hard to judge something by its failures. You want to talk of success' of the Church, you have plenty of ammo. You want to talk failure - plenty there too.
No one ever said the Church was infallible, and if they did I would join you in ridiculing them. The Church, however, didnt write the Bible.
And that really is why the Bible is so important to the Christians. They cant trust themselves to always do the right thing, they need something that cant fail them. Given that they believe the Bible was written by devinely inspired men, they consider the Bible infallible and the ultimate reference material for them.
EDIT And they Dread, are what we like to call Hypocrites. They fall into the same category as Christians claiming that there is nothing wrong with homosexual practise.
First, a little announcement: xDeathx2003 just won the lottery! Upon his return from the land of 'Temporarily Suspended', he'll become the first 'Restricted Member'. Congrats, Death, you truly deserve it.
Anyway, this topic grew quite a bit since my last post, yet, it's still centering around the same two questions: Can the Bible be faulty or outdated? And, connected to this first question: Does nothing but complete compliance to the laws and rules within the book qualify you for being Christian?
Well, I'll happily admit that many of you in here surpass me in Bible knowledge with ease, but I'd nonetheless like to offer a little passage from the fourth book Moses (28,2):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Give this command to the Israelites and say to them: 'See that you present to me at the appointed time the food for my offerings made by fire, as an aroma pleasing to me.' 3 Say to them: 'This is the offering made by fire that you are to present to the LORD : two lambs a year old without defect, as a regular burnt offering each day. 4 Prepare one lamb in the morning and the other at twilight, 5 together with a grain offering of a tenth of an ephah [1] of fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin [2] of oil from pressed olives. 6 This is the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai as a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire. 7 The accompanying drink offering is to be a quarter of a hin of fermented drink with each lamb. Pour out the drink offering to the LORD at the sanctuary. 8 Prepare the second lamb at twilight, along with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering that you prepare in the morning. This is an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, when was the last time that a representative of your community travelled to Mount Sinai and sacrificed two lambs? When was the last time that you or your community brought sacrifices to Him, as it is clearly demanded throughout the whole of the Old Testament?
I can pretty exactely imagine your expressions while reading this, and am sure you'll immediately show me New Testament verses contradicting the demand for sacrifices, but you'll nonetheless have to admit that this holy book, the Bible, includes a commandment that you and your religious communities regard as clearly <i>outdated</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 4 2003, 03:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 4 2003, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not necessarily, as one might argue that the strict biblical rejection of homosexual relationships stems mainly from the intention of the early Christian (and contemporary Judaistic) communities of differentiating themselves from the Roman-Greek society where homosexuality was common practice, that this condamnmend of homosexuality is thus nothing more than a relic of the first era of Christian policy.
As I said, don't get me started <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You b*tch! I wanted to say that!
Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule.
I'm sorry Rine, but now you went straight into the trap <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I know of course that the judaistic sacrifices which amounted in the outcast of a sacrificial lamb into the desert once a year were given up after Jesus' sacrifice (which is why he's described as 'the Lamb' in the Revelations). I know that God reversed some of his commandments. But you just interpreted the Bible based on a historical context. You mentioned the differentation to the jewish religious community, for example. You admitted that Christian faith was shaped by the necessities of their time. This means however that 'the Bible' isn't the sole basis of your faith anymore. You extended the scope of your very faith by seeking to <i>understand</i> the Bible. Thus, you can state that your faith <i>centers</i> around the events described in the Bible, but you are no longer capable of taking it as the sole source of it. And while your interpretation still rejects the idea of Christian homosexuals, as you showed in your edit, you've got to entertain the possibility that there are other interpretations based on context you are not familiar with that could make the condemnmend of homosexuality seem superceeded, too, for it ultimately started out as yet another way of distinguishing the jews from the rest.
Again, I do not say that you have to <i>follow</i> that logic, but that you have to accept that some might do, and that their way could be as valid (or slightly invalid) as those of other Christian communities you respect, but aren't a part of.
Eheheheh Im not sure if I am in a trap man, kinda cause I'm not completely sure exactly what ur saying..... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I will admit that the Christian faith was shaped, but I believe it was shaped by God, not specific circumstance.
And as for the rest of it, I agree. Interpretation is everything. Our faith is centred on the Bible, but that doesnt mean everyone reads the thing the same way. It is entirely possible my interpretation is completely wrong. Its possible, but I doubt it.
I guess I made a mistake in saying that "The Bible is the sole basis of my faith". My understanding of the Bible is my sole basis of faith. I dont believe that makes its message any more or less pertinent. Some people can read things differently. However the Bible is stronger in some areas than others, and its REALLY tough on homosexuality. Really.
I dont feel so much in a trap as I feel that my beliefs have been clarified. Thank you Nem.
As for the idea that there are other interpretations that condone homosexuality - Im all ears. Honestly I'd like to hear it. As I said, distinguishing rules and customs comes down to intense study and intricate knowledge of context and language subtleties.
EDIT Im really interested in this topic, and I'm pretty sure that my interpretation is right. I simply cannot go through life refusing to act on my interpretation simply because it MAY be wrong. It fits in my mind, its logical and coherent to me, and thus I am acting on it. And as such, I condemn the practise of homosexuality. Wait wait, I dont. I believe GOD condemns the practise of homosexuality, and thus I refuse to support it. ahhh all better.
Well, in that case, I seem to have misunderstood you, sorry for the "trap".
As you might imagine, I'm not the right one to offer you a truly throughout pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible, but <a href='http://www.lgcm.org.uk/html/mainframe.html' target='_blank'>this</a>, for example, is the LGCMs take on it. Please try to ignore the horrible, horrible site design.
Okay Nem there is a hell of a lot of writing in that site on the Bible and homosexuality, and im not going to pretend that i've read it all yet, but from what I have read, its all "obviously the writers of the Bible got it wrong/were biased/simply missunderstood".
And I cant ever accept that. If the Bible is wrong somewhere, than its fallible, if its fallible than it cant have been written by Divinely inspired men. If it wasnt written by Divinely inspired men, than on what do I base my belief in God? Nothing. If the Bible is wrong then He obviously had no hand in it, and thus I have no reason to believe in God at all, seeing as the Bible is the only reason I do believe in him.
Sound circular? I believe in God because of the Bible, and I believe in the Bible because I believe in God. Hang on, that cant be right..... circular reasoning is flawed reasoning....
EDIT Okay now I got it straight, I dont just believe in God because of the Bible, I have a personal relationship that I FEEL, and it is based on that also.
And you are right, a lot LGCM is based on interpretation. From my point of view, very creative interpretation. But the thrust of it is casting suspicion upon the accuracy of the Bible, which in Christian terms is selfdefeating.
Wow, grew another page+ while I slept. Now, to clear a few things up. Everyone seems to be getting this wrong, so....
@Talesin and Communist: You seem to be getting a little confused here. I may get flamed for this, but I'm gonna say it anyways. The Catholic Church, and many Catholics subsequently, are not Christians. They constantly misinterpret the Bible, such as calling Peter "the Rock" of the church. Jesus was the one referred to as the "Rock" of the church, whereas Jesus called Peter but a "pebble." The Catholic church throughout history has been notoriously hiedous and political, from running the crusades to killing you if you were a peasant and able to read the Bible but weren't a Priest. Their beliefs and practices are very much akin to idolatry (they pray to statues of Mary, Jesus, and the saints), and there is very little that is Biblically founded. There are many books out there that can point out the specifics better than I, so I'll pick one up at work tonight and direct reference if you'd like me to.
@Nem AND Marine01: No one said that homosexuals couldn't be christians. The thing of it is, God is a forgiving God, even after you get saved, you can still sin. I think I said it a few times, and it may ave just been lost, but the problem with the LGCM is that it's not saying "we're christians, and we're homosexual. we know it's wrong biblically, and yes, we do mess up, but we're trying to change." Instead, it sounds a little more like "we're christians. we believe in the Bible, except where it talks about homosexuality being bad. Those places were messed up when people wrote them down. Now you all need to accept us as homosexuals, and accept the fact that we're right in being this way."
Okay I think you are a little harsh on the Catholics. I too believe that they have seriously lost the plot, but there are several basics to being a Christian denomination that they pass. They believe in the Trinity, they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, both fully man and fully God, that he died on the cross to pay for our sins and that he is the only way to God.
They believe that, it makes them Christians. They also believe a lot of other silly things (IMHO), but that doesnt disqualify them from heaven.
And as for your second part addressed to me and Nem, absolutely. Grace is available to ALL, but you must repent and follow Christ. Sounds like they want to follow Christ, but arent too keen on the repent bit. And there lies their fault.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jesus was the one referred to as the "Rock" of the church, whereas Jesus called Peter but a "pebble."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can think what you want about Catholics, but this pebble thing is pure nonsense. "petra" is merely the gender-inflected form of "petros", both meaning "rock". "Pebble" would be "lithos". That's why not even the most devoutly protestant scholars deny that Peter is the Rock. They only deny that his <i>successors</i> are equally "rocky".
You'll need to look elsewhere for ammunition against the papacy.
Absolutely not. Ever. In fact Im not sure he specifically mentions homosexuality at all. He does talk about, and condemn, sexual sin, and given that his audience was Jewish, we can take that to mean he condemned homosexuality.
Its a bit like someone saying WMDs are bad. Does that mean Nuclear bombs arent bad because he didnt specifically say Nuclear Bombs? No, we all understand that by saying WMD you mean Nuclear Weapons as well.
To the Jews, they all knew what sexual sin was, and Jesus didnt need to clarify.
Add to that that Jesus is supposed to be God himself, that means he condemned it in the first place.
EDIT BTW crystal, Jesus forgives sins, he doesnt cure them. Cures are for those who are sick physically
Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule.
--------
Absolutely not. Ever. In fact Im not sure he specifically mentions homosexuality at all. He does talk about, and condemn, sexual sin, and given that his audience was Jewish, we can take that to mean he condemned homosexuality.
Its a bit like someone saying WMDs are bad. Does that mean Nuclear bombs arent bad because he didnt specifically say Nuclear Bombs? No, we all understand that by saying WMD you mean Nuclear Weapons as well.
To the Jews, they all knew what sexual sin was, and Jesus didnt need to clarify.
Add to that that Jesus is supposed to be God himself, that means he condemned it in the first place.
EDIT BTW crystal, Jesus forgives sins, he doesnt cure them. Cures are for those who are sick physically <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Read both quotes and take from it what you will.
Comments
The reason everything is about sex, is because it's the most intimate action, the line stops there, holding hands doesn't just end with holding hands.
And I'm not arguing about homosexuals being evil, but part of homosexuality is the basis on your "openness" or acceptance of it. I think of it as a perversion, but you know what ? I'm not better than them, I'm not even close to being perfect. However, there is something wrong with them warping who God is, biblically.
Which translation of the bible are we working from? The King James edition, or a more recent version... perhaps done by people who could achieve a more accurate translation? King James is the obvious choice, but is rife with errors. The one that most immediately comes to mind being the 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', where 'witch' was mistranslated. The original word in Hebrew was the one for 'poisoner' in the context given.
Before this even has a chance of spawning a new tangent, I ask you this. Is the word of the Christian God still immaculate and perfect, after being filtered through the hands, eyes, and mind of an imperfect being? Much less many, after so many rewrites? Who is to say authoratatively that the bible today still constitutes even a remote likeness to its original intent? Because the bookbinder on my copy of King James reads 'Random House', not 'God'.
Well, I have many translations that I read, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, Recovery, Amplified, I have them all and then some (it helps that I run the recieving department of the world's 6th largest Christian Bookstore as well, but hey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). I read them all because if I read 3 or 4 translations, you have a better understanding of what was most likely said. Everyone seems to use the "humans are imperfect, so the Bible isn't perfect" logic, but to me it doesn't make sense. I personally don't believe that a God who takes the time to sit John down and give him a whole entire revelation of the end of mankind and the second coming of Jesus would allow His word to be tainted beyond reason. I read multiple translations so that I can help make this relevant, and so I can be sure to myself that there aren't any mistranslations (if 3/4 or 4/4 say the same thing, chances are it's that way in the original text. BTW, I also have a few hebrew and greek translations, interlinear Bibles with literal word for word translations in them).
I think that the nail has been hit on the head a few times in here. The problem is not with G-ays or Lesbians worshipping God, it's really with them pushing for acceptance instead of trying to change. God calls us to strive to be holy, so if we are participating in something we know is wrong, that's bad enough. To push to get your view accepted by Christianity when it's in direct contradiction to the Bible is just wrong. This church has every right to say that this group can't meet there. It's the group and their political agenda that is the problem, not the fact that they are **** or lesbian. As I've said a few times throughout this post, we are all sinners, whether it's in this politically hot-topic area known as homosexuality, or just plain lusting after another. The difference is that most Christians are repentant, whereas this group is not. They are striving not for equality in worship, but for the church to stand up and say "homosexuality is right, and there's nothing wrong at all with it." I'm sorry, but I honestly hope we never see the day when this is said.
Cool. Let's get rid of the racial minorities next!
Nobody's debating whether they have the legal right to do whatever stupid anti-Christian thing they want to do.
The issue was (and still is) - having said initially that this was going to be okay, was it hypocritical for them to flipflop as a result of church politics? Presumably, if there were a timeless moral compunction against allowing this, it wouldn't have been okayed in the first place.
Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...
/edit I'm still upset with the neutral stance the church had during WW2. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
But homosexuals <b>are</b> being treated equally. Nobody has the right to pursue sinful desires just because it's fun. Where is the discrimination?
Likewise, everyone who thinks that the mere strength of a sinful desire he has absolves him from his responsibility to resist it deserves to be reprimanded.
Christians don't single homosexuals out among the sinners, the homosexuals single themselves out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are striving not for equality in worship, but for the church to stand up and say "homosexuality is right, and there's nothing wrong at all with it." I'm sorry, but I honestly hope we never see the day when this is said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm afraid many Protestant churches are already wavering. Their constant, private re-interpretation of the Scripture makes them vulnerable to fashion trends and populism. Fortunately, the one Church founded upon Peter the Rock will neither err nor falter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which translation of the bible are we working from?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally like the KJV, and I wouldn't say it's really <i>rife</i> with translation errors. You can always cross-reference other versions or linguistic research if there's doubt...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', where 'witch' was mistranslated. The original word in Hebrew was the one for 'poisoner' in the context given.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... and this would be a good place to start with such references (but probably in a different thread <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
"makesofha" in Exod 22:18 clearly refers to female practioners of harmful magic. Even <a href='http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Suffer.htm' target='_blank'>this Wiccan</a> ultimately agrees with the "witch" translation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being just imposes an inherent limit on being forgiving.
I find it odd that homosexual behavior is banished, yet many preists had homosexual relationships with CHILDREN. I say its because they can't marry, but I'd certainly like to hear a different reason. Also I think we need to change gears. It says "G*y Christians Banned From Cathedral" We've managed 7 pages of good discussion, and Its turning into "Is homosexuality really a sin" Sorta thing....just thought of it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Cool. Let's get rid of the racial minorities next!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop comparing racism and rejecting homosexuality. It's a terrible comparison, and you know it, but you still offer it even though it's non-sequitur. And by the way, AFAIK you can bar whomever you want from your private property as long as they don't have some sort of warrant against you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue was (and still is) - having said initially that this was going to be okay, was it hypocritical for them to flipflop as a result of church politics? Presumably, if there were a timeless moral compunction against allowing this, it wouldn't have been okayed in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypocritical? No. Going back on their word? Yes. IMO they should not have allowed it in the first place, as LGCM's agenda is acceptance of homosexual behavior.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might I ask what churches you've been going to lately? Or are you just basing it off of assumptions and age-old misconceptions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
erm, he doesn't have to forgive you at all, it's His prerogative. At the end of our lives, He could just say "ok, screw you guys, you didn't believe in me, or follow what I said. So, you guys can just go sit on a hard rock for the rest of eternity." That he forgives us at all is amazing.
sorry for the double post
Cool. Let's get rid of the racial minorities next!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stop comparing racism and rejecting homosexuality. It's a terrible comparison, and you know it, but you still offer it even though it's non-sequitur. And by the way, AFAIK you can bar whomever you want from your private property as long as they don't have some sort of warrant against you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. You *can* bar anyone you like from private property. The problem arises when it is not an individual, nor an 'everyone but <specific person>' that you fall afoul of the realms of bigotry, sexism, and hate. Let's not forget that for the longest while, black people were oddly enough barred from a good portion of private property... businesses, churches, schools... while in some redneck, backwater parts of the USA, that apparently still happens, but very quietly as it'd be improper. However, they *are* sticking to the letter of the book.
Remember, the KJ bible tells you to not count anyone but white people (and few, select others) as 'full people'. But that's overlooked, as it's seen as bad form. Nowadays. After things have changed, and the former views held as commonplace are seen as horrendous.
In short, bigotry is still bigotry, regardless of what in particular it's aimed toward.
And this IS swerving a bit off-topic, given that the newspost article was geared that the permission to hold a service was granted, and only removed due to the current trends in debate among the leading caste. Perhaps we should bring it slightly further back in line with the abrupt change of heart, and possible reasoning behind it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"It has done so in the light of sensitivities and timing in relation to the current debates in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Said debates were created due to the fact that a **** man was appointed as the Bishop of Reading.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might I ask what churches you've been going to lately? Or are you just basing it off of assumptions and age-old misconceptions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? He isn't very forgiving then...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
erm, he doesn't have to forgive you at all, it's His prerogative. At the end of our lives, He could just say "ok, screw you guys, you didn't believe in me, or follow what I said. So, you guys can just go sit on a hard rock for the rest of eternity." That he forgives us at all is amazing.
sorry for the double post <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Catholic church, haven't been to one in a few years but I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed that much in a good way
allow me to attempt to put you straight
you said it yourself, the bible is God's word 2000 years ago. I agree with you. God is eternal, unchanging and perfect, therefore, his word is eternal, unchanging and perfect, so it had just as much relevance today as it did 2000 years ago, and will still be relevant 2000 years in the furture.
@Talesin:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is the word of the Christian God still immaculate and perfect, after being filtered through the hands, eyes, and mind of an imperfect being? Much less many, after so many rewrites? Who is to say authoratatively that the bible today still constitutes even a remote likeness to its original intent?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?
didnt think so. A boy found some scrolls in some jars in a cave near the dead sea. they were dated to the time of jesus, and they were translated. What he had found were some of the very near original copies of the biblem and they were the same as the current version. not similar in some aspects, EXACTLY the same. Bible inaccurate after so many rewrites? I dont think so. The people writing it <b>beleived</b> they were dealing with the Word of God. They would have made sure each and every word was identical, even when it was translated.
As I recall, that particular myth about the Dead Sea scrolls had been debunked quite a while back... especially considering they have not been fully translated yet (if they ever will, given their sad state), and upon re-translation by another source gave significantly different wording to a number of passages. True, they did enhance knowledge of how the bible was retransmitted... but by *no* means were they even close to the current bible, other than when viewed with a down-soft eye. <a href='http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/' target='_blank'>Additional information on the DSS, from USC.</a>
As for the church's integrity, anyone remember 'indulgences'? You know... those things that were essentially a 'get into heaven free' card, forgiving you of ANY sin, no matter how heinous? You just went up and paid a Cardinal to write one up for you. You didn't even need to tell them what you did... just write (or have written for you) a description of your sin. You didn't even have to stop doing it with the early ones. A wording which changed as more and more nobles forgave themselves permanently through 'donations' for every sin you might imagine, and some which likely would not even come to the minds of most.
But of course, the church is infallible and pure. Standing unshakable for... as long as it takes for someone to toss cash at the wall.
As I recall, that particular myth about the Dead Sea scrolls had been debunked quite a while back... especially considering they have not been fully translated yet (if they ever will, given their sad state), and upon re-translation by another source gave significantly different wording to a number of passages. True, they did enhance knowledge of how the bible was retransmitted... but by *no* means were they even close to the current bible, other than when viewed with a down-soft eye. <a href='http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/' target='_blank'>Additional information on the DSS, from USC.</a>
As for the church's integrity, anyone remember 'indulgences'? You know... those things that were essentially a 'get into heaven free' card, forgiving you of ANY sin, no matter how heinous? You just went up and paid a Cardinal to write one up for you. You didn't even need to tell them what you did... just write (or have written for you) a description of your sin. You didn't even have to stop doing it with the early ones. A wording which changed as more and more nobles forgave themselves permanently through 'donations' for every sin you might imagine, and some which likely would not even come to the minds of most.
But of course, the church is infallible and pure. Standing unshakable for... as long as it takes for someone to toss cash at the wall. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah I remember indulgences. Care to point out where in the Bible indulgences are mentioned? Or for that matter - free entry to heaven for fighting in Crusades?
While we are on that matter - anyone here remember anything in the Bible about the pope? Christian priests?
None of these things are in the Bible - and I think its a bit hard to judge something by its failures. You want to talk of success' of the Church, you have plenty of ammo. You want to talk failure - plenty there too.
No one ever said the Church was infallible, and if they did I would join you in ridiculing them. The Church, however, didnt write the Bible.
And that really is why the Bible is so important to the Christians. They cant trust themselves to always do the right thing, they need something that cant fail them. Given that they believe the Bible was written by devinely inspired men, they consider the Bible infallible and the ultimate reference material for them.
EDIT And they Dread, are what we like to call Hypocrites. They fall into the same category as Christians claiming that there is nothing wrong with homosexual practise.
Anyway, this topic grew quite a bit since my last post, yet, it's still centering around the same two questions:
Can the Bible be faulty or outdated?
And, connected to this first question:
Does nothing but complete compliance to the laws and rules within the book qualify you for being Christian?
Well, I'll happily admit that many of you in here surpass me in Bible knowledge with ease, but I'd nonetheless like to offer a little passage from the fourth book Moses (28,2):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Give this command to the Israelites and say to them: 'See that you present to me at the appointed time the food for my offerings made by fire, as an aroma pleasing to me.' 3 Say to them: 'This is the offering made by fire that you are to present to the LORD : two lambs a year old without defect, as a regular burnt offering each day. 4 Prepare one lamb in the morning and the other at twilight, 5 together with a grain offering of a tenth of an ephah [1] of fine flour mixed with a quarter of a hin [2] of oil from pressed olives. 6 This is the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai as a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire. 7 The accompanying drink offering is to be a quarter of a hin of fermented drink with each lamb. Pour out the drink offering to the LORD at the sanctuary. 8 Prepare the second lamb at twilight, along with the same kind of grain offering and drink offering that you prepare in the morning. This is an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, when was the last time that a representative of your community travelled to Mount Sinai and sacrificed two lambs? When was the last time that you or your community brought sacrifices to Him, as it is clearly demanded throughout the whole of the Old Testament?
I can pretty exactely imagine your expressions while reading this, and am sure you'll immediately show me New Testament verses contradicting the demand for sacrifices, but you'll nonetheless have to admit that this holy book, the Bible, includes a commandment that you and your religious communities regard as clearly <i>outdated</i>.
As I said, don't get me started <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You b*tch! I wanted to say that!
Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule.
I know of course that the judaistic sacrifices which amounted in the outcast of a sacrificial lamb into the desert once a year were given up after Jesus' sacrifice (which is why he's described as 'the Lamb' in the Revelations). I know that God reversed some of his commandments.
But you just interpreted the Bible based on a historical context. You mentioned the differentation to the jewish religious community, for example. You admitted that Christian faith was shaped by the necessities of their time.
This means however that 'the Bible' isn't the sole basis of your faith anymore. You extended the scope of your very faith by seeking to <i>understand</i> the Bible. Thus, you can state that your faith <i>centers</i> around the events described in the Bible, but you are no longer capable of taking it as the sole source of it. And while your interpretation still rejects the idea of Christian homosexuals, as you showed in your edit, you've got to entertain the possibility that there are other interpretations based on context you are not familiar with that could make the condemnmend of homosexuality seem superceeded, too, for it ultimately started out as yet another way of distinguishing the jews from the rest.
Again, I do not say that you have to <i>follow</i> that logic, but that you have to accept that some might do, and that their way could be as valid (or slightly invalid) as those of other Christian communities you respect, but aren't a part of.
I will admit that the Christian faith was shaped, but I believe it was shaped by God, not specific circumstance.
And as for the rest of it, I agree. Interpretation is everything. Our faith is centred on the Bible, but that doesnt mean everyone reads the thing the same way. It is entirely possible my interpretation is completely wrong. Its possible, but I doubt it.
I guess I made a mistake in saying that "The Bible is the sole basis of my faith". My understanding of the Bible is my sole basis of faith. I dont believe that makes its message any more or less pertinent. Some people can read things differently. However the Bible is stronger in some areas than others, and its REALLY tough on homosexuality. Really.
I dont feel so much in a trap as I feel that my beliefs have been clarified. Thank you Nem.
As for the idea that there are other interpretations that condone homosexuality - Im all ears. Honestly I'd like to hear it. As I said, distinguishing rules and customs comes down to intense study and intricate knowledge of context and language subtleties.
EDIT Im really interested in this topic, and I'm pretty sure that my interpretation is right. I simply cannot go through life refusing to act on my interpretation simply because it MAY be wrong. It fits in my mind, its logical and coherent to me, and thus I am acting on it. And as such, I condemn the practise of homosexuality. Wait wait, I dont. I believe GOD condemns the practise of homosexuality, and thus I refuse to support it. ahhh all better.
As you might imagine, I'm not the right one to offer you a truly throughout pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible, but <a href='http://www.lgcm.org.uk/html/mainframe.html' target='_blank'>this</a>, for example, is the LGCMs take on it. Please try to ignore the horrible, horrible site design.
And I cant ever accept that. If the Bible is wrong somewhere, than its fallible, if its fallible than it cant have been written by Divinely inspired men. If it wasnt written by Divinely inspired men, than on what do I base my belief in God? Nothing. If the Bible is wrong then He obviously had no hand in it, and thus I have no reason to believe in God at all, seeing as the Bible is the only reason I do believe in him.
Sound circular? I believe in God because of the Bible, and I believe in the Bible because I believe in God. Hang on, that cant be right..... circular reasoning is flawed reasoning....
EDIT Okay now I got it straight, I dont just believe in God because of the Bible, I have a personal relationship that I FEEL, and it is based on that also.
And you are right, a lot LGCM is based on interpretation. From my point of view, very creative interpretation. But the thrust of it is casting suspicion upon the accuracy of the Bible, which in Christian terms is selfdefeating.
@Talesin and Communist: You seem to be getting a little confused here. I may get flamed for this, but I'm gonna say it anyways. The Catholic Church, and many Catholics subsequently, are not Christians. They constantly misinterpret the Bible, such as calling Peter "the Rock" of the church. Jesus was the one referred to as the "Rock" of the church, whereas Jesus called Peter but a "pebble." The Catholic church throughout history has been notoriously hiedous and political, from running the crusades to killing you if you were a peasant and able to read the Bible but weren't a Priest. Their beliefs and practices are very much akin to idolatry (they pray to statues of Mary, Jesus, and the saints), and there is very little that is Biblically founded. There are many books out there that can point out the specifics better than I, so I'll pick one up at work tonight and direct reference if you'd like me to.
@Nem AND Marine01: No one said that homosexuals couldn't be christians. The thing of it is, God is a forgiving God, even after you get saved, you can still sin. I think I said it a few times, and it may ave just been lost, but the problem with the LGCM is that it's not saying "we're christians, and we're homosexual. we know it's wrong biblically, and yes, we do mess up, but we're trying to change." Instead, it sounds a little more like "we're christians. we believe in the Bible, except where it talks about homosexuality being bad. Those places were messed up when people wrote them down. Now you all need to accept us as homosexuals, and accept the fact that we're right in being this way."
They believe that, it makes them Christians. They also believe a lot of other silly things (IMHO), but that doesnt disqualify them from heaven.
And as for your second part addressed to me and Nem, absolutely. Grace is available to ALL, but you must repent and follow Christ. Sounds like they want to follow Christ, but arent too keen on the repent bit. And there lies their fault.
Did Jesus ever cure anybody of their homosexuality?
You can think what you want about Catholics, but this pebble thing is pure nonsense. "petra" is merely the gender-inflected form of "petros", both meaning "rock". "Pebble" would be "lithos". That's why not even the most devoutly protestant scholars deny that Peter is the Rock. They only deny that his <i>successors</i> are equally "rocky".
You'll need to look elsewhere for ammunition against the papacy.
Its a bit like someone saying WMDs are bad. Does that mean Nuclear bombs arent bad because he didnt specifically say Nuclear Bombs? No, we all understand that by saying WMD you mean Nuclear Weapons as well.
To the Jews, they all knew what sexual sin was, and Jesus didnt need to clarify.
Add to that that Jesus is supposed to be God himself, that means he condemned it in the first place.
EDIT BTW crystal, Jesus forgives sins, he doesnt cure them. Cures are for those who are sick physically
Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule.
--------
Absolutely not. Ever. In fact Im not sure he specifically mentions homosexuality at all. He does talk about, and condemn, sexual sin, and given that his audience was Jewish, we can take that to mean he condemned homosexuality.
Its a bit like someone saying WMDs are bad. Does that mean Nuclear bombs arent bad because he didnt specifically say Nuclear Bombs? No, we all understand that by saying WMD you mean Nuclear Weapons as well.
To the Jews, they all knew what sexual sin was, and Jesus didnt need to clarify.
Add to that that Jesus is supposed to be God himself, that means he condemned it in the first place.
EDIT BTW crystal, Jesus forgives sins, he doesnt cure them. Cures are for those who are sick physically <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read both quotes and take from it what you will.